Guisler v. Alexander

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Guisler v. Alexander

453 A.2d 4, 307 Pa. Super. 219, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5833

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 30, 1982

Docket841

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 453 A.2d 4 (Guisler v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guisler v. Alexander, 453 A.2d 4, 307 Pa. Super. 219, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5833 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WIEAND, Judge:

The appeal in this case is from an order making absolute a rule to show cause why Paul and Ida Alexander should not be held in contempt for failing to pay an order for the support of their son. The order from which the appeal was filed, however, was not a final adjudication of contempt. It merely made absolute a rule to show cause why appellants should not be held in contempt and provided: “A hearing on the issue of the Defendants’ contempt shall be scheduled by the Court Administrator and held accordingly.” The order, on its face, discloses that it is interlocutory and not a final adjudication.

The law in Pennsylvania is settled that in civil contempt proceedings a final adjudication involves a five step, two hearing procedure. These steps include: (1) a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue; (2) a hearing thereon; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt. See: Commonwealth ex rel. Magaziner v. Magaziner, 434 Pa. 1, 5-6, 253 A.2d 263, 266 (1969); Commonwealth v. Wright, 287 Pa.Super. 252, 254, 429 A.2d 1196, 1197 (1981); Cahalin v. Goodman, 280 Pa.Super. 228, 233, 421 A.2d 696, 698 (1980); Matter of Elemar, Inc., 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 515, 520, 404 A.2d 734, 737 (1979); Kramer v. Kelly, 265 Pa. Super. 58, 65, 401 A.2d 799, 802 (1979); Joseph Horne Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 95-95A, 250 Pa.Super. 145, 154, 378 A.2d 868, 872 (1977); Crislip v. Harshman, 243 Pa.Super. 349, 352, 365 A.2d 1260, 1261 (1976).

Because appellant has not been held in contempt, and because there is no final order from which an appeal can be *221 taken, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal. It cannot hear an appeal from an interlocutory order setting the case down for final hearing. Cedar Valley Civic Association v. Schnabel, 239 Pa.Super. 486, 362 A.2d 993 (1976); Commonwealth v. Guardiani, 226 Pa.Super. 435, 310 A.2d 422 (1973). The instant appeal, therefore, must be quashed and jurisdiction relinquished. See and compare: Brodsky v. Philadelphia Athletic Club, Inc., 277 Pa.Super. 549, 552 n. 2, 419 A.2d 1285, 1287 n. 2 (1980); Matter of Elemar, Inc., supra, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. at 520-521, 404 A.2d at 737.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WIEAND, Judge:

The appeal in this case is from an order making absolute a rule to show cause why Paul and Ida Alexander should not be held in contempt for failing to pay an order for the support of their son. The order from which the appeal was filed, however, was not a final adjudication of contempt. It merely made absolute a rule to show cause why appellants should not be held in contempt and provided: “A hearing on the issue of the Defendants’ contempt shall be scheduled by the Court Administrator and held accordingly.” The order, on its face, discloses that it is interlocutory and not a final adjudication.

The law in Pennsylvania is settled that in civil contempt proceedings a final adjudication involves a five step, two hearing procedure. These steps include: (1) a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue; (2) a hearing thereon; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication of contempt. See: Commonwealth ex rel. Magaziner v. Magaziner, 434 Pa. 1, 5-6, 253 A.2d 263, 266 (1969); Commonwealth v. Wright, 287 Pa.Super. 252, 254, 429 A.2d 1196, 1197 (1981); Cahalin v. Goodman, 280 Pa.Super. 228, 233, 421 A.2d 696, 698 (1980); Matter of Elemar, Inc., 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 515, 520, 404 A.2d 734, 737 (1979); Kramer v. Kelly, 265 Pa. Super. 58, 65, 401 A.2d 799, 802 (1979); Joseph Horne Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 95-95A, 250 Pa.Super. 145, 154, 378 A.2d 868, 872 (1977); Crislip v. Harshman, 243 Pa.Super. 349, 352, 365 A.2d 1260, 1261 (1976).

Because appellant has not been held in contempt, and because there is no final order from which an appeal can be *221 taken, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal. It cannot hear an appeal from an interlocutory order setting the case down for final hearing. Cedar Valley Civic Association v. Schnabel, 239 Pa.Super. 486, 362 A.2d 993 (1976); Commonwealth v. Guardiani, 226 Pa.Super. 435, 310 A.2d 422 (1973). The instant appeal, therefore, must be quashed and jurisdiction relinquished. See and compare: Brodsky v. Philadelphia Athletic Club, Inc., 277 Pa.Super. 549, 552 n. 2, 419 A.2d 1285, 1287 n. 2 (1980); Matter of Elemar, Inc., supra, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. at 520-521, 404 A.2d at 737.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 A.2d 4, 307 Pa. Super. 219, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guisler-v-alexander-pasuperct-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack