Nonemacher, K. v. Nonemacher, S.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 3, 2025
Docket861 EDA 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of Nonemacher, K. v. Nonemacher, S. (Nonemacher, K. v. Nonemacher, S.) 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
Nonemacher, K. v. Nonemacher, S., (Pa. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

J-S41018-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

KELLI NONEMACHER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SEAN NONEMACHER : : Appellant : No. 861 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered February 20, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2022-DR-01065, PACSES: 892301655

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MARCH 3, 2025

Appellant, Sean Nonemacher (“Father”), appeals pro se from the order

entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which found him

in contempt for failing to make support payments to Appellee, Kelli

Nonemacher (“Mother”). We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant

facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed

7/8/24, at 1-11). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Father raises the following issues for our review:

Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by finding [Father] to be in contempt of court?

Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by imprisoning [Father] without rendering findings of fact into the financial ability to pay the fines/purge amount and costs related? J-S41018-24

Did the trial court err and exercise bias and ill will in denying [Father] access to resources to convey/pay the purge amount?

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and misapply the law in the calculation and award of counsel fees?

Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in failing to inform and appoint legal counsel for [Father]?

(Father’s Brief at 4).

“In reviewing a trial court’s finding on a contempt petition, we are

limited to determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of

discretion.” Rogowski v. Kirven, 291 A.3d 50, 57 (Pa.Super. 2023) (quoting

P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702, 706 (Pa.Super. 2012)). “This Court must

place great reliance on the sound discretion of the trial [court] when reviewing

an order of contempt.” Id.

A person who willfully fails to comply with a support order may be

adjudicated in contempt, which may be punishable by imprisonment for a

period not to exceed six months. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4345(a). If the court

commits a defendant to jail for contempt, the court shall specify in its order

“the condition the fulfillment of which will result in the release of the

[defendant].” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4345(b). Additionally, “[i]f the court determines

that the person subject to a child support order did not have good cause for

failing to make child support payments on time, it may further assess costs

and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the party seeking to enforce the

order.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4351.

A contempt order used to coerce a parent into paying a support

-2- J-S41018-24

obligation and arrearages is properly characterized as civil. See Barrett v.

Barrett, 470 Pa. 253, 260, 368 A.2d 616, 619 (1977). This Court has declined

to impose an automatic right to court-appointed counsel for all civil contempt

proceedings involving an indigent defendant’s failure to pay court-imposed

fines and costs. Commonwealth v. Diaz, 191 A.3d 850, 862 (Pa.Super.

2018).1 Rather, “an indigent defendant’s right to court-appointed counsel is

triggered in any proceeding in which the court finds there is a likelihood of

imprisonment.” Id. at 862 (footnote omitted).

[U]pon the trial court’s determination at the civil contempt hearing that there is a likelihood of imprisonment for contempt and that the defendant is indigent, the court must appoint counsel and permit counsel to confer with and advocate on behalf of the defendant at a subsequent hearing. An indigent defendant has the option of knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving that right to appointed counsel.

Id. at 862-63.

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable, Daniel J.

Clifford, we conclude Father’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented.

In his first and second issues combined, Father argues that the court

____________________________________________

1 Although Diaz began as a criminal matter with the entry of a guilty plea for

retail theft charges, the parties agreed that the appellant subsequently proceeded to a civil contempt hearing due to his failure to pay certain fines and costs. See Diaz, supra at 861.

-3- J-S41018-24

erred in finding him in contempt because the court failed to consider the

evidence Father put forth demonstrating that he did not have the present

ability to pay the amount ordered by the court. The court explained that prior

to the court’s order of incarceration, Father had participated in seven

enforcement proceedings and been found in contempt on three occasions.

(See Trial Court Opinion at 17-19). At each hearing, the court reviewed the

pay stubs Father submitted and determined that Father had the ability to pay

but chose to prioritize the payment of other expenses in his life over the

payment of child support.2 (Id.) Accordingly, the court did not err in finding

Father in contempt of court and imposing imprisonment for willful non-

compliance with the support order. See Rogowski, supra.

In his third issue, Father claims that the court exhibited prejudice and

bias against Father when it failed to promptly provide Father with an order

setting forth the purge amount and denied Father the use of a phone at the

2 Father cites to Commonwealth v. Smetana, 191 A.3d 867, 873 (Pa.Super.

2018) to support his claim that the court erred in finding him in contempt. In Smetana, this Court concluded that the trial court erred by failing to make a determination that the appellant, in his own capacity, had the ability to pay the outstanding fines prior to imprisoning the appellant for contempt of court. Notably, the trial court in Smetana had relied on the appellant’s acknowledgement that he could have potentially borrowed money from a sibling to pay the fine. Here, the court reviewed Father’s pay stubs and expenses and determined that Father had the financial ability to pay the court ordered support amount. The court merely noted as additional support of its decision that Father’s mortgage and various lifestyle expenses were being paid by Father’s father and girlfriend. Therefore, Smetana is distinguishable and does not entitle Father to relief.

-4- J-S41018-24

Montgomery County Correctional Facility. The court found that there was no

merit to Father’s claim because Father was provided with a copy of the

contempt order at the conclusion of the February 20, 2024 hearing, which

clearly set forth the amount Father was required to pay to purge his contempt.

(See Trial Court Opinion at 19-20). Additionally, the court noted that all

defendants are provided access to a telephone at the detention center in the

courthouse and the Montgomery County Correctional Facility. 3 (See id.)

In his fourth issue, Father asserts that the court erred in ordering him

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

Related

Sinaiko v. Sinaiko
664 A.2d 1005 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Garr v. Peters
773 A.2d 183 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
Barrett v. Barrett
368 A.2d 616 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
Commonwealth v. Smetana
191 A.3d 867 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Diaz
191 A.3d 850 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Hyle v. Hyle
868 A.2d 601 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Estate of Whitley
50 A.3d 203 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
P.H.D. v. R.R.D.
56 A.3d 702 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
In re D.N.
65 A.3d 88 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013)
Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Grannas
218 A.2d 81 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Rogowski, S. v. Kirven, D.
2023 Pa. Super. 33 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nonemacher, K. v. Nonemacher, S., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nonemacher-k-v-nonemacher-s-pasuperct-2025.