J-A28030-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AGING : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : ROBERTA KNOX : ----------------------------------------- : No. 312 EDA 2022 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : AGING : : : v. : : : GERALDINE GERR : : : APPEAL OF: JACINTH ROBERTS :
Appeal from the Order Dated December 20, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 191203044, 191203045
PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AGING : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : ROBERTA KNOX : ----------------------------------------- : No. 314 EDA 2022 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : AGING : : : v. : : : GERALDINE GERR : J-A28030-22
: : APPEAL OF: JACINTH ROBERTS :
Appeal from the Order Dated December 20, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 191203044, 191203045
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 18, 2023
Jacinth Roberts appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, finding her in contempt and imposing monetary
sanctions.1 Upon review, we affirm.
In December of 2019, the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging (PCA)
initiated the above-captioned actions on an emergency basis, seeking
information regarding the whereabouts, health, and well-being of Roberta
Knox and Geraldine Gerr, who resided at Roberts’ home.2 Following hearings,
the trial court issued several orders that required Roberts to cooperate with
PCA’s investigation by, inter alia, providing PCA access to her home for the
purpose of interviewing Knox and Gerr, and enjoining Roberts from interfering
with PCA’s investigation.
____________________________________________
1Roberts filed two separate notices of appeal from the trial court’s order, one at each of the above-captioned dockets, in compliance with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). On April 5, 2022, this Court consolidated Roberts’ appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
2These matters were both originally before the Honorable Edward Wright. However, the matters were later transferred to the Honorable Joshua Roberts. We refer to both jurists as “trial court” throughout this memorandum.
-2- J-A28030-22
In May of 2020, PCA filed a motion seeking additional relief, alleging
that Roberts was no longer permitting PCA to access her home to speak with
Knox and Gerr, and that Roberts was in total noncompliance with the trial
court’s orders. After administrative delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the trial court issued an order, in both cases, that reaffirmed Roberts’
obligations pursuant to the prior orders. Additionally, the trial court ordered
Roberts be deposed, within 30 days, so that PCA could question Roberts under
oath on the whereabouts, health, and safety of Gerr and Knox.3
On May 26, 2021, PCA filed a petition for contempt, contending that
Roberts had failed to comply with all prior court orders. On July 20, 2021, the
trial court conducted a remote hearing, via Zoom, for which Roberts did not
appear. The trial court issued a civil bench warrant directing the sheriff to
take Roberts into custody and bring her to court on August 6, 2021. On
August 6, 2021, Roberts was brought before the trial court for a contempt
hearing. Ultimately, the trial court required Roberts to appear for the
depositions that were previously ordered, and scheduled an additional
contempt hearing.
3 At this time, for reasons unknown to this Court, the above-captioned cases were not consolidated and the case involving Gerr was proceeding more quickly. Nevertheless, after a hearing in the Knox matter in February of 2021, the trial court issued a virtually identical order to the order in the Gerr matter.
On April 1, 2021, the cases were consolidated and all further action from the trial court applied to both matters.
-3- J-A28030-22
The trial court conducted the contempt hearing over three days, on
August 30, 2021, September 17, 2021, and September 28, 2021. After
considering the testimony, evidence, and arguments from both parties, the
trial court entered an order holding Roberts in contempt and directing PCA to
file a fee petition. See Order, 10/4/21. PCA complied, and Roberts filed a
response. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order directing Roberts to
“reimburse PCA the amount of $53,679.32, representing the fees and costs
PCA had to incur as a result of Roberts’ contumacious conduct.” Trial Court
Opinion, 4/27/22, at 7.
Roberts filed these timely appeals and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.
Roberts now raises the following issues:
1. When the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court’s order, should a [t]rial [c]ourt grant a petition for contempt even after the respondent has fully complied with the order?
2. When a [t]rial [c]ourt sends orders to an address where respondent no longer receives mail and respondent does not open letters from a business entity that she finds morally offensive, should a [t]rial [c]ourt find that respondent received notice of and intentionally violated a court order?
3. When a petitioner already has the information sought by a court order and is permitted to serve by alternative service the order requiring compliance[,] should a [t]rial [c]ourt find that petitioner has suffered damages because of petitioner’s efforts to effect personal service of process?
4. Should a [t]rial [c]ourt summarily grant attorney’s fees without a hearing on the evidentiary issues regarding the need for the
-4- J-A28030-22
work performed, the reasonableness of the rates charged, and the respondent’s ability to pay?
Brief for Appellant, at 4.
Preliminarily, we must address whether Roberts’ claims are properly
preserved for our review. We note that all of Roberts’ claims in her Statement
of Questions Involved are phrased as general policy questions. It is well-
settled that this Court is an error-correcting court that leaves questions of
policy to the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. See Z.F.1 by and
through Parent v. Bethanna, 244 A.3d 282, 494 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“it is
not the institutional role of the Superior Court to make [] policy decisions”)
(citing Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 986 (Pa. Super. 2019)). Moreover,
none of these policy questions was raised before the trial court and, therefore,
are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are
waived.”). Furthermore, none of these questions is presented in Roberts’
argument section of her appellate brief and, thus, are waived on this basis as
well. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (requiring statement of questions involved
include all issues to be resolved on appeal); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring
argument section be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be
argued); see also Commonwealth v. Fremd, 860 A.2d 515, 523-24 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (failure to raise argument issue in statement of questions
involved results in waiver).
Nevertheless, Roberts’ argument section contains her challenge to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A28030-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AGING : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : ROBERTA KNOX : ----------------------------------------- : No. 312 EDA 2022 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : AGING : : : v. : : : GERALDINE GERR : : : APPEAL OF: JACINTH ROBERTS :
Appeal from the Order Dated December 20, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 191203044, 191203045
PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AGING : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : ROBERTA KNOX : ----------------------------------------- : No. 314 EDA 2022 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR : AGING : : : v. : : : GERALDINE GERR : J-A28030-22
: : APPEAL OF: JACINTH ROBERTS :
Appeal from the Order Dated December 20, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 191203044, 191203045
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 18, 2023
Jacinth Roberts appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, finding her in contempt and imposing monetary
sanctions.1 Upon review, we affirm.
In December of 2019, the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging (PCA)
initiated the above-captioned actions on an emergency basis, seeking
information regarding the whereabouts, health, and well-being of Roberta
Knox and Geraldine Gerr, who resided at Roberts’ home.2 Following hearings,
the trial court issued several orders that required Roberts to cooperate with
PCA’s investigation by, inter alia, providing PCA access to her home for the
purpose of interviewing Knox and Gerr, and enjoining Roberts from interfering
with PCA’s investigation.
____________________________________________
1Roberts filed two separate notices of appeal from the trial court’s order, one at each of the above-captioned dockets, in compliance with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). On April 5, 2022, this Court consolidated Roberts’ appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
2These matters were both originally before the Honorable Edward Wright. However, the matters were later transferred to the Honorable Joshua Roberts. We refer to both jurists as “trial court” throughout this memorandum.
-2- J-A28030-22
In May of 2020, PCA filed a motion seeking additional relief, alleging
that Roberts was no longer permitting PCA to access her home to speak with
Knox and Gerr, and that Roberts was in total noncompliance with the trial
court’s orders. After administrative delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the trial court issued an order, in both cases, that reaffirmed Roberts’
obligations pursuant to the prior orders. Additionally, the trial court ordered
Roberts be deposed, within 30 days, so that PCA could question Roberts under
oath on the whereabouts, health, and safety of Gerr and Knox.3
On May 26, 2021, PCA filed a petition for contempt, contending that
Roberts had failed to comply with all prior court orders. On July 20, 2021, the
trial court conducted a remote hearing, via Zoom, for which Roberts did not
appear. The trial court issued a civil bench warrant directing the sheriff to
take Roberts into custody and bring her to court on August 6, 2021. On
August 6, 2021, Roberts was brought before the trial court for a contempt
hearing. Ultimately, the trial court required Roberts to appear for the
depositions that were previously ordered, and scheduled an additional
contempt hearing.
3 At this time, for reasons unknown to this Court, the above-captioned cases were not consolidated and the case involving Gerr was proceeding more quickly. Nevertheless, after a hearing in the Knox matter in February of 2021, the trial court issued a virtually identical order to the order in the Gerr matter.
On April 1, 2021, the cases were consolidated and all further action from the trial court applied to both matters.
-3- J-A28030-22
The trial court conducted the contempt hearing over three days, on
August 30, 2021, September 17, 2021, and September 28, 2021. After
considering the testimony, evidence, and arguments from both parties, the
trial court entered an order holding Roberts in contempt and directing PCA to
file a fee petition. See Order, 10/4/21. PCA complied, and Roberts filed a
response. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order directing Roberts to
“reimburse PCA the amount of $53,679.32, representing the fees and costs
PCA had to incur as a result of Roberts’ contumacious conduct.” Trial Court
Opinion, 4/27/22, at 7.
Roberts filed these timely appeals and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.
Roberts now raises the following issues:
1. When the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court’s order, should a [t]rial [c]ourt grant a petition for contempt even after the respondent has fully complied with the order?
2. When a [t]rial [c]ourt sends orders to an address where respondent no longer receives mail and respondent does not open letters from a business entity that she finds morally offensive, should a [t]rial [c]ourt find that respondent received notice of and intentionally violated a court order?
3. When a petitioner already has the information sought by a court order and is permitted to serve by alternative service the order requiring compliance[,] should a [t]rial [c]ourt find that petitioner has suffered damages because of petitioner’s efforts to effect personal service of process?
4. Should a [t]rial [c]ourt summarily grant attorney’s fees without a hearing on the evidentiary issues regarding the need for the
-4- J-A28030-22
work performed, the reasonableness of the rates charged, and the respondent’s ability to pay?
Brief for Appellant, at 4.
Preliminarily, we must address whether Roberts’ claims are properly
preserved for our review. We note that all of Roberts’ claims in her Statement
of Questions Involved are phrased as general policy questions. It is well-
settled that this Court is an error-correcting court that leaves questions of
policy to the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. See Z.F.1 by and
through Parent v. Bethanna, 244 A.3d 282, 494 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“it is
not the institutional role of the Superior Court to make [] policy decisions”)
(citing Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 986 (Pa. Super. 2019)). Moreover,
none of these policy questions was raised before the trial court and, therefore,
are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are
waived.”). Furthermore, none of these questions is presented in Roberts’
argument section of her appellate brief and, thus, are waived on this basis as
well. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (requiring statement of questions involved
include all issues to be resolved on appeal); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring
argument section be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be
argued); see also Commonwealth v. Fremd, 860 A.2d 515, 523-24 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (failure to raise argument issue in statement of questions
involved results in waiver).
Nevertheless, Roberts’ argument section contains her challenge to
whether or not she received notice of the trial court’s various orders. This
claim was addressed by the trial court in its opinion, and it was similarly
-5- J-A28030-22
preserved in Roberts’ Rule 1925(b) concise statement. We agree with the trial
court, and, therefore, affirm its order and rely upon its well-reasoned opinion.
As the trial court painstakingly detailed in its opinion, Roberts was
provided notice by two process servers over the course of approximately 18
months, one of whom identified Roberts in court as the woman who received
the court papers. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/27/22, at 9-10 (process server
identified Roberts in court; both process servers testified that Roberts would
remove posted court notices from property before process servers left
property, presented pictures of service into evidence, and testified Roberts
threw court papers in trash); id. at 10-13 (summarizing Roberts’ testimony
acknowledged that she received all court papers but ignored them because
“she does not like PCA”; Roberts does not read mail or papers addressed to
her from PCA; Roberts’ refusal to open court papers continued after sheriff
brought Roberts to August 6, 2020 hearing; Roberts blocked PCA and outside
counsel telephone numbers; and Roberts testified she refused to open emails
from PCA). Moreover, the trial court found Roberts to be completely lacking
in credibility. See id. at 11, 13-14. Finally, to the extent that Roberts
"complied” with any of the court orders, it is clear that Roberts has volitionally
ignored five court orders, including a sanction order, and the only
“compliance” was involuntary due to the sheriff taking her into custody. See
id. at 4-8, 9-10 (detailing Roberts’ contumacious behavior). Thus, Roberts’
revisionist history of the record warrants no relief, and we affirm the trial
court’s order on the basis of its well-reasoned and thorough opinion. The
-6- J-A28030-22
parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further
proceedings.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/18/2023
-7- Circulated 03/23/2023 12:09 PM