Tomasetti, M. v. Suarez, R. ( 2023 )

J-S33018-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MARY TOMASSETTI, EXECUTRIX : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
ROBERT J. SUAREZ, JR., CHRISTINE :
COLLINS SHUBERT, BANKRUPTCY :
TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPTCY :
ESTATE OF ROBERT J. SUAREZ :
:
Appellees : No. 1004 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered March 31, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Domestic Relations at No(s): D08068485
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED FEBRAURY 22, 2023
Appellant, Mary Tomassetti, executrix of the estate of Patricia Ann
Suarez, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of
Common Pleas, which imposed sanctions after the court found Appellant in
contempt of a prior order.1 We affirm.
The trial court opinion set forth the relevant facts and procedural history
____________________________________________
1 “[C]ivil contempt orders imposing sanctions generally constitute final,
appealable orders.” Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 487 (Pa.Super. 2006),
appeal denied, 591 Pa. 704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007). “[F]or a contempt order
to be properly appealable, it is only necessary that the order impose sanctions
on the alleged contemnor, and no further court order be required before the
sanctions take effect.” Id. (quoting Rhoades v. Pryce, 874 A.2d 148, 151
(Pa.Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied, 587 Pa. 724, 899 A.2d 1124(2006)).
J-S33018-22
of this appeal as follows:
The original parties in this action, Patricia Ann Suarez
(“Wife”) and Robert J. Suarez, Jr. (“Appellee” or
“Husband”), were divorced by a decree entered on October
21, 2013, the same day on which Wife died after an illness.
The matter of equitable distribution of marital property was
bifurcated from the decree in divorce. Husband had filed a
bankruptcy action in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Christine Collins
Shubert, as trustee of Husband’s bankruptcy estate, is an
additional defendant (“Appellee” or “Bankruptcy Trustee”).
Thereafter, Appellant, Wife’s sister and executrix of Wife’s
estate, was substituted as Plaintiff.
The court entered a final order on July 15, 2019, resolving
the claims for equitable distribution and counsel fees. As
provided in the equitable distribution order at paragraph No.
31 J, Wife’s estate was awarded a 100% interest in real
property located at 3725 Ronnald Drive, Philadelphia, Pa.,
contingent upon payment to Appellee(s) of $90,000 within
120 days of the entry of the order. It further provided that
if Wife’s estate failed to pay Appellee(s) $90,000 within 120
days of the entry of the order, the property at 3725 Ronnald
Drive would be listed for immediate sale. The net profit from
the sale would be split evenly between Appellant and
Appellees.2
2 The final order of July 15, 2019 also disposed of all
other items of marital property. The net effect of the
disposition of the other assets was for Appellant to pay
Appellee(s) $75,549.22.
Husband filed an appeal from the order (No. 2333 EDA
2019), and Appellant filed a cross-appeal (No. 2617 EDA
2019). The Superior Court discontinued Appellant’s appeal
pursuant to her praecipe for discontinuance on January
2[9], 2020. The Superior Court dismissed sua sponte
Husband’s appeal on June 16, 2020, for failure to file a brief.
Litigation at the trial court level recommenced on July 30,
2020, with the filing of a motion for contempt by the
Bankruptcy Trustee. Appellant filed an answer thereto on
August 31, 2020. On December 29, 2020, Appellant filed a
-2-
J-S33018-22
motion to enforce the July 15, 2019 order, and the
Bankruptcy Trustee filed an answer to that motion on
January 25, 2021. These motions were resolved by the
court in an order entered on April 16, 2021.
The order entered April 16, 2021, provided verbatim:
Motion for contempt and to enforce distribution of
assets filed on 7/30/20 by … bankruptcy trustee … and
petition to enforce court decision of 7/15/19 filed on
12/29/20 by [Appellant] are resolved as follows:
The order of 7/15/19 shall be complied with in all
respects, specifically, [Appellant] shall have 100%
interest in real property at 3725 Ronnald Drive,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania contingent upon payments
to [Appellees] of $90,000 within 120 days of the entry
of this order. If [Appellant] fails to pay [Appellees]
$90,000 within 120 days of the entry of this order, the
property at 3725 Ronnald Drive, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania shall be listed for immediate sale. Upon
sale of the property, the net profit shall be split evenly
between [Appellant] and [Appellees] on a 50-50
basis.
[Appellees] shall have 100% interest in real property
at 11733 Waldemere Drive, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
[Appellees] shall have 100% interest in real property
at 5 Oneida Trail, Albrightsville, Pennsylvania.
On May 24, 2021, Appellant filed a petition for special relief
seeking reconsideration or clarification of the April 16th
order. This petition was denied on May 26, 2021, without a
hearing.
* * *
On June 23, 2021, a motion for contempt and for
distribution of assets was filed by the Bankruptcy Trustee.
Appellant filed an answer thereto on July 15, 2021. After a
hearing on August 4, 2021, the court entered the following
order, verbatim:
-3-
J-S33018-22
Motion for contempt and to enforce distribution of
assets filed by the [bankruptcy trustee] on June 23,
2021 is resolved as follows:
Parties shall comply with the order of 7/15/19 in all
respects. If parties do not comply by 9/24/21, the
bankruptcy trustee … shall have the property located
at 3725 Ronnald Drive, Philadelphia, PA, listed for
immediate sale.
Counsel fees in the amount of $10,000.00 are
awarded to Attorney, Robert Seitzer, Esquire, payable
to … bankruptcy trustee by 8/31/21.
Counsel fees in the amount of $5,000.00 are awarded
to Attorney, Lawrence Abel, Esquire, payable to …
bankruptcy trustee by 8/31/21.
On September 7, 2021, Appellant filed a second petition to
enforce the July 15, 2019 order. Also on September 7,
2021, Appellant filed an appeal to Superior Court from the
order of August 4, 2021 (No. 1789 EDA 2021). Once again,
Appellant filed a praecipe for discontinuance, and the
Superior Court discontinued Appellant’s appeal on October
15, 2021.
In the meantime, Appellant had filed a petition for special
relief with the trial court on September 24, 2021, seeking to
compel the Bankruptcy Trustee’s compliance with the orders
of July 15, 2019 and August 4, 2021, and to extend the date
to obtain compliance of these orders from September 24,
2021 to November 24, 2021. The Bankruptcy Trustee filed
an answer on October 20, 2021. On November 2, 2021, the
Bankruptcy Trustee filed a petition for contempt against
Appellant, to which Appellant filed an answer with new
matter on December 2, 2021. The Bankruptcy Trustee filed
an emergency motion to compel Appellant to provide proof
of insurance for the property at issue on December 9, 2021,
and Appellant answered and made a counterclaim on
January 10, 2022.
On December 6, 2021, and on December 10, 2021, the
court issued rules returnable for hearing on January 14,
-4-
J-S33018-22
2022. After that hearing, the court entered an order subject
to [a separate and pending appeal] at Docket No. 431 EDA
2022.
Order entered January 14, 2022
The order of January 14, 2022, provided, verbatim:
The property located at 3725 Ronnald Drive,
Philadelphia, PA shall be listed for sale forthwith.
The trustee in bankruptcy has the sole authority to
execute the sale of the property.
The trustee shall choose the realtor and notify
[Appellant] with the full contact information of the
realtor.
[Appellant] shall provide the trustee with keys to the
property by 3:00 p.m. on 1/18/22.
[Appellant] shall add [Appellees] as additional
insureds to the insurance policy covering the property.
[Appellant] shall provide evidence that the insurance
policy is in full force to the trustee by 3:00 p.m. by
1/20/22. This insurance policy shall be in full force
until the sale of the property.
The lien in the amount of $13,297.42 held by Discover
Banks shall be paid by the trustee.
The amount of $75,549.22 plus interest in the amount
of $11,332.38 shall be paid to the trustee by 3:00
p.m. on 1/18/22.
Counsel fees as set forth in the order of 8/4/21 shall
be paid today. Interest in the amount of $324.75 shall
be paid today.
* * *
On January 2[1], 2022, the Bankruptcy Trustee filed
-5-
J-S33018-22
another emergency contempt motion against Appellant,
alleging that she failed to provide keys to the Ronnald Drive
property, that she failed to comply with the insurance
provision, that she failed to pay per the July 15, 2019 order,
and that she failed to pay counsel fees per the August 4,
2021 order and the January 14, 2022 order. On January
26, 2022, the court issued a rule to show cause to address
the Bankruptcy Trustee’s contempt motion and set a hearing
date for March 16, 2022. On March 15, 2022, Appellant filed
an answer to the pending emergency contempt motion.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/21/22, at 2-7) (internal record citations and some
footnotes and emphasis omitted).
The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on March 16, 2022.
Immediately following the hearing, the court entered an order finding
Appellant in contempt of the January 14, 2022 order. Specifically, the court
noted that Appellant failed to: 1) provide the trustee with the keys to the
property; 2) make the required payment of $75,549.22 plus interest; and 3)
failed to pay counsel fees as directed.2 The court relisted the matter for a
hearing to determine Appellant’s ability to pay a monetary sanction for
contempt. After the next hearing on March 31, 2022, the court ordered
Appellant to pay counsel fees to the trustee in amount of $17,500.00. The
court also sentenced Appellant to sixty (60) days in prison with a purge factor
____________________________________________
2 The order also stated that Appellant finally provided the keys to the property
to the trustee’s attorney “at the bar of the court today.” (Order, filed 3/16/22,
at 1).
-6-
J-S33018-22
of $53,208.08.3
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 2022. On April 19,
2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed her Rule
1925(b) statement on May 10, 2022.
Appellant now raises one issue on appeal:
Did the Family Court commit legal error by ordering
[Appellant] to pay funds, in excess of the funds belonging
to the Estate, then holding her in contempt for failing to pay,
and incarcerating her until all liquid funds of the estate were
paid to the Trustee in bankruptcy?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
Appellant acknowledges that the January 14, 2022 order required her
to make certain payments to the trustee. Appellant insists, however, that her
fiduciary obligations to the estate prevented her from simply writing a check
to satisfy the court’s directives. Appellant argues that she needed to file a
petition for adjudication and accounting in the Orphans’ Court before she could
comply with the January 14th order. Appellant relies on 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711
for the proposition that matters related to the administration of an estate are
within the mandatory jurisdiction of Orphans’ Court. To the extent that the
trustee has pursued the sale of the property in the family court division,
____________________________________________
3 Although sheriffs took Appellant into custody following the March 31 st
hearing, the court observed that Appellant paid the purge factor amount
“[w]ithin the span of approximately two hours.” (Trial Court Opinion at 8).
-7-
J-S33018-22
Appellant maintains that “the trustee has attempted an end run around
Pennsylvania estate law.” (Id. at 10). Based upon the foregoing, Appellant
concludes that the court lacked jurisdiction to find her in contempt and impose
sanctions. We disagree.
“It is well-settled that the question of subject matter jurisdiction may
be raised at any time, by any party, or by the court sua sponte. Our standard
of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” In re Estate of
Ciuccarelli, 81 A.3d 953, 958 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). “The assessment of ‘whether a court has subject
matter jurisdiction inquires into the competency of the court to determine
controversies of the general class to which the case presented for
consideration belongs.’” Assouline v. Reynolds, 656 Pa. 133, 144, 219 A.3d
1131, 1137 (2019) (quoting Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v.
Vukman, 621 Pa. 192, 197-98, 77 A.3d 547, 550 (2013)).
Jurisdiction is the capacity to pronounce a judgment of the
law on an issue brought before the court through due
process of law. It is the right to adjudicate concerning the
subject matter in a given case…. Without such jurisdiction,
there is no authority to give judgment and one so entered
is without force or effect. The trial court has jurisdiction if
it is competent to hear or determine controversies of the
general nature of the matter involved sub judice.
Jurisdiction lies if the court had power to enter upon the
inquiry, not whether it might ultimately decide that it could
not give relief in the particular case.
Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra at 958 (quoting Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum,
L.P., 767 A.2d 564, 568 (Pa.Super. 2001)).
-8-
J-S33018-22
The jurisdiction of Orphans’ Court is governed by statute, in pertinent
part, as follows:
§ 711. Mandatory exercise of jurisdiction through
orphans’ court division in general
Except as provided in section 712 (relating to
nonmandatory exercise of jurisdiction through the orphans’
court division) and section 713 (relating to special
provisions for Philadelphia County), the jurisdiction of the
court of common pleas over the following shall be exercised
through its orphans’ court division:
(1) Decedents’ estates.—The administration
and distribution of the real and personal property of
decedents’ estates and the control of the decedent’s
burial.
* * *
§ 712. Nonmandatory exercise of jurisdiction through
orphans’ court division
The jurisdiction of the court of common pleas over the
following may be exercised through either its orphans’ court
division or other appropriate division:
* * *
(3) Other matters.—The disposition of any case
where there are substantial questions concerning
matters enumerated in section 711 and also matters not
enumerated in that section.
20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 711(1), 712(3).
Instantly, the genesis of the underlying litigation was the parties’ divorce
action, and the January 14, 2022 order effectively attempted to settle matters
related to equitable distribution. Such disputes are not statutorily enumerated
issues that must be adjudicated in Orphans’ Court. See generally 20
-9-
J-S33018-22
Pa.C.S.A. § 711. Rather, the Divorce Code specifically provides family courts
with original and continuing jurisdiction over matters pertaining to divorce and
the determination and disposition of property rights and interests between
spouses. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3104(a)(1). See also Annechino v. Joire,
946 A.2d 121, 122 (Pa.Super. 2008) (explaining that legislature has provided
that almost all matters involving family law issues should be heard under
Divorce Code, which would be in family court division of those courts having
separate divisions).
If one of the parties dies after the decree of divorce has
been entered, but prior to the final determination in such
proceeding of the property rights and interests of the parties
under this part, the personal representative of the deceased
party shall be substituted as a party as provided by law and
the action shall proceed.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(d). Further, the Divorce Code permits a court to “order
and direct the transfer or sale of any property required in order to comply with
the court’s order[.]” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(e)(4).
In analyzing these statutes, the trial court found that the “Orphans’
Court does not have mandatory jurisdiction of this divorce matter as divorce
cases are not enumerated in Section 711.” (Trial Court Opinion at 14). We
agree that the instant case, which involved an intersection between divorce
and estate matters, amounted to a situation where the Orphans’ Court’s
jurisdiction was “nonmandatory” under Section 712. See Mark Hershey
Farms, Inc. v. Robinson, 171 A.3d 810 (Pa.Super. 2017) (stating trial court
properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over claim against executor
- 10 -
J-S33018-22
where complaint was based upon breach of contract and did not directly raise
issues regarding administration of an estate); Estate of Harmon v. Harmon,
229 A.3d 377 (Pa.Super. 2020) (unpublished memorandum)4 (holding trial
court acted within its discretion in declining to transfer case to Orphans’ Court
where case concerned both administration of estate and enforcement of
contractual terms incorporated into parties’ divorce decree). We conclude that
the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy at
issue. See Assouline, supra; Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra. Accordingly,
we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/22/2023
____________________________________________
4 See also Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions
filed in this Court after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).
- 11 -