Stewartstown Railroad Co. v. Cathell, Sr., J. ( 2023 )

J-A13022-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
STEWARTSTOWN RAILROAD : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
COMPANY : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
JAMES DAVID CATHELL, SR. :
: No. 1581 MDA 2022
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered October 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
2021-SU-002455
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JULY 26, 2023
James David Cathell, Sr., appeals from the order, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of York County, granting Appellee Stewartstown Railroad
Company’s (Railroad) motion for civil contempt and imposing sanctions
against Cathell in the amount of $1,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and $500.00 in
fines for each finding of contempt. After careful review, we affirm.
Cathell owns property located at 1517 Deer Creek Road in New
Freedom, York County (Property). A previous owner of the Property granted
Railroad1 a thirty-three foot right-of-way (easement) over the Property. The
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The Railroad operates approximately 7.4 miles of track, running from New
Freedom to Stewartstown, over which it conducts a “historic train tourism”
business “operat[ing] excursion trains of various kinds over the line.” N.T.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A13022-23
easement, memorialized in a deed recorded on July 20, 2010 with the York
County Recorder of Deeds Office, was signed and notarized by Cathell. As per
the easement, the Railroad “maintains the right to unobstructed use of the
railroad through the Property.” Railroad’s Amended Complaint, 12/27/21, at
¶ 13.
Due to Cathell’s obstructionist behavior, which included parking a tractor
on the Railroad’s tracks to inhibit the use of the railroad and placing personal
property within the boundaries of the easement to obstruct its use, the
Railroad filed a complaint seeking the court declare the Railroad’s right to use
the easement, grant an injunction prohibiting Cathell from obstructing the
Railroad’s use of the easement, and declare that Cathell was interfering with
an express easement and creating a nuisance by his actions. Cathell filed
preliminary objections to the complaint; the Railroad filed an amended
complaint on December 27, 2021. On April 22, 2022, the court overruled
Cathell’s preliminary objections. Cathell filed an answer and new matter to
Railroad’s amended complaint.
On July 28, 2022, the Railroad filed a petition seeking a preliminary
injunction against Cathell, alleging that Cathell’s “disruption and blocking the
____________________________________________
Preliminary Injunction Hearing, 8/18/22, at 5. Railroad also conducts a rail
biking business where people “can ride pedal powered road bikes over the
line.” Id. at 44. Cathell’s Property is bisected by the railroad on Deer Creek
Road—approximately mile post 4.5 on the railroad—near the Railroad’s mid-
point. Id. at 6. Railroad employees instruct excursion riders to stay on the
railcars or bikers to stay on the right-of-way as they traverse the Property.
Id. at 33-34.
-2-
J-A13022-23
use of the railroad has worsened in recent weeks.” See Petition for
Preliminary Injunction, 7/28/22, at ¶ 8. Specifically, the petition averred that
Cathell had been arrested by the state police for using tractors to block the
use of the railroad, yelled and threatened Railroad agents while they used the
railroad, and had been encouraging neighbors and family members to join him
in disrupting the use of the railroad on the Property. Id. at ¶¶ 9-13; id. at 2
(“Cathell has had a long history, dating back to 2015, of blocking and
disrupting the use of the [R]ailroad[.]”); id. at 3 (“[Cathell] continued his
disruption of the [R]ailroad by prohibiting [Railroad] and its agents from
traveling on the railroad through the Property on Sunday, July 24, 2022.”)
(emphasis added).
On August 18, 2022, the court held the first of two hearings on the
petition. At the hearing, the Railroad’s president, David Williamson, testified
that Cathell’s behavior had “disrupted the railroad operations” and . . . “had a
very large impact” on its customers, making them “upset [and causing them
to] threaten to make posts on social media [that would] damage [the
Railroad’s] reputation . . . and integrity in the community.” N.T. Preliminary
Injunction Hearing I, 8/18/22, at 31. Williamson also testified that “we’ve
observed Mr. Cathell damaging the tracks and we feel the tracks may not be
safe to operate under.” Id. at 32. Following that hearing, the court entered
a temporary restraining order (TRO), effective through August 25, 2022,
prohibiting Cathell from: (1) blocking Railroad’s use of the easement; (2)
yelling, threatening, or otherwise attempting to intimidate or disrupt
-3-
J-A13022-23
Railroad’s use of the easement; and (3) damaging or modifying the railroad
tracks. See Temporary Restraining Order, 8/18/22, at 1-2; N.T. Preliminary
Injunction Hearing I, 8/18/22, at 73-74.
On August 25, 2022, the court held a second day of hearings, at which
Carol Schwartz, one of Cathell’s neighbors, and Cathell testified on behalf of
the defense. Schwartz testified that Cathell suffers from PTSD and has mental
issues that cause him to “act erratically when [he’s] approached suddenly by
people or if [he] feel[s] threatened or if something changes quickly.” N.T.
Preliminary Injunction Hearing II, 8/25/22, at 14. Cathell admitted that he
parked tractors on the railroad track, placed his own body on the tracks to
prevent people from passing by, and “blew up [and] was angry [and] wasn’t
really thinking” when he reacted to tourists using bikes to traverse the
easement in July. Id. at 32-33, 36. Following the hearing, the court entered
an order extending the effective date of the original TRO to September 6,
2002, or until further order of court. See Order Extending TRO, 8/25/22, at
1.
On August 28, 2022, Railroad alleged that Cathell disrupted its use of
the easement by demanding identification from Railroad employees using the
easement and yelling and threatening those employees. Specifically, Railroad
claimed that Cathell told its employees that people shoot guns near the
Property and that someone might get shot if they are on the Property.
-4-
J-A13022-23
Following an August 30, 2022 hearing,2 the trial court granted a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Cathell from
blocking [Railroad’s agents, lessees, and/or employees’] use of
the [e]asement . . and from being disruptive to [Railroad’s agents,
lessees, and/or employees’] use of the [e]asement by yelling,
threatening[,] or otherwise attempting to intimidate or
otherwise disrupt in any way [Railroad’s] use of the
express right-of-way. [Cathell] is further prohibited from
damaging and/or modifying the railroad tracks in any way.
See Preliminary Injunction Order, 8/30/22 (emphasis added).
On September 2, 2022, the Railroad filed a motion for contempt claiming
that Cathell violated the court’s August 18, 2022 and August 25, 2022 orders
and alleging that Cathell’s August 28, 2022 antics demonstrated that he is in
“willful violation of this [c]ourt’s . . . [o]rder[s] without any justification or
excuse.” Motion for Order of Contempt, 9/2/22 at ¶ 8. The Railroad asked
that Cathell be found in civil contempt and directed to pay $500.00 in
attorneys’ fees per violation and a $1,000.00 civil penalty, and that the court
enter default judgment in its favor and issue a bench warrant for Cathell’s
arrest. Id. at 3-4.
On October 21, 2022, the court held a hearing on the Railroad’s
contempt petition, at which Cathell and two Railroad witnesses, David
Dolinsky and Williamson, testified. Dolinsky, an employee of a business that
operates rail bikes on the Railroad’s tracks, testified that Cathell has had a
____________________________________________
2 Because the court only had time to hear from one of the Railroad’s witnesses
on August 18th, the court scheduled a second hearing date on the Railroad’s
petition to permit Cathell to rebut the Railroad’s evidence.
-5-
J-A13022-23
“[v]ery negative impact [on his business,] caus[ing them] to have delays and
[their] customers to feel threatened as well as . . . embarrass[ing] us as a
[business].” N.T. Contempt Petition Hearing, 10/21/22, at 7. Dolinsky related
the following events that took place on August 28, 2022:
On August 28th [2022,] which was the day of our trip, at 10:27
a.m.[,] I received a text from [Cathell] in which he stated that he
needed to take photos of all of the IDs of our company employees
that were coming through the property, as he claimed they were,
quote, casing his property.
* * *
At that time[, Cathell] was walking his dog. He was coming back
to his home. We had approximately 40 people standing on the
roadway. He began screaming belligerently at the top of his lungs
that everybody was trespassing, nobody wants them here, and it
was karma that several of our riders had gotten bit by bees
because they weren’t welcome there.
He then began yelling that people, our riders, might get shot
because people who live in these homes in this area shoot guns in
their backyard. He was telling people they may get shot if they’re
in this area.
Id. at 9-10 (emphasis added). Dolinsky further testified that, based on
Cathell’s behavior on August 28th, his customer’s felt “threatened . . . [t]hey
were just very upset [and a] lot of the older customers were kind of shaken.”
Id. at 11. In fact, Dolinsky believed that one of his customers actually called
the police the following day to file a report against Cathell. Id.
Williamson, who had previously testified at the parties’ preliminary
injunction hearing, testified that he had had “numerous interactions with
[Cathell] from the period of 2010 to the present.” Id. at 21. Specifically,
-6-
J-A13022-23
Williamson testified that, on September 17, 2022, one of Cathell’s tenants “sat
on a tractor or piece of equipment for about five minutes[,] looked up at us
. . . [and told us that we were] trespassing on [the P]roperty, [that we] can’t
be [t]here, [and that] nobody wants you down here.” Id. at 22. Williamson
also testified that Cathell then came on site and told him that “[y]ou guys are
trespassing,” ordered him to “[g]et off my property . . . [and said that n]obody
wants you here.” Id. at 23. Cathell also told Williamson and Railroad
employees that “you’re all warned that you’re exposed to toxic chemicals, and
I’ve warned you of that.” Id. Williamson testified that Cathell’s remarks and
behavior made everyone feel “scared and [] threatened [and,] on the advice
of [their] attorney, had to have armed security to accompany us on that day.”
Id. Williamson testified that even with armed security present, Cathell and
his tenant “continued to watch and follow us throughout [the day] as we were
there on the [P]roperty.” Id. at 24. Finally, Williamson testified that “the fear
[still] exists, and nobody wants to go there and do any work” on the Property
and that as a result of these events, “it doesn’t bode well for our business and
our people[.]” Id. at 25.
Cathell testified in his defense at the contempt hearing, acknowledging
that he encountered Dolinsky on the Property on August 28, 2022, that he
“felt like [the trailway bikers] were not supposed to be on the railroad tracks
using the tracks the way there were[,] and nobody wanted them there[.] I
just told them that they were not welcome[.]” Id. at 29. Cathell testified he
did not yell at, scream at, or interfere with the passage of anyone through the
-7-
J-A13022-23
Property on August 28th. Id. at 29. Cathell also testified he never intended
to intimidate anyone that day, but felt he was obligated to let people know
that target shooting occurs on his Property and that they were at an increased
risk of pollution by being on the Property due to ground pollutants. Id. at 30-
32.
Similarly, Cathell testified that he recalled his interaction with
Williamson and several Railroad associates on September 17, 2022. On that
date, Cathell testified that he told the Railroad employees he “was happy that
they were cleaning up the tracks [and] told them what chemicals were [on the
Property].” Id. at 33-34. Cathell stated that he did not threaten any of the
Railroad employees “in any way [or] prevent them from doing their work[.]”
Id. 33. Cathell further testified that it was never his intent to threaten or
intimidate them on that day. Id. at 34. The trial judge, ultimately, found
Cathell’s testimony not to be credible. Id. at 41. Following the hearing, the
court made on-the-record findings that Cathell’s conduct was volitional, id. at
41, 43, violated court orders, id., and that Railroad met its burden of proving
civil contempt. Id. Specifically, the trial judge concluded that “the [Railroad]
here has shown civil contempt: (1) “with respect to the August 28th incident
. . . that . . . would have been subject to this [c]ourt’s August 18th order,” id.
at 39, 42, and (2) “[w]ith respect to the September 17 th incident, that would
have been governed by the preliminary injunction of August 30, 2022.” Id.
-8-
J-A13022-23
Cathell filed an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration. This timely
appeal followed. Both Cathell and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925. On appeal, Cathell raises the following issues for our consideration:
(1) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse its discretion in holding
[Cathell] in contempt and awarding sanctions where his
conduct did not violate the [c]ourt’s prior order(s)?
(2) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse its discretion and misapply the
law where it held [Cathell] in contempt despite no evidence
that [Cathell] acted with wrongful intent?
(3) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse its discretion when awarding
sanctions that were punitive in nature, as well as arbitrary
and excessive?
(4) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in its finding that speech alone can
form the basis for finding of [c]ontempt and [s]anctions?
Appellant’s Brief, at 5.
The power to punish for contempt is a “right inherent in the courts and
is incidental to the grant of judicial power under the Constitution.” In re
Estate of Disabato, 165 A.3d 987, 992 (Pa. Super. 2017). Contempt may
be either civil or criminal. “The characteristic that distinguishes civil from
criminal contempt is the ability of the contemnor to purge himself of contempt
by complying with the court’s directive.” Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 884 A.3d 1005,
1009 (Pa. Super. 1995). “If [the contemnor] is given an opportunity to purge
himself before imposition of punishment, the contempt [o]rder is civil in
nature. [However, i]f the purpose of the [o]rder is to punish despite an
opportunity to purge, the [o]rder is criminal in nature.” Id.For a person to be found in civil contempt, the moving party must
prove that: (1) the contemnor had notice of the specific order or
-9-
J-A13022-23
decree that he disobeyed; (2) the act constituting the violation
was volitional; and (3) the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.
Marian Shop, Inc. v. Baird, [] 670 A.2d 671, 673 (Pa. Super.
1996). The order alleged to have been violated “must be definite,
clear, and specific--leaving no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of
the contemnor of the prohibited conduct” and is to be strictly
construed. Id. (emphasis in original).
Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2004). Finally, in
reviewing an adjudication of contempt, the appellate court places great
reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge. Goodman v. Goodman,
556 A.2d 1379, 1380 (Pa. Super. 1989).
Instantly, Cathell conceded at the contempt hearing that notice of the
orders that he allegedly disobeyed was not an issue.3 See N.T. Contempt
Hearing, 10/21/22, at 35. With regard to whether Cathell’s conduct was
volitional, the trial court concluded that Cathell’s actions disrupted the
Railroad’s use of the easement and constituted an attempt to scare and
intimidate the trail bikers. Finally, the court concluded that Cathell acted with
wrongful intent, noting “Mr. Cathell’s been in this courtroom enough now in
the course of these hearings to know what behavior is acceptable and what
behavior is not [and] that it is not [his] obligation to tell [passersby] about
____________________________________________
3 The Railroad’s contempt petition alleges that Cathell violated the court’s
August 18, 2022 and August 25, 2022 TROs based on Cathell’s behavior on
August 28, 2022. However, the court concluded that Cathell committed civil
contempt of its August 18, 2022 TRO and August 30, 2022 preliminary
injunction based on Cathell’s conduct on August 28, 2022 and September 17,
2022, respectively. Since Cathell conceded that there was no issue regarding
having received “notice of the specific order or decree that he disobeyed,”
Gunther, supra, at 1017, any claim regarding notice has been waived.
- 10 -
J-A13022-23
the reasons you think the land is poisoned.” Id. at 43-44.4 After a review of
the record, and giving the trial judge the deference he is due, we conclude
that there is no merit to Cathell’s first two issues regarding the propriety of
the civil contempt finding.
Cathell next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it
awarded sanctions that were punitive, arbitrary, and excessive. We disagree.
____________________________________________
4 Notably, the trial court stated the following at the contempt hearing before
issuing its sanctions:
Now, Mr. Cathell, before I move to the imposition of sanctions, I
want to make something incredibly clear, because I thought I
made it clear when I issued the temporary restraining orders, and
I thought you understood it, but it’s becoming clear that you don’t.
Until there is a different order from this [c]ourt that says so, these
folks have the right to use that right-of-way. They have the right
to use that right-of-way without being harassed by you, without
being questioned by you, without having to be advised by you that
they’re on poisonous property.
N.T. Contempt Hearing, 10/21/22, at 44. While “the order alleged to have
been violated ‘must be definite, clear, and specific--leaving no doubt or
uncertainty in the mind of the contemnor of the prohibited conduct,’”
Gunther, supra at 1017, the court’s discourse above is not proof that the
court’s orders were not, in fact, clearly written outlining the definitive,
prohibited conduct at issue. Rather, the court’s dialogue stresses how
important it is for Cathell to abide by the orders and permit legal use of the
easement over the Property or suffer further court or police action. In fact,
the court found it imperative to caution Cathell that “[i]f [he] can’t govern his
behavior . . . perhaps he should look at moving from the [P]roperty . . .
because continued behavior like this is not going to end well for you, so maybe
it’s time to look at other options to keep yourself from getting in further legal
trouble.” N.T. Contempt Hearing, 10/21/22, at 45.
- 11 -
J-A13022-23
The trial court imposed the following sanctions, orally on the record, at
the contempt hearing:
This is civil contempt, and the goal of civil contempt is to gain
compliance with the [c]ourt’s [o]rder. It’s not to impose
punishment. In order to encourage Mr. Cathell to comply with the
[c]ourt’s [o]rder, we enter the following sanctions as follows: He
shall pay $1,000 in attorney fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, Barlye &
Snyder. For each of the counts, he shall pay a $500 fine. We will
give Mr. Cathell 90 days to pay these and further direct that the
attorney fees be paid first before the fines.
Should Mr. Cathell fail to pay these sanctions within the 90 days
allotted, we then direct that he report to York County Prison to
serve 30 days of incarceration.
Should he fail to pay the attorneys[’] fees and the fines and fail to
report to York County Prison as directed, he should be advised we
will then issue a bench warrant for his failure to appear, and he
will be taken into custody and taken to York County Prison to serve
the sentence for his failure to purge.
N.T. Contempt Hearing, 10/21/22, at 45.
While a court may impose an unconditional fine in civil contempt, it may
do so only if the purpose is not to punish but to compensate for losses suffered
by the complainant. Colbert v. Gunning, 533 A.2d 471, 472 (Pa. Super.
1987). Moreover, “[a]n unconditional fine for civil contempt can serve two
purposes: (1) to punish violators or (2) to deter future or continued violations
of the law. The deterrence of continuous or future violations of a court order is
a legitimate interest to be served by the levy of an unconditional fine.” Id.In addition, when reviewing a grant of attorney's fees, we will not
disturb the decision below absent a clear abuse of discretion. See, e.g.,
Brenckle v. Arblaster, 466 A.2d 1075, 1078 (Pa. Super. 1983); Shearer v.
- 12 -
J-A13022-23
Moore, 419 A.2d 665, 669 (Pa. Super. 1980). Because an award of counsel
fees “is intended to reimburse an innocent litigant for expenses made
necessary by the conduct of an opponent,” American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
v. Zion & Klein, P.A., 489 A.2d 259, 262 (Pa. Super. 1985), it is “coercive
and compensatory, and not punitive.” See Schnabel Assoc. v. The Building
and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, AFL-CIO,
487 A.2d 1327, 1338 (Pa. Super. 1985). Thus, counsel fees are a proper
element of a civil contempt order. Id.; see Goodman v. Goodman, 556
A.2d 1379, 1391 (Pa. Super. 1989).
Here, the trial court concluded that $1,000.00 in attorneys’ fees was a
reasonable sanction based on the amount the Railroad paid its attorney to
draft the contempt petition and prepare for and attend the hearings.
Furthermore, the court found that sanctioning Cathell $500.00 for each of his
two violations was appropriate to coerce him to comply with court orders. We
find no abuse of discretion.
- 13 -
J-A13022-23
With regard to Cathell’s final claim that speech cannot form the basis of
a contempt finding, we find this claim waived for his failure to include it in his
Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/26/2023
- 14 -