Kovalchuk, V. v. Kovalchuk, Y. ( 2023 )

J-A27037-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
VASYL S. KOVALCHUK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
YELENA V. KOVALCHUK :
:
Appellant : No. 712 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at
No(s): 2016-03340
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: NOVEMBER 21, 2023
Yelena V. Kovalchuk appeals1 pro se from the order entered on May 4,
2023, that found her in open, notorious, and willful violation of the trial court’s
September 30, 2022 order, but did not impose sanctions without the need for
further court action. Rather, the May 4th order directed Appellant to report
for a sentencing hearing on May 16, 2023.2 Upon review of the record, we
____________________________________________
1 The record reflects that Appellant’spro se notice of appeal indicates that
she purports to appeal from an order of the trial court entered May 15, 2023,
which is the date she filed her notice of appeal, but she has attached the
trial court’s May 4, 2023 order (dated May 3, 2023) to her notice. We have
amended the caption accordingly.
2 The trial court subsequently entered a sentencing order on May 16, 2023
that— due to the finding of contempt —mandated that Appellant pay a
$500.00 fine and attorneys’ fees and ordered her to undergo imprisonment
for 6 months.
J-A27037-23
quash Appellant’s appeal for the reasons set forth below and direct the
Prothonotary to remove the above-captioned matter from the A27/23
argument panel.
A contempt order will be considered final and appealable when the order
contains a present finding of contempt and imposes sanctions. Genovese v.
Genovese, 550 A.2d 1021, 1022-23 (Pa.Super. 1988); see also Foulk v.
Foulk, 789 A.2d 254, 257 (Pa.Super. 2001) (reiterating that for contempt
order to be appealable, it is only necessary that order impose sanctions and
no further court order be required before sanctions take effect); Takosky v.
Henning, 906 A.2d 1255, 1255 (Pa.Super. 2006) (holding that an indirect
criminal contempt order was not final and appealable because the order
indicated that sentencing would be held at a future time, and, therefore, the
punishment phase of matter had not yet been determined).
Here, we find that the trial court’s May 4, 2023 order was interlocutory,
as it did not impose sanctions, and therefore quash Appellant’s appeal and
direct the Prothonotary to remove the above-captioned matter from the
A27/23 argument panel.3
Appeal quashed.
____________________________________________
3 In light of our disposition, we also deny Appellant’s November 13, 2023
“Motion to Stay” her imprisonment and her “Motion to Appear by Video for
Oral Argument” remotely from prison, as moot.
-2-
J-A27037-23
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/21/2023
-3-