Superior Court Bans Suspended Sentences for Civil Contempt
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that it is illegal for judges to impose suspended sentences for civil contempt.
May 10, 2018 at 04:50 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that it is illegal for judges to impose suspended sentences for civil contempt.
In a unanimous published opinion issued May 8 in Thompson v. Thompson, a three-judge panel of the court reversed a Clarion County trial judge's order that a mother would have to serve a six-month jail sentence if she fell behind on monthly payments toward child support arrears.
“The law is clear that an indefinitely suspended sentence is not a sentencing alternative and is illegal,” Judge Jacqueline Shogan wrote for the court, citing the Superior Court's 2004 ruling in Commonwealth v. Joseph. “Although Joseph dealt with sentencing in a criminal matter, we conclude that its rationale is instructive in our review of a sentence imposed for civil contempt.”
Shogan was joined in the ruling by President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman and John Musmanno.
According to Shogan's opinion, defendant Ashley Thompson entered into an agreement with the Clarion County Domestic Relations Office to pay $138 per month in child support arrears. As part of the agreement, Thompson acknowledged she was in civil contempt for failing to comply with a previous court order to make the payments. She also agreed to serve a suspended six-month sentence if she fell behind on the payments.
The trial court subsequently issued an order incorporating the agreement, Shogan said.
Thompson appealed, arguing that suspended sentences are not one of the enumerated punishments for contempt for noncompliance with a support order. She also argued that the order constituted a due process violation because it called for Thompson to be incarcerated without a hearing on her ability to pay and because it failed to provide a purge amount.
“In addition to our conclusion that the indefinitely suspended sentence is illegal, we further find the Feb. 15, 2017, order incorporating the agreement provided no purge amount and contained no mechanism through which the trial court could consider appellant's present ability to pay,” Shogan said. “Thus, in addition to imposing an illegal sentence, the Feb. 15, 2017, order incorporating the agreement violated appellant's right to due process.”
Shogan said Thompson “is correct in her assertions that a suspended sentence is not one of the enumerated punishments, and that 23 Pa.C.S. Section 4345(b) requires a purge condition.”
“Moreover, the statute requires the trial court to determine if the alleged contemnor has the present ability to pay; it does not contemplate future ability to pay or provide for incarceration if there is an inability to pay in the future. In other words, the agreement removes from consideration a subsequent change in circumstances,” Shogan said.
Shogan also vacated the trial court's denial of Thompson's petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
“The trial court's conclusion in its March 8, 2017, order, wherein it stated that because the costs incurred were due solely to appellant's failure to make payments, was an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not hold a hearing or make any findings,” Shogan said. “Moreover, the trial court's subsequent orders denying in forma pauperis status failed to provide any rationale, and these denials were ordered without a hearing to determine the veracity of appellant's assertion concerning her inability to pay or counsel's statement that he was providing representation without compensation.”
Thompson's attorney, John P. Troese of The Law Office of John P. Troese in Clarion, said use of the agreement his client entered into, imposing a suspended sentence for civil contempt, was ”widespread” in Clarion County.
Troese said the system amounted to “a debtor's prison” where people were put in jail for their inability to pay arrears and had no real recourse to challenge those determinations.
Counsel for the Clarion County Domestic Relations Office, Jarah Heeter of Pope, Drayer, French & Heeter in Clarion, could not be reached for comment.
(Copies of the 11-page opinion in Thompson v. Thompson, PICS No. 18-0582, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Importance of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Its Impact on Privilege
6 minute readJudge Tanks Prevailing Pittsburgh Attorneys' $2.45M Fee Request to $250K
5 minute readBest Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 2Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
- 3High-Speed Crash With Police Vehicle Nets $1.6 Million Settlement
- 4Embracing a ‘Stronger Together’ Mentality: Collaboration Best Practices for Attorneys
- 5Selling Law. How to Get Hired, Paid and Rehired
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250