Photo: Shutterstock

A local attorney has come up short in his attempts to collect a contempt judgment of more than half a million dollars over a five-figure legal fee dispute.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a ruling out of Philadelphia, voiding a $509,000 contempt judgment against a woman whose lawyer sued her for over $77,000 in legal fees.

Attorney Howard Gleit had argued to the appellate court that the prothonotary's entering of a $509,000 judgment was “a ministerial act” because it was clear how much his former client owed based on the judge's order in a prior contempt hearing.

But the Superior Court disagreed, saying there was no underlying judicial determination that the defendant, Emma Nguyen, was in noncompliance with the contempt order, so there was no judgment for the prothonotary to enter. The intent of Judge Eugene Maier's contempt order was a factor as well.

“Excerpts taken from Judge Maier's comments during the contempt hearing reveal he viewed the prospective contempt payments as providing an alternate means by which to secure the underlying judgment amount of $77,734.46 for attorney Gleit, an amount attorney Gleit eventually received,” Senior Judge Correale Stevens wrote for the three-judge panel of the Superior Court.

“We also understand the trial court's decision in this respect as reasonably grounded in equitable considerations that attorney Gleit not receive an inexplicable windfall of $509,000.00 on an underlying matter involving considerably less money,” Stevens added.

According to Stevens' opinion, Gleit sued the Nguyen family for allegedly failing to pay for legal services related to a real estate deal, claiming the family had breached an oral agreement. In September 2011, Maier entered judgment in the case of more than $57,000, plus pre-judgment interest. The judgment was paid in full in January 2015.

But between the September 2011 judgment and the January 2015 payment, Gleit filed motions to compel certain information from the Nguyens, which they did not provide, the opinion said. In an August 2013 order, Maier directed the Nguyens to respond to a letter with discovery requests from Gleit. But they did not answer that letter, Stevens said, so Maier imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per day, payable to Gleit.

“During the contempt hearing, Judge Maier stated, 'what I am going to do is issue a sanction and the sanctions will come probably somewhere in the amount of the judgment' in the underlying merits matter,” the opinion said.

In January 2015, just days before the $77,734 judgment was paid in full, Gleit filed a praecipe for entry of judgment with the prothonotary based upon the $1,000-per-day sanction, which had built up to a total of $509,000. The prothonotary entered judgment in that amount, the opinion said.

Nguyen argued that Maier had not directed the prothonotary to enter a judgment, and had not himself entered a judgment stating that she was in contempt for 509 days, so the prothonotary “undertook the unauthorized judicial act of determining she was liable for $509,000,” Stevens wrote.

Sean Mays of The Mays Law Firm, who represented Nguyen, said the trial court, which the Superior Court's opinion affirmed, was “spot-on.”

Denise Kuestner of Langsam Stevens Silver & Hollaender, who represented Gleit, did not respond to a call seeking comment Monday.