Pennsylvania Superior Court Cases - Superior Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Superior Court - unoffical reports

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

J-A08032/02
2002 PA Super 99
RHONDA L. CHRYSCZANAVICZ,
:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
:
:
v.
:
:
DAVID M. CHRYSCZANAVICZ,
:
:
Appellant
:
No. 2658 EDA 2001
Appeal from the Order Entered August 15, 2001
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
Domestic Relations at No. 01-18907
BEFORE: McEWEN, P.J.E., LALLY-GREEN and BENDER, JJ.
OPINION BY BENDER, J.:
Filed: April 5, 2002
¶ 1
Rhonda L. Chrysczanavicz (Mother) appeals pro se from an order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County that dismissed her
contempt petition1 against David M. Chrysczanavicz (Father) that alleged
that Father had not complied with two court orders, requiring him to secure
medical coverage for the parties' minor child.2 We vacate the order and
remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.
¶ 2
On October 24, 2000, the parties entered into a stipulation and order
of court that required Father to provide medical insurance for the parties'
minor child. The order further required that payment for any unreimbursed
medial bills be divided between the parties with Father responsible for 80%
and Mother responsible for 20%.

1 An order denying a petition for contempt is appealable. Flannery v.
Iberti, 763 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2000).
2 Father did not file a brief with this Court.

J. A08032/02
¶ 3
On May 3, 2001, Mother filed a contempt petition, alleging that Father
had failed to pay child support and provide medical coverage as required by
the October 24, 2000 order. At an attachment conference, held on June 12,
2001, Father paid arrearages in full, and acknowledged that in January of
2001 he had changed his medical insurance coverage from NASE to
Physicians Mutual without notice to Mother.3 He also indicated that he
attempted to enroll in the CHIP program, but that the amount he earns
made him ineligible. Father was ordered to have the minor child placed on
his policy and provide insurance policy information and cards.
¶ 4
At a scheduled conference on June 29, 2001, Father provided
insurance cards. However, a phone call to the insurance company during
the conference revealed that the policy only covered hospital confinement
and was not a major medical type of plan. Mother contended that the policy
was insufficient in that it did not cover sickness without hospitalization or
well visits to the pediatrician. On the same day, the parties were to appear
before Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele, but Father failed to appear and the court
issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
¶ 5
The next hearing in this matter was held on July 5, 2001 before Judge
Daniele. At that hearing, Father's attorney represented to the court that the
NACE policy had included major medical coverage. Recognizing that the new
policy only covered hospitalization, Judge Daniele ordered Father to upgrade

3 Father is a self-employed building contractor and is not covered by any
- 2 -

J. A08032/02
the medical coverage for the child by August 6, 2001, to at least the
coverage provided under the original NACE plan. However, Father failed to
appear on August 6th and the court again issued a warrant for his arrest.
¶ 6
The next proceeding occurred on August 15, 2001 as a result of
Father's arrest. Because it was not a scheduled hearing, Mother was not
adequately notified and, therefore, did not attend. Another judge presided
and discussed the medical insurance issue with Father, Father's attorney and
a hearing officer. Following the discussion on the record, the court found
that although Father upgraded the hospital confinement policy, it did not
cover doctor visits. However, the court relied on Father's unsworn answers
elicited by the court on August 15th and Father's testimony from the July 5th
hearing that the original NACE policy had not covered doctor visits and that
these charges were paid "out-of-pocket" by Father. The court also noted
that Father's attorney represented, in response to a question from the court,
that the present policy complied with Judge Daniele's order. Based on this
exchange, the court held that "it was satisfied that [Father's] medical
insurance coverage did not place him in contempt of Judge Daniele's orders
of October 24, 2000 and July 5, 2001." Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/01, at 3.
Therefore, the court dismissed Mother's contempt petition.
¶ 7
Mother now appeals to this Court and queries "[w]hen a child support
order requires a party to provide medical insurance for the subject child, is

employer sponsored medical insurance plan.
- 3 -

J. A08032/02
the requirement met by the purchase of a policy that covers hospital
confinement?" Mother's Brief, at 3. Essentially, Mother argues that the
upgraded insurance policy provided to the court, but not entered into
evidence at the August 15th proceeding, provides hospital confinement
benefits only and is inadequate when compared with the requirements of 23
Pa.C.S. § 4326.4 Additionally, Mother points out that the court relied on
statements from Father and Father's attorney, when neither was under oath.
¶ 8
In reviewing contempt orders, we are mindful that "[w]e are limited to
determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion."
Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations and
quotation marks omitted). Moreover, "much reliance is given to the
discretion of the trial judge. Accordingly, we are confined to a determination
of whether the facts support the trial court's decision." Williams v.
Williams, 681 A.2d 181, 183 (Pa. Super. 1996), aff'd, 554 Pa. 465, 721
A.2d 1072 (1998). Also in civil contempt proceedings "[t]he complaining
party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a
party violated a court order." Id. (quoting Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 664 A.2d
1005, 1009 (Pa. Super. 1995)).
¶ 9
Keeping the above stated law in mind, we are troubled by what
occurred in this case for two reasons. Initially, we note that Mother was not

4 Section 4326 sets forth the requirements for the mandatory inclusion of
child medical support in all orders either establishing or modifying child
support.
- 4 -

J. A08032/02
present at the hearing on August 15, 2001. In her brief she indicates that in
light of Father's arrest, a message was left on her answering machine
notifying her that the hearing on her contempt petition would take place on
that day. We conclude that Mother was not provided with sufficient notice
so that she could be present to testify and attempt to carry her burden of
proving that Father was in contempt of the court orders.
¶ 10 Second, the entire "hearing" was simply a discussion between the
court, Father, Father's attorney and a hearing officer. No testimony appears
of record. No one spoke under oath. No one present advanced Mother's
position. In fact, the transcript does not reveal that the upgraded medical
insurance policy was entered into evidence.5 Nor does the record contain
any information regarding the original NACE insurance policy so that the new
and old policies could have been compared. Thus, we conclude that the trial
court's decision is not supported by facts of record.
¶ 11 We are also aware that the five elements deemed essential to a civil
contempt adjudication are: "(1) a rule to show cause why attachment
should issue; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing
on the contempt citation; and (5) an adjudication." Cahlin v. Goodman,
421 A.2d 696, 698 (Pa. Super. 1980). Most often a party relies on these

5 A letter, dated August 15, 2001, from Mark Culp, a customer service
representative from Physicians Mutual Insurance Company, purports to
outline the policy secured by Father. It is part of the certified record, but
only because it is attached to Mother's Motion for Reconsideration filed in the
Court of Common Pleas.
- 5 -

J. A08032/02
elements as a basis for their arguments following a finding that he or she is
in contempt. However, the same essential elements protect the complaining
party so that he or she may be heard.
¶ 12 Mother's rights here were compromised by the failure of sufficient
notice and by the dismissal of her petition without a hearing. Making a
determination based on a record where no testimony was taken and no
evidence entered, is a clear abuse of discretion. See Frasch v. Frasch, 501
A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. 1985) (although both parties and their counsel were
present, the trial court improperly vacated a spousal support order without
taking testimony). Because we find the record insufficient to support the
court's order, we vacate that order and remand the matter for an evidentiary
hearing on the contempt petition.
¶ 13 Order VACATED. Case REMANDED for evidentiary hearing.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
- 6 -