Mateson Chemical v. Mateson (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S77011-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MATESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER MATESON, BONNIE MATESON, AND JEAN F. MATESON, JR., v. STEPHANIE MATESON-BARTON, MARK MATESON, AND NIKULAUS MATESON, APPEAL OF: STEPHANIE MATESON, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2099 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Order entered on June 24, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, No. 3507 December Term 2008 MATESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER MATESON, BONNIE MATESON, AND JEAN F. MATESON, JR., v. STEPHANIE MATESON-BARTON, MARK MATESON, AND NIKULAUS MATESON, APPEAL OF: STEPHANIE MATESON, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2753 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on September 12, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, No. 3507 December Term 2008 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, WECHT and PLATT*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: April 29, 2013 *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77011-12 In these consolidated appeals, Stephanie Mateson ( Mateson ) appeals, pro se, from (1) an Order entered on June 24, 2011 (hereinafter Settlement Order ) enforcing a settlement agreement ( the Settlement Agreement ) entered into between Mateson and the Mateson Chemical Corporation ( MCC ); and (2) the subsequent judgment of sentence imposed against Mateson following the trial court s finding her in indirect criminal contempt ( ICC ) of the Settlement Order. We affirm the Settlement Order and affirm Mateson s judgment of sentence. The trial court has set forth the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal, which we adopt herein by reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/1/12, at 1-5. In response to Mateson s timely appeal, the trial court ordered Mateson to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Mateson timely filed a pro se Concise Statement. On appeal, Mateson raises the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the Court of Common Pleas[] erred in finding [Mateson] in contempt of court in the absence of any finding by clear and convincing evidence of wrongful intent[?] 2. Whether the Court of Common Pleas denied [Mateson of her] rights under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by not informing [her] that [she] was at risk of being held in criminal contempt, by not advising [Mateson] of [her] right to have counsel, by not informing [Mateson] that [she] could have [had] counsel appointed as [she] was indigent ¦, by not advising [Mateson] of [her] right to trial by jury, and by finding [Mateson] in contempt and sentencing [her] to -2- J-S77011-12 prison for a fixed period of six months less one day without ¦ [the] assistance of counsel[?] 3. Whether the Court of Common Pleas[] acted in excess of its jurisdiction by hearing and deciding to enforce a [S]ettlement [A]greement and impose sanctions in the underlying case, when the [S]ettlement [A]greement was not an order of the Court, and the movant was required under Pennsylvania law to initiate a new action for alleged breach of the [S]ettlement [A]greement[?] 4. Whether the Court of Common Pleas acted in excess of its authority by, when being informed of the lack of jurisdiction to enforce the [S]ettlement [A]greement, unilaterally adopt[ing] the private [S]ettlement [A]greement as an Order of the Court nunc pro tunc, thereby effectively modifying the [S]ettlement [A]greement by adding a term (making it an enforceable court order) without any evidence that the parties so intended at the time of settlement[?] 5. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in interpreting the [S]ettlement [A]greement as prohibited [sic] [Mateson] from appealing a decision interpreting it as part of a motion to enforce the [S]ettlement [A]greement, when such dispute was neither known nor in existence at the time the [S]ettlement [A]greement was entered into[?] 6. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in interpreting the [S]ettlement [A]greement as [Mateson] forfeiting [her] stock, when the record shows to the contrary[?] Brief for Appellant at 3-4 (issues renumbered). We first address Mateson s appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed on her conviction of ICC. Mateson argues that the trial court erred in finding her in contempt of court in the absence of any finding of wrongful intent, one of the requisite elements of ICC. Id. at 17. -3- J-S77011-12 Our standard of review is well settled: A trial court s finding of contempt will not be disturbed Commonwealth v. Baker, 766 absent A.2d an 328, abuse 331 (Pa. of discretion. 2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 753 A.2d 856, 861 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that [i]n considering an appeal from a contempt order, we place great reliance on the discretion of the trial judge. Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process, and on appeal its actions will be reversed only when a plain abuse of discretion occurs. )). Here, the trial court found Mateson in contempt of court based upon her disregard of (1) the trial court s unambiguous Order that Mateson shall not file any further appeals in the case; and (2) the trial court s Order directing Mateson to appear at a hearing on August 15, 2011 ( the contempt hearing ). A charge of indirect criminal contempt consists of a claim that a violation of an Order or Decree of court occurred outside the presence of the court. Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108, 109 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that [i]n order to establish a claim of indirect criminal contempt, the evidence must be sufficient to establish the following four elements: (1) the order must be definite, clear, specific and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the person to whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited; (2) the contemnor must have had notice of the specific order or decree; (3) the act constituting the violation must have been volitional; and (4) the contemnor must have acted with wrongful intent. Baker, 766 A.2d at 331 (citation omitted). -4- J-S77011-12 At the June 22, 2011 hearing on MCC s Motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the trial court judge issued the following warning to Mateson at the close of the hearing: THE COURT: Just a minute, Counsel. Do you understand, ma am [Mateson], what is happening today? [Mateson]: I understand. THE COURT: Ma am, I m about to impose sanctions. That s the last thing I want to do, because if you do not pay the sanctions, then you re to vindicate the authority of the court, you go to jail. Do you understand that? [Mateson]: Right. THE COURT: I do not want to do that. I ve been a judge for thirty-two, almost thirty-three years, and that s the last thing I want to do, is to take money out of your pocket and/or put you in jail, but you ve got to comply with the court [O]rder. You must. There s no two ways about it. You agreed that you re not going to appeal the matter. Now, you re going to Delaware. We don t know if you re going to Washington next or New Jersey. The litigation has to end and it ends today. So now you owe the judgment is eighty-seven thousand two hundred sixty-two dollars and eighty cents, that s the present amount. [Counsel for MCC]: It s zero. Judge, by you enforcing the [S]ettlement [Agreement], we re agreeing [that Mateson] owes us nothing. We had asked for sanctions, counsel fees to come back here, and we want the order to say that if she violates this order she will be sanctioned further, and the only way, unfortunately, like you said, is contempt. THE COURT: Do you understand that, ma am? You lost, period. In litigation, someone wins and someone loses. You lost. [Mateson]: But I never agreed THE COURT: You did agree. The record shows that you did agree, and now you re changing your mind. Well, the law doesn t work that way. You make an agreement, you have to abide by the agreement. It would not please me at all to have -5- J-S77011-12 the sheriff come in this room and take you away in handcuffs for contempt of court. That, I do not want to do. Do you understand that? So you will have to abide by the [O]rder of the court or you re in contempt, and in order to vindicate the authority of the court or to further the contempt, you have to go to county prison. Anything further? [Counsel for MCC]: Nothing further. THE COURT: Anything further, [Mateson]? [Mateson]: No. N.T., 6/22/11, at 70-73 (emphasis added); see also Settlement Order, 6/24/11 (providing, inter alia, that Mateson had agreed that there would be no appeals of any issues[,] and the trial court expressly decreed that [Mateson s] failure to comply with any part of this Order shall result in the imposition of additional sanctions and/or a finding of contempt upon further application of [MCC]. ). In direct violation of the Settlement Order and the trial court judge s oral warnings during the June 22, 2011 hearing, Mateson filed an appeal less than one month later. At that point, all of the elements of ICC were present. First, it is beyond dispute that the trial court s Order prohibiting Mateson from filing an appeal was definite, clear, and specific, and left no ambiguity as to the prohibited conduct. See Baker, 766 A.2d at 331. Next, Mateson had oral and written notice of the trial court s unambiguous Order. Id. Finally, the record supports the trial court s finding that Mateson s defiance -6- J-S77011-12 of the court Order was volitional and done with wrongful intent.1 Id. Indeed, Mateson acknowledged that she had agreed not to take another appeal of any issue. Despite this, and despite the trial court s oral warnings and the Settlement Order, Mateson filed an appeal less than one month later, in clear violation of the Order. Moreover, Mateson failed to respond to the trial court s July 19, 2011 Rule to Show Cause Order, directing her to show cause, at the August 15, 2011 contempt hearing, as to why she should not be held in criminal contempt for violating the Settlement Order. Mateson did not appear at the contempt hearing. Accordingly, there was ample evidence to establish each of the elements of ICC. Next, Mateson claims that the trial court violated her due process rights by finding her guilty of ICC at the contempt hearing, since she was not present at this hearing and did not have the assistance of counsel. Brief for Appellant at 9. We disagree. Whether an appellant was denied due process is a question of law. As with all questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo and the appellate scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Moody, 46 A.3d 765, 771 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the due process requirements under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution require notice 1 In making this finding, the trial court pointed out that [Mateson] has failed to obey the Courts of this Commonwealth dating back to 2007, when [the prior trial court judge presiding over the case between Mateson and MCC had] found [Mateson] in contempt for failing to appear after being notified to do so on multiple occasions. Trial Court Opinion, 6/1/12, at 8. -7- J-S77011-12 and an opportunity to be heard before a conviction for contempt can be adjudicated. Weiss v. Jacobs, 175 A.2d 849, 851 (Pa. 1961); see also Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 764 A.2d 569, 576 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that [d]ue process considerations require that a contemnor be afforded notice of the contempt hearing so that he or she may present a defense. Judges may give this notice by warning individuals that their conduct is considered contumacious, or may issue warnings to the parties involved in order to permit the individuals to conform their conduct to the norms expected by the trial judge. ). In the instant case, during the June 22, 2011 hearing, the trial court clearly gave Mateson notice that the court would find her in criminal contempt and sentence her to a term of incarceration if she breached her agreement to not file additional appeals in this case. See N.T., 6/22/11, at 71, 72 (stating, respectively, that [y]ou [Mateson] agreed that you re not going to appeal the matter[,] and you will have to abide by the [O]rder of the court or you re in contempt, and in order to vindicate the authority of the court or to further the contempt, you have to go to county prison. ); see also Settlement Order, 6/24/11 (same). Additionally, the trial court provided Mateson with an opportunity to be heard. The court ordered Mateson to appear at the contempt hearing to give her an opportunity to present a defense and show cause as to why she should not be held in criminal contempt. However, Mateson disregarded the court Order and did not appear at the contempt hearing. -8- Accordingly, we determine that the J-S77011-12 trial court did not violate Mateson s due process rights by finding her in contempt of court, in absentia, at the contempt hearing. Cf. Weiss, 175 A.2d at 851 (holding that the defendant s conviction for contempt of court was in violation of his due process rights where he was not provided with notice of presentation of the contempt petition before the lower court nor was he given the right to have been heard at the contempt hearing); Pruitt, 764 A.2d at 576 (same). Next, we will address Mateson s appeal from the Settlement Order enforcing the parties Settlement Agreement. Initially, we note that although the statement of questions involved portion of Mateson s brief purports to raise four separate issues regarding Mateson s appeal of the Settlement Order, Mateson raises only two issues in her argument section. Indeed, in Mateson s court-ordered Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement, Mateson raised only two issues regarding her appeal from the Settlement Order. See Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement, 1/31/12, ¶¶ 1, 2. Accordingly, we will address the two issues that Mateson preserved on appeal in her Concise Statement. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (holding that [a]ny issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived. ). Mateson first argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that it is unenforceable because it was purportedly a private contract, not a judicial decree. Brief for Appellant at 11. According to Mateson, there is no evidence that the parties ever -9- J-S77011-12 intended that the [S]ettlement [A]greement itself would be entered as an Order of the Court. Id. Additionally, Mateson asserts that [t]he [trial court] judge unilaterally decided to enter the [S]ettlement [A]greement as an [O]rder nunc pro tunc, thereby unlawfully conferring jurisdiction upon himself. Id. at 8. Mateson further contends that [b]y entering the [S]ettlement [Agreement] as a court [O]rder, the [trial court] judge effectively modified the [S]ettlement [A]greement by adding an additional term that was not bargained for that the settlement would be incorporated as a court [O]rder. Id. at 12. The trial court concisely addressed Mateson s claims in its Opinion and we adopt the court s rationale herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/1/12, at 56. Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Mateson s claim that the trial court unlawfully conferred jurisdiction upon itself by entering the Settlement Agreement as an Order nunc pro tunc. As the trial court explained in its Opinion, the court signed and docketed the Settlement Order, [dated August 16, 2010,] but not the same copy as the [one that the] parties signed (the one [that Mateson had] marked up ). - 10 - As a result, th[e trial] J-S77011-12 court signed the marked up copy [nunc] pro tunc on June 22, 2011. 2 Id. at 3 n.3. We discern no impropriety by the trial court in this regard, as the court was merely remedying a minor omission by signing the Settlement Order nunc pro tunc. Finally, Mateson asserts that the trial court erred in determining that she had relinquished any claim to any MCC stock as part of the Settlement Agreement. See Brief for Appellant at 12-16. According to Mateson, [t]he record shows that, at the time the [S]ettlement [A]greement was entered into, [MCC] was releasing all claims it had to [Mateson s] personal property. Id. at 8. In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mateson s issue and determined that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/1/12, at 6-7. Since our review confirms that the trial court s sound rationale is supported by the record, we affirm on this basis. See id. Settlement Order entered on June 24, 2011 affirmed; judgment of sentence affirmed. 2 At the hearing regarding the enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the trial court judge explained that I don t understand why I did not sign the Order when I ordered it. I know it is on the record. N.T., 6/22/11, at 14. Accordingly, the trial court stated that I m executing this order dated August sixteenth, knowing that today is June twenty-second. I ll sign it nunc pro tunc. Id.; see also Settlement Order, entered 6/24/11. - 11 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.