Old Forge Borough v. Stocki, Jr., W. ( 2022 )

J-A05035-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
OLD FORGE BOROUGH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WALTER STOCKI, JR., INDIVIDUALLY :
AND NOW TRADING AS SCRAP :
ENTERPRISES, INC. : No. 662 MDA 2021
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
No(s): 2017-06216
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 26, 2022
This Court should exercise its discretion to retain this appeal and resolve
the merits of this lingering dispute occurring over a five-year period that is
disrupting the lives of Lackawanna County residents and involves Appellant’s
utter disregard and disrespect for court orders of the Honorable Thomas
Munley.
As the parties did not contest our jurisdiction and perfected an appeal,
this Court may exercise discretion to retain jurisdiction. Trumbull Corp. v.
Boss Const., Inc., 747 A.2d 395, 398 (Pa.Super. 2000).
In making our determination with respect to retention we must
balance the interests of the parties and matters of judicial
economy against other factors such as: (1) whether the case has
already been transferred, Karpe v. Borough of Stroudsburg,
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A05035-22
315 Pa.Super. 185, 461 A.2d 859 (1983); (2) whether our
retention will disrupt the legislatively ordained division of labor
between the intermediate appellate courts; and (3) whether there
is a possibility of establishing two conflicting lines of authority on
a particular subject. Newman v. Thorn, 359 Pa.Super. 274, 518
A.2d 1231 (1986). Moreover, each transfer should be decided on
a case-by–case basis. Id.Trumbull Corp.,747 A.2d at 399.
The Majority concludes that this appeal properly lies with the
Commonwealth Court as it implicates the “application, interpretation or
enforcement of [a] statute regulating the affairs of political subdivisions,
municipalit[ies] and other local authorities[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(4).
To the contrary, this appeal involves a simple question of whether
Appellant was in contempt for failing to abide by a July 30, 2018 order entered
upon the agreement of the parties as well as the trial court’s subsequent bench
order entered on May 9, 2019.
While the stipulated order directed Appellant to comply with the
Borough’s ordinance prohibiting him from operating a junkyard in a C-2 Zone
in its commercial zoning district, the stipulated order also expressly required
Appellant to remove non-operational equipment, vehicles, and machinery
from the property. The trial court reiterated this mandate in its May 9, 2019
bench order and in multiple status conferences.
Thus, this Court does not have to determine if Appellant had violated a
particular zoning ordinance, such is not the issue before us. The issue is
whether Appellant was in contempt of the trial court’s July 30, 2018 stipulated
-2-
J-A05035-22
order, the terms of which were expressly drafted and agreed upon by the
parties, and the subsequent order of May 9, 2019.
The Majority’s decision to transfer the appeal to the Commonwealth
Court will substantially impede the resolution of a protracted course of
litigation. The trial court issued multiple orders and held numerous status
conferences to ensure Appellant’s compliance with the trial court’s directives.
Appellant, the Borough, and community residents who live near the property
deserve a final resolution, not further delay.
Substantial time has elapsed following the timelines involved in
perfecting an appeal, such as briefing schedule, assigning to a panel, oral
argument. Months have passed by. This appeal has been fully briefed by the
parties, argument court scheduled and concluded. To delay this further by
now transferring the appeal to Commonwealth Court is a breakdown in our
system of justice.
Moreover, this Court’s decision to review the trial court’s contempt
finding would not have disrupted the legislatively ordained division of labor
between the intermediate appellate courts and it would not have produced
two conflicting lines of authority on a particular subject. Newman, supra.Rather, retaining the appeal in this Court would resolve the issue of
contempt of Judge Munley’s orders in a timely manner and finally provide
justice to all involved.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
-3-