Hvizdak v. Linn, 1012 WDA 2017
Decision Date | 18 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 1012 WDA 2017,1012 WDA 2017 |
Parties | Richard C. HVIZDAK, Appellant v. Douglas G. LINN, Esquire, Jennifer R. Linn, Esquire, Linn Law Group and Michelle M. Hvizdak, Appellees |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Richard C. Hvizdak, appellant, pro se.
Maureen K. Cosgrove, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Appellant, Richard C. Hvizdak ("Husband"), appeals pro se from an order sustaining the preliminary objections of Appellees, Douglas G. Linn, Esquire, Jennifer R. Linn, Esquire, Linn Law Group (collectively "Attorneys") and Michelle M. Hvizdak ("Wife") to Husband's third amended complaint and dismissing his civil action with prejudice.
This action arises from Husband's and Wife's bitter divorce proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County from 2007 to 2013. Attorneys represented Wife during the proceedings. Husband asserts, inter alia , that Wife's and Attorneys' conduct during the divorce case render them liable to Husband for violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as well as for abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings. The trial court held that Husband failed to state valid causes of action. We affirm.
Husband and Wife married in 1994 and had two children during the marriage. In 2007, they divorced, and trial court entered a temporary order of child support requiring Husband to pay $7,500 per month to Wife for the child support. The court also granted Wife exclusive possession of the marital residence.
In September 2007, Husband presented a petition for special relief claiming that a pre-marital agreement prohibited Wife from removing any of his personal property from the marital residence. On September 26, 2007, the trial court enjoined Husband and Wife from dissipating or removing the other's assets pending equitable distribution proceedings. In July 2008, Husband filed a petition for civil contempt against Wife for removing his items from the residence in violation of the September 26, 2007 order. On August 26, 2008, the court ordered Wife to return all items that did not belong to her or the children. On November 13, 2008, the court held that Wife had substantially complied with the August 26, 2008 order and continued the contempt petition to a later date.
On February 13, 2009, Husband filed a contempt petition against Attorneys alleging that Wife had violated the September 26, 2007 order at their direction. On February 27, 2009, the trial court denied Husband's petition, observing that the contempt matter was moot because Wife had complied with the August 26, 2008 order directing return of Husband's property. Husband appealed to this Court at No. 565 WDA 2009, which affirmed the order denying Husband's contempt petition against Attorneys.
The divorce proceedings reached their climax in late 2011 and early 2012 in a dispute over a global settlement agreement. We described these events in Wife's appeal at No. 37 WDA 2012:
Hvizdak v. Hvizdak , 2013 WL 11279596, at *1 (Pa. Super. Feb. 22, 2013) (appeal of Wife).
On January 6, 2012, Wife appealed to this Court. On February 22, 2013, we affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Trust agreements were solely for the children's benefit and stating, "Nothing in the record evinces the parties' intent to draft Trust documents clothing Mother with unfettered, unreviewable discretion to dissipate Trust assets without regard for the [c]hildren's benefit." Id. at *4. Wife did not file a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court.
On May 19, 2014, Husband filed a civil action against Wife and Attorneys in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County alleging that their conduct in the Butler County case rendered them liable for racketeering and common law torts. On May 27, 2014, Husband filed an amended complaint in the Allegheny County action.
According to Husband, in violation of court orders, Attorneys and Wife conspired to steal valuable personal property from the former marital residence in a burst of "pathological glee." First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 27–28. Husband also accused Wife of "allow[ing] un-housebroken pets to deface, urinate or defecate over sofas, chairs, carpets, and torn down draperies, all of this fomenting an ambience of fetid squalor inside the mansion." Id. at ¶ 29.
According to Husband, the judge presiding over the divorce proceedings was "vulnerable" to Attorneys' "influences" and grew a "malignant obsession with [Husband], developing [into] an immutable idee fixe ." Id. at ¶¶ 48–49. Attorneys "puppeteer[ed]" the judge into seizing Husband's passport, thus preventing Husband from traveling to England on business ventures. Id. at ¶ 79. In addition, Appellant claimed:
[Attorneys] concocted a sensational whispering campaign to circulate the stupendous lie that [Husband] enlisted members of the "Pagans" motorcycle gang to assassinate Butler County President Judge Thomas Doerr, Judge Kelly Streib and [Attorneys]. The Butler County forum became poisoned for [Husband] and [his] efforts to have law enforcement or the judiciary investigate the matter only engendered new enmities and rekindled suspicions.
Wife and Attorneys filed preliminary objections objecting to venue and asserting that Husband failed to state valid causes of action. On August 13, 2015, the Allegheny County court sustained the preliminary objection to venue and ordered Husband's action transferred to Butler County. Husband did not appeal this decision.
On December 21, 2015, Butler County President Judge Doerr assigned the case to the Honorable S. Michael Yeager. Husband wrote to Judge Doerr requesting that he "rescind" his case assignment order and disqualify the entire Butler County bench from hearing the case. On January 15, 2016, Judge Yeager recused himself. On January 25, 2016, the case was reassigned to Judge Marilyn J. Horan. On January 26, 2016, Husband filed a motion for recusal of Judge Doerr and the entire Butler County bench. On February 2, 2016, the motion was denied on the grounds that (1) the request with respect to Judge Doerr was untimely and thus moot, and (2) the individual judge assigned to the case alone could determine her own recusal.
On February 16, 2016, Husband filed another motion for recusal of the entire Butler County bench, including Judge Horan. Husband asserted that (1) false rumors had circulated during his divorce case that he had hired motorcycle gang members to assassinate Attorneys and local judges; (2) Husband requested the appointment of a grand jury to investigate the matter; (3) due to his request for a grand jury, President Judge Doerr recused himself; and (4) President Judge Doerr then denounced Husband in the media and threatened to sue him. Husband alleged that as a result of President Judge Doerr's animus against him, an appearance of impropriety would arise if any other member of the Butler County bench, including Judge Horan, presided over this case.
On March 2, 2016, Husband filed a motion for extraordinary relief in our Supreme Court seeking recusal and disqualification of the Butler County bench. On March 3, 2016, Judge Horan heard oral argument on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conway v. U.S. Bank, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-4916
... ... the Complaint by the [Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau] on April 27, 2017" and continues to run, and he contends he has a continuing relationship ... 60. ECF Doc. No. 6 at 3. 61. Id ... 62. Hvizdak v ... Linn , 190 A.3d 1213, 1228 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing Werner v ... ...
-
Gok v. Roman Catholic Church
... ... See Doe v. Mercy , 850 F.3d 545 (3d Cir. 2017). The Third Circuit vacated this Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's federal ... Hvizdak v. Linn , 190 A.3d 1213, 1229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). But Plaintiff has ... ...
-
Conway v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
... ... 24 On April 27, 2017, Ocwen entered a consent judgment with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's ... 66. ECF Doc. No. 27 92-96. 67. Id ... at 103-11. 68. Hvizdak v ... Linn , 190 A.3d 1213, 1228 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018) (citing Werner v ... ...
-
Commmonwealth v. Ynirio
... ... Green , 162 A.3d 509, 524 (Pa. Super. 2017). Theft of over $200.00 up to $2,000.00 is a first-degree misdemeanor, ... We regard these decisions as persuasive authority. See Hvizdak v. Linn , 190 A.3d 1213, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2018) ("we may rely on ... ...