Pennsylvania Court Affirms Order Requiring Fire Company to Turn Over Apparatus and Contempt Citation

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed two trial-court orders in a dispute between Tobyhanna Township and the Tobyhanna Township Volunteer Fire Company concerning ownership and control of fire apparatus, equipment, and firehouses following the fire company’s decision to withdraw from official service in the township.

The case arose after the Tobyhanna Township Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance on August 15, 2022 establishing oversight and regulatory provisions for fire protection within the township. Prior to the ordinance’s adoption, the volunteer fire company notified the township that it opposed the ordinance and that it would cease serving as an officially recognized fire company if the ordinance passed.

After the ordinance was enacted, the fire company removed itself from service within the township, though it continued responding to calls outside the township on a mutual-aid basis. The township thereafter instructed Monroe County not to dispatch the company to incidents within township boundaries.

At the time, the fire company occupied two township-owned firehouses and possessed multiple fire vehicles and related equipment. Township officials asserted that the vehicles and equipment had been funded largely through township fire-tax revenue approved by referendum in 1985, as well as other public funding sources.

On August 24, 2022, the township filed a complaint in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas seeking injunctive relief. Among other things, the township requested an order preventing the fire company from responding to incidents within the township; requiring the fire company to transfer vehicles, titles, and equipment to the township; compelling a financial audit of the fire company; and directing the company to vacate the firehouses.

Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court entered an order in July 2023 granting relief in part. The court ordered the fire company to transfer titles and possession of all vehicles and equipment to the township, except for two Ford utility vehicles that the court found were not purchased with township tax funds. The court also ordered a financial audit and directed the company to vacate the township-owned firehouses within 30 days.

In its findings, the trial court concluded that the fire tax had been used not only for purchasing fire apparatus, but also to purchase firefighting equipment, and that township residents had funded “virtually all costs associated with operating a Fire Company,” including equipment affixed to the vehicles. The court imposed a constructive trust over the vehicles and equipment, finding that allowing the fire company to retain them after voluntarily withdrawing from service would result in unjust enrichment.

The fire company appealed that order. While the appeal was pending, the township filed a motion for contempt, alleging that the fire company violated the court’s order by stripping equipment from the vehicles before transferring them. Evidence presented at a subsequent hearing showed that firefighters removed hoses, breathing apparatuses, hydraulic tools, radios, and related hardware shortly after receiving notice of the court’s order. Testimony also indicated that firehouse video cameras were covered during the removal process.

In July 2024, the trial court found the fire company in civil contempt, concluding that the company had notice of the order, acted willfully, and violated the order without justification. As sanctions, the court ordered the return of the removed equipment and directed the fire company to pay $180,000 to the township to cover costs associated with reinstalling equipment and repairing damage to the vehicles.

The fire company appealed both the injunction order and the contempt sanctions. On January 2, 2026, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court in all respects. The appellate court rejected arguments that the equipment was not subject to transfer, that certain vehicles should have been excluded, and that the company’s nonprofit status prevented imposition of a constructive trust. The court also upheld the contempt finding, concluding that the trial court’s order was clear and unqualified, and that the evidence supported findings of willful and wrongful noncompliance.

Here is a copy of the decision: