1400 Main Holdings, LLC v. PA Human Relations Commission

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

1400 Main Holdings, LLC, :

AJH Management Company, :

and Shay Carelly, :

Petitioners :

:

v. : No. 155 C.D. 2024

:

Pennsylvania Human Relations : Submitted: October 8, 2024

Commission, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 6, 2024

1400 Main Holdings, LLC (Main Holdings), AJH Management Company

(AJH), and Shay Carelly (Carelly) (collectively, Petitioners) petition for review of the

January 22, 2024 Final Order of the Pennsylvania Humans Relations Commission

(Commission). The Commission’s order (1) awarded $60,000.00 in compensatory

damages for embarrassment and humiliation, and (2) imposed a civil penalty of

$7,000.00, both commensurate with the Commission’s finding that Petitioners failed

to reasonably accommodate the disability of April Crenney (Crenney), a tenant in an

apartment building owned by AJH and managed by Carelly, in violation of Section 5(a)

of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).1 In this Court, Petitioners argue

that both the damages award and civil penalty are unsupported by the record, violative

of the purposes of the PHRA, and excessive.

Upon review, we vacate, in part, and remand to the Commission for

further proceedings.

1

Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 955(a).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We summarize the Commission’s pertinent findings as follows.

Beginning in July 2021, Crenney and her husband leased an apartment from Main

Holdings in an apartment building owned by AJH and managed by Carelly (Property).

(Commission Findings of Fact (FOF) 1-3.) The terms of Crenney’s lease required that

she obtain permission prior to making any changes to the apartment and, upon

termination, pay to have it restored to its original condition. Id., 5-6. On September 1,

2021, Crenney emailed Carelly, explaining that she had numerous disabilities2 and was

concerned that only one handicap-accessible parking space was located near her

apartment. Crenney requested that another space be converted to being handicap-

accessible or that she be assigned a specific space. Id., 7-8. Carelly responded that a

space could not be assigned, but she nevertheless would look into having another space

designated as handicap-accessible. Id., 10.

On September 21, 2021, Crenney emailed Carelly and requested

permission to install safety grab bars in the shower in her apartment. Carelly responded

that permanent grab bars were not permitted, but Crenney could purchase and install

suction-cup bars. Id., 11-12. On October 15, 2021, an attorney emailed Carelly on

Crenney’s behalf and advised that metal grab bars were necessary to meet Crenney’s

needs and that plastic grab bars were insufficient. Id., 13. Carelly responded the same

day that Petitioners’ position was not going to change. Id., 14.

On October 28, 2021, Crenney filed a complaint with the Commission,

alleging that Petitioners’ failure to accommodate her disabilities by providing another

parking space and permitting the installation of metal grab bars in the shower violated

2

Specifically, Crenney advised in the email that she suffers from a weakened immune system,

common variable immunodeficiency, and polyarthritis. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 240a.) She

further stated that she “is not a very good walker” and was “trying to avoid constantly needing a

motorized wheelchair and persevere as long as possible with [her] walker.” Id.

2

Section 5(h) of the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 955(h). A Permanent Hearing Examiner (Hearing

Examiner) held a public hearing on October 13, 2023, and thereafter issued findings of

fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition. Therein, the Hearing

Examiner recommended that Crenney’s parking claim under Section 5(h)(3.2) of the

PHRA, 43 P.S. § 955(h)(3.2),3 be dismissed, concluding that Crenney “failed to show

that the requested accommodation . . . was necessary to afford her an equal opportunity

to use and enjoy the dwelling.” (Conclusion of Law (COL) 10.) With regard to

Crenney’s claim under Section 5(h)(3.1)4 of the PHRA related to the requested grab

bars, the Hearing Examiner concluded that Crenney established a prima facie case of

unlawful discrimination. The Hearing Examiner further concluded that Petitioners did

not establish that the requested modification to the shower was unreasonable. (COL

14-17.)

The Hearing Examiner recommended an award of $60,000.00 in

compensatory damages for humiliation and embarrassment and the imposition of a civil

penalty in the amount of $7,000.00. On January 22, 2024, the Commission approved

the Hearing Examiner’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and opinion and ordered

that Petitioners (1) cease from any discriminatory conduct; (2) attend fair housing

3

Section 5(h)(3.2) of the PHRA prohibits any person from refusing “to make reasonable

accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when such accommodations may be

necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a housing accommodation.” 43

P.S. § 955(h)(3.2).

4

Section 5(h)(3.1) of the PHRA, in pertinent part, prohibits any person from refusing to

“permit, at the expense of a person with a handicap, reasonable modifications of existing premises

occupied . . . by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full

enjoyment of the premises[.]” 43 P.S. § 955(h)(3.1). Section 5(h)(3.1) goes on to qualify, however,

that, in the case of a rental, “a landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, grant permission for a

modification if the renter agrees to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed

before the modification, with reasonable wear and tear excepted.” Id.

3

training; (3) pay Crenney $60,000.00 in damages; and (4) pay to the Commonwealth a

civil penalty in the amount of $7,000.00.

Petitioners now seek review in this Court.

II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Petitioners do not challenge the Commission’s finding of unlawful

discrimination, but, rather, challenge the amounts of the Commission’s compensatory

damages award and civil penalty, arguing that both (1) are unsupported by substantial

evidence in the record, (2) fail to further the purposes of the PHRA, and (3) are

excessive.

III. DISCUSSION5

A. Relevant Law

Section 12(a) of PHRA requires that it “be construed liberally for the

accomplishment of the purposes thereof, and any law inconsistent with any provisions

hereof shall not apply.” 43 P.S. § 962(a); see also Chestnut Hill College v.

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 158 A.3d 251, 258 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2017) (PHRA should be construed liberally to accomplish its purposes). However, the

liberal construction mandate of PHRA only requires that we “adopt a construction

which, without doing violence to the language of the statute, best promotes the goal of

equal [opportunities].” Winn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 484 A.2d 392, 398 (Pa.

1984). Further, and generally,

when considering an agency’s interpretation of a statute that

it is charged with implementing and enforcing, we afford

substantial deference to that interpretation.

5

Our review of a Commission determination is limited to deciding whether it is in accordance

with the law, whether constitutional rights have been violated, and whether the Commission’s

findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Garner v. Pennsylvania Human

Relations Commission, 16 A.3d 1189, 1187 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

4

However, when an administrative agency’s interpretation is

inconsistent with the statute itself, or when the statute’s

meaning is unambiguous, such an administrative

interpretation carries little weight. Consequently, we must

give deference to the interpretation of the legislative intent of

a statute made by an administrative agency only where the

language of that statute is not explicit or ambiguous. A

statute is ambiguous or unclear if its language is subject to

two or more reasonable interpretations.

Harrisburg Area Community College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission,

245 A.3d 283, 296 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (internal citations, quotations, and editing

omitted).

With regard to remedies that the Commission may afford for unlawful

discrimination, Section 9(f)(1) of the PHRA provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(f)(1) If, upon all the evidence at the hearing, the

Commission shall find that a respondent has engaged in or is

engaging in any unlawful discriminatory practice as defined

in this act, the Commission shall state its findings of fact, and

shall issue and cause to be served on such respondent an

order requiring such respondent to cease and desist from

such unlawful discriminatory practice and to take such

affirmative action, including, but not limited to, . . . the

making of reasonable accommodations, or selling or leasing

specified housing accommodations or commercial property

upon such equal terms and conditions and with such equal

facilities, services and privileges or lending money, whether

or not secured by mortgage or otherwise for the acquisition,

construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of housing

accommodations or commercial property, . . . [and,] in those

cases alleging a violation of [S]ection[s] 5(d), (e) or (h) or

5.3[6] where the underlying complaint is a violation of

[S]ection[s] 5(h) or 5.3, the Commission may award actual

damages, including damages caused by humiliation and

embarrassment, as, in the judgment of the Commission, will

6

Added by the Act of December 16, 1986, P.L. 1626.

5

effectuate the purposes of this act, and including a

requirement for report of the manner of compliance.

43 P.S. § 959(f)(1). Damage awards under the PHRA serve a dual purpose: to

discourage discrimination and to restore the injured party to his or her pre-injury status.

McGlawn v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 891 A.2d 757, 774-75 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2005). “The goal of the PHRA is to make persons whole for injuries suffered

as a result of discrimination, and the Commission’s authority to fashion remedies is

entitled to great deference.” Canal Side Care Manor, LLC v. Pennsylvania Human

Relations Commission, 30 A.3d 568, 574-74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citation omitted). In

addition,

once a finding of discrimination is made, the decision as to

the appropriate amount of an award is extremely fact-

specific. Thus, evidence regarding both the nature of the

discriminatory conduct and the victim’s reaction thereto is

key. Further, we [have] explained that this Court will not

disturb a remedial order of the Commission unless it

constitutes a patent attempt to achieve ends that cannot fairly

be said to effectuate the policies of the PHRA.

Id. at 575 (internal citations, quotations, and bracketing removed).

B. Damages for Humiliation and Embarrassment

Petitioners first contend that the Commission’s compensatory damages

award is unsupported by record evidence, does not serve the purposes of the PHRA,

and is erroneously based on arbitrary and misapplied criteria borrowed from a 1999

Brooklyn Law Review article. Petitioners request that the award be either vacated in

its entirety or significantly reduced.

The PHRC may award damages for embarrassment and humiliation. 43

P.S. § 959(f)(1); McGlawn, 891 A.2d at 777; New Corey Creek Apartments, Inc. v.

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 865 A.2d 277, 282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

6

“In determining whether the evidence of emotional distress is sufficient to support an

award, we look at both the direct evidence of emotional distress and the circumstances

of the act that allegedly caused the distress.” McGlawn, 891 A.2d at 777 (citation

omitted). A complainant’s own testimony of embarrassment and humiliation can

suffice to support an award for compensatory damages. Girard Finance Co. v.

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 52 A.3d 523, 536 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

Neither this Court nor our Supreme Court has adopted a strict formula to

be used in the calculation of humiliation and embarrassment damages because, simply,

Section 9(f)(1) of the PHRA does not contain one. Rather, as stated above, our cases

require the Commission to make a fact-specific assessment of the nature of the

discriminatory conduct and the victim’s actual mental and physical reactions to that

conduct in fashioning an award that effectuates the purposes of the PHRA. 43 P.S. §

959(f)(1); New Corey Creek Apartments, 865 A.2d at 282-83. For example, in New

Corey Creek Apartments, a leasing company and its property manager were found to

have engaged in race discrimination in housing in violation of Section 5(h) of the

PHRA. The property manager in New Corey Creek Apartments repeatedly hurled

grossly offensive racial slurs at the complainant, who was African American, harassed

and made unfounded police reports about her family, refused to perform maintenance

work on the complainant’s apartment, and declined to renew her lease. 865 A.2d at

279-80. The Commission found in favor of the complainant and awarded, among other

relief, $25,000.00 in compensatory damages for humiliation and embarrassment. Id.

at 280. We upheld the award, finding that the Commission conducted an adequate,

fact-specific analysis that was supported by sufficient evidence in the record and did

not constitute a “patent attempt” by the Commission to achieve ends that did not

effectuate the purposes of the PHRA. Id. at 283.

7

Similarly, in McGlawn, the Commission concluded that the respondent, a

state-licensed mortgage broker, engaged in discriminatory “reverse redlining”

practices that had a disparate impact on African Americans and African American

neighborhoods. 891 A.2d at 773. The Commission awarded compensatory damages,

which included an award of $25,000.00 in emotional distress damages for humiliation

and embarrassment. We reiterated that, in determining whether an award of damages

for humiliation and embarrassment is supported by the record, “we look at both the

direct evidence of emotional distress and the circumstances of the act that allegedly

caused the distress.” Id. at 777. We reviewed the direct evidence of emotional distress

and its physical manifestations and noted that the Commission adequately reviewed

such evidence in fashioning its award. We accordingly upheld the emotional distress

portion of the Commission’s award, concluding that it was issued within the

Commission’s statutory authority. Id.7

More recently, in Canal Side Manor, LLC, we considered the propriety of

the Commission’s award of humiliation and embarrassment damages to a complainant

who was removed from a personal care home because she had human

immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In determining whether the Commission’s award was

supported by the record, we once again emphasized that the Commission was required

to make a fact-specific inquiry as to both the nature of the discriminatory conduct and

the victim’s reaction to it and render a damages award that effectuated the purposes of

the PHRA. 30 A.3d at 575. We reviewed at length the Commission’s detailed factual

analysis of the complainant’s direct testimony and concluded that the Commission’s

findings were supported by substantial and competent live testimony of the

7

We also vacated a portion of the Commission’s damages award not pertinent to our analysis

here. Id. at 779.

8

complainant and other witnesses, whom the Commission found to be credible. Id. at

576.

Here, in fashioning its damages award, the Commission considered five

factors that it commonly uses to assess emotional distress damages: (1) whether the

complainant suffered physical harm in addition to mental harm; (2) the nature of the

evidence describing the harm; (3) whether treatment for the injury was necessary; (4)

whether the discrimination was a single act or ongoing conduct; and (5) whether the

complainant was particularly susceptible to injury due to his or her personal history.

(R.R. at 582a.)8 The Commission reasoned as follows:

The Commission finds that factors 1, 2, and 4 weigh in favor

of awarding Crenney a significant amount for emotional

distress damages. Regarding physical harm, Crenney

testified that she has gotten some yeast infections under skin

flaps and on her breasts and these can be painful. For the

second factor[,] both Crenney and her husband testified how

the inability of Crenney to shower regularly has negatively

impacted their relationship. Crenney testified that her

husband has told her it is difficult to be attracted to her. She

further testified that[,] because of the inability to more

frequently shower[,] [] her husband does not want to cuddle

with her, let alone have sex with her. Crenney’s husband

testified there is not much intimacy between them[,] which

is a change from prior to the denial. Crenney’s husband also

testified about changes in [Crenney’s] behavior after the

modification request was denied. He testified that Crenney

began sleeping almost 20 hours per day and that she had

never exhibited that behavior in the time he had known her.

Finally, it[ is] undisputed that [Crenney] still did not have a

permanent grab bar at the time of the hearing almost two

years after filing the [c]omplaint. Crenney’s husband

testified that she still will not shower unless he is home. For

8

The factors appear to be borrowed from two 1993 fair housing adjudications issued by

administrative law judges within the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD). (R.R. at 607a-08a.)

9

these reasons, the Commission finds that $60,000.00 is an

appropriate amount in emotional distress damages.

Id. at 583a.

Petitioners first contend that the Commission incorrectly relied upon and

applied criteria first set forth in Evaluating Emotional Distress Damage Awards to

Promote Settlement of Employment Discrimination Claims in the Second Circuit, 65

Brooklyn L. Rev. 393, 428-52 (1999).9 Petitioners assert that the criteria are arbitrary

and, in any event, were misapplied by the Commission in this case. Petitioners further

argue that the damages award does not effectuate the purposes of the PHRA and should

be further reduced because Crenney did not attempt to use the suction cup grab bars

that Petitioners recommended.

First, nowhere in the Commission’s decision does it indicate that the

Commission strictly relied on any tier system from the Brooklyn Law Review article

or elsewhere. It is true that the Commission considered five criteria utilized in

analogous federal fair housing cases within HUD, but the Commission does not

reference the law review article or make any findings as to whether Crenney’s claim

fits within any “tier” of damages. We therefore render no opinion as to the validity or

9

The Commission cited, without expressly adopting, these factors in its decision in Cole v.

Todd Toms (PHRC, No. 202102052, filed September 18, 2023). (R.R. at 606a.) The Brooklyn Law

Review article discusses a framework pursuant to which damage claims are divided into “tiers” by

their severity, with each tier having its own range of recommended damages. Tier I, characterized as

“garden variety” emotional distress, has a range of damages from $5,000.00 to $35,000.00. Tier II,

which includes significant emotional distress supported by medical and/or witness testimony, has a

range of damages from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00. Tier III refers to the most egregious and

outrageous cases of discrimination with significant impacts on life supported by medical testimony.

Tier III emotional distress damages may exceed $100,000.00. (R.R. at 606a.)

10

applicability of the article because there simply is no evidence that it was applied in

this case.10

Second, although the criteria actually considered by the Commission are

not derived from our case law or the PHRA, they are legitimate to the extent that they

express in concrete terms the two factors we expressly have required the Commission

to consider, namely, (1) the nature and extent of the discriminatory conduct, and (2)

the direct evidence of its impact on the complainant. Thus, although we expressly do

not hold that the five criteria utilized by the Commission in this case are mandated by

either the PHRA or Pennsylvania courts, they fairly facilitated the Commission’s

analysis in this case and encompass both the nature and extent of the discriminatory

conduct and Crenney’s reaction to it. We therefore will not disturb the Commission’s

award based on its use of these criteria.

Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioners that the Commission’s findings,

particularly with regard to the nature of the discriminatory conduct, are in part

unsupported by the record. The Commission concluded under factor four that

Petitioners engaged in ongoing discriminatory conduct because they had not permitted

the installation of permanent grab bars in Crenney’s shower as of the date of the hearing

before the Commission. This was error.

10

We note, however, that the PHRA and our caselaw is clear regarding the analysis the

Commission must undertake in fashioning humiliation and embarrassment damage awards, and the

PHRA itself does not expressly authorize the Commission to adopt or utilize any specific set of

criteria or formula to mechanistically determine damage awards, particularly not ones conceived in

an academic law review article published 25 years ago.

11

Crenney first requested the installation of permanent grab bars by email

on Friday, September 17, 2021.11 (R.R. at 242a.) Carelly responded by email on

Tuesday, September 21, 2021, advising that permanent bars were not permitted, but

removable bars could be installed. Id. Two days later, on September 23, 2021, counsel

for Crenney sent a letter to Carelly requesting that Crenney be permitted to install grab

bars and threatening litigation if no response was received by October 1, 2021. Id. at

244a-45a, 250a. Carelly responded by letter on September 27, 2021, again offering to

permit installation of suction cup grab bars. Id. at 247a, 250a. After further exchanges

of communication between Carelly and counsel on October 15, 2021, Crenney filed

her complaint with the Commission on October 28, 2021. Id. at 249a, 252a. Protracted

litigation of Crenney’s claims continued until the Commission issued its Final Order

on January 22, 2024. The fact that Crenney’s claims were being litigated and that

Petitioners defended against them (successfully with regard to the requested parking

space) does not make Petitioners’ violation ongoing for almost two years. The

Commission’s finding in this regard, particularly in light of its acknowledgment that

Petitioners responded promptly to Crenney’s accommodation request, participated

fully in the proceedings before the Commission, and have no history of PHRA

violations, is unsupported by evidence in the record and erroneous as a matter of law.

We accordingly vacate the award and remand for reconsideration by the Commission.12

11

The Commission’s findings of fact 11 and 12 are incorrect. Crenney first emailed Carelly

to request the installation of grab bars on September 17, 2021, not September 21, 2021. (R.R. at

242a.) Carelly responded on September 21, 2021. Id.

Because we vacate the damages award on this ground, we do not consider Petitioners’ other

12

arguments.

12

C. Civil Penalty

Petitioners secondly argue that the Commission’s imposition of a civil

penalty in the amount of $7,000.00 is unsupported by the record because (1) the

discriminatory conduct was not ongoing, and (2) the Commission had no evidence

before it to assess Petitioners’ financial means. We agree and vacate the Commission’s

civil penalty.

Section 9(f)(2)(i) of the PHRA authorizes the Commission to impose a

civil penalty in housing discrimination cases:

(2) [The Commission’s] order may also assess a civil penalty

against the respondent in a complaint of discrimination filed

under [S]ection[s] 5(h) or 5.3[13] of this act:

(i) in an amount not exceeding ten thousand dollars

($10,000) if the respondent has not been adjudged to have

committed any prior discriminatory practice[.]

43 P.S. § 959(f)(2)(i).

In determining the propriety and amount of a civil penalty under Section

9(f)(2)(i), the Commission considered the following factors: (1) the nature and

circumstances of the violation; (2) the degree of culpability; (3) any history of prior

violations; (4) the financial circumstances of the respondent; (5) the goal of deterrence;

and (6) any other matters as justice may require. Id. at 584a.14 The Commission relied

on two facts to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $7,000.00: (1) permanent grab

bars had not been installed in Crenney’s shower two years after her initial request for

13

Section 5.3 of the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 955.3, prohibits certain unlawful discriminatory

practices in real estate sales and advertising.

14

The Commission again borrowed these factors from a 1993 decision rendered by an

administrative law judge within HUD.

13

them; and (2) Carelly’s testimony that Petitioners’ apartments are “somewhat high

end”:

Here, the evidence establishes that [Petitioners] acted in a

discriminatory manner when they refused to allow Crenney

to install permanent grab bars in her shower and that almost

two years later Crenney still did not have permanent grab

bars. While the exact financial circumstances of

[Petitioners] are unknown, Carelly testified that the

apartments are “somewhat high end.” The record also

establishes that there are 376 units at [the Property].

Id.

We again render no opinion with regard to whether the five factors utilized

by the Commission to impose a civil penalty should or must be applied in

discrimination cases. The purpose of the civil penalty is to deter future discrimination,

and, at least in this case, these factors fairly assessed the need to deter Petitioners from

future discriminatory conduct. However, we agree with Petitioners that the

Commission’s findings in this regard are unsupported in the record.

First, as we already have discussed, the Commission’s finding that

Petitioners’ discriminatory conduct was “ongoing” was erroneous and unsupported by

the record. Second, the Commission’s determination that Petitioners could readily

afford to pay a $7,000.00 penalty also is unsupported in the record. The Commission

relied exclusively on the “somewhat high end” status of the 376 apartments on the

Property to arrive at an amount for the penalty and had before it no financial evidence

supporting that determination. Although the Commission has considerable latitude in

fashioning a penalty, it nevertheless must be supported by substantial evidence in the

record. That is not the case here.

14

Because both of the findings on which the Commission relied to support

its civil penalty are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, we vacate the

penalty and remand for reconsideration by the Commission.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because the Commission’s findings as to its damage award for

humiliation and embarrassment are, in part, unsupported by substantial evidence in the

record, we vacate the award and remand for the Commission to issue, if warranted, a

new damage award in light of Petitioners’ single act of discriminatory conduct.

Further, because the Commission’s findings as to its imposition of a civil penalty also

are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, we vacate the penalty and

remand for the Commission to issue, if appropriate, a new civil penalty. On remand,

the Commission may make additional findings as necessary based on the record as it

currently exists.

__________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

15

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

1400 Main Holdings, LLC, :

AJH Management Company, :

and Shay Carelly, :

Petitioners :

:

v. : No. 155 C.D. 2024

:

Pennsylvania Human Relations :

Commission , :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2024, the January 22, 2024

order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is hereby VACATED, in

part, with regard to its award of compensatory damages and imposition of a civil

penalty, as set forth in the foregoing Opinion. The order otherwise is AFFIRMED.

This matter is REMANDED to the Commission for further proceedings consistent

with the directives in the foregoing Opinion.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

__________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge