Montgomery, J. v. Montgomery, M. ( 2018 )

J-A13027-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JILLIAN M. MONTGOMERY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL R. MONTGOMERY :
:
Appellant : No. 1232 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 19, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 00181 DR 2015,
PACSES #956115253
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 29, 2018
Michael R. Montgomery (“Husband”) appeals from the Court of Common
Pleas of Mercer County’s Order dated July 19, 2017. Because Husband has
taken this appeal from a non-reviewable interlocutory order, we quash.
Given our disposition, we provide only the following relevant facts and
procedural history. On May 17, 2016, the trial court issued an Order in which
it ruled that any distributions made to Jillian M. Montgomery (“Wife”) as the
contingent beneficiary of a spendthrift trust constitute income for purposes of
child, but not spousal, support and rejected Husband’s argument to apply an
upward deviation for Wife based on the trust distributions. The trial court
remanded the matter to the Domestic Relations Office for recalculation of
Husband’s support obligation consistent with its decision. On May 23, 2016,
the trial court entered an Order adopting the Domestic Relations Officer’s
J-A13027-18
recalculation on remand of Husband’s child and spousal support obligations
and arrears.
Following Wife’s appeal of those Orders, this Court remanded this matter
to the trial court for, inter alia, a de novo hearing on the issue of the
characterization of Wife’s trust income as income for support purposes. See
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 880 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed May 15,
2017) (unpublished memorandum).
On remand, the trial court held a hearing as ordered by this Court, after
which it entered its July 19, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order. In its
Memorandum Opinion, the trial court affirmed its earlier decision that trust
distributions to Wife constitute income for purposes of child, but not spousal,
support. Memorandum Opinion, 7/19/17, at 1-2 (unpaginated). The court
also concluded that neither party has had a change in circumstances
warranting a deviation from the standard support guideline calculation. Id.
at 2 (unpaginated). Accordingly, the trial court remanded this matter “to the
Domestic Relations Conference Officer for a recalculation of [Husband’s] child
and spousal support obligations, consistent with this Opinion.” Order,
7/19/17.
The trial court docket contains no order entered following remand to the
Domestic Relations Office for recalculation of Husband’s support obligations
and arrears and Husband does not purport to appeal from such an order.
Accordingly, the July 19, 2017 Order is interlocutory and non-appealable.
-2-
J-A13027-18
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(a) provides that “an
appeal may be taken as of right from any final order[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). “A
final order is any order that[] disposes of all claims and of all parties.”
Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1).
The July 19, 2017 Order from which Husband appeals clearly
contemplates further action by the Domestic Relations Office to calculate
Husband’s child and spousal support obligations and arrears. As such, it is
not a final order. Accordingly, we quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/29/2018
-3-