Golden, J. v. Thayer, L. ( 2018 )

J-A01034-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JAMES J. GOLDEN II : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
LAURA S. THAYER : No. 1687 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Dated April 27, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): 2005-07191
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and PLATT*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2018
James J. Golden, II, (“Father”) appeals, pro se, from the order, entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, holding him in contempt
for violating the property settlement agreement (“PSA”), incorporated in the
divorce decree, entered into between him and Laura S. Thayer (“Mother”).
We affirm.
The parties are the parents of one minor child, S.G., born November
2004. When S.G. was in first grade, he was diagnosed with a learning
disability; by agreement of the parties, S.G. began attending AIM Academy in
Conshohocken in January 2013.1 From January 2013 through June 2016, the
parties each paid one-half of the AIM tuition cost, which included speech and
____________________________________________
1AIM Academy is a private preparatory school “for children in grades 1-12
with language-based learning disabilities such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, and
dyscalculia.” https://www.aimpa.org/ (last visited Mar. 1, 2018).
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01034-18
language therapy sessions billed by the school. In August 2016, weeks prior
to the start of the school year, Father informed Mother’s counsel he would no
longer contribute to private school tuition cost for S.G. Mother filed a petition
for contempt and special relief on August 12, 2016, and Father filed an answer
on September 1, 2016.2
The Honorable Patricia E. Coonahan held a hearing on March 22, 2017,
found Father in contempt3 and ordered Father to comply with the PSA by: (1)
paying his share of the AIM Academy tuition for the 2017-2018 school year
and all future years in which S.G. was enrolled at AIM Academy or other
agreed-upon school; (2) paying one-half of speech and language therapy
expenses billed by AIM Academy for 2016-2017 school year and all future
years in which S.G. is enrolled at AIM Academy or other agreed-upon school;
(3) reimbursing Mother for the speech and language expenses incurred during
the 2016-2017 school year ($2,400); and (4) paying Mother $600 for his one-
half share of summer tutoring expenses. The court awarded Mother counsel
fees in the amount of $4,642.50 based on Father’s obdurate, vexatious, and
dilatory conduct. See Order on Petition for Contempt, 4/27/17. The court
____________________________________________
2 Father did pay his share of the 2016-2017 AIM tuition, which he admitted
in his answer to Mother’s petition for contempt.
3 The parties’ PSA, dated July 25, 2007, provides, in relevant part:
7. Child Support. . . . If they agree that [S.H.] shall attend
private or parochial school, the parties will equally share the costs.
PSA, 7/5/07, at 4, 8.
-2-
J-A01034-18
also granted Mother’s petition for special relief, in which Mother requested an
order allowing her to enroll S.G. in psychological counseling and an award of
four (4) additional vacation days as make-up days to spend with S.G. in 2017.
See Order on Petition for Special Relief, 4/27/17.
Father appealed. On May 24, 2017, the court ordered Father to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors relied upon for appeal. Father
filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on June 6, 2017. On June 12, 2017, Mother
filed a motion to quash the appeal for Father’s failure to raise identifiable
issues. On July 12, 2017, in a per curiam order, this Court denied the motion
without prejudice to Mother’s right to raise the issue before this panel. As
Judge Coonahan notes in her opinion, Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement
consists of four pages, a cover page and three pages that restate the court’s
April 27, 2017 orders and summarily conclude that the court erred and abused
its discretion.4
Pursuant to Rule 1925(b)(4)(ii), the statement “shall concisely identify
each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient
detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii).
See Mahonski v. Engel, 145 A.3d 175, 180 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“The purpose
of Rule 1925 is to narrow the focus of an appeal to those issues which the
appellant wishes to raise on appeal.”). As Judge Coonahan points out, Father’s
____________________________________________
4 Interestingly, at the contempt hearing, Father testified that he supported
Mother’s choice of the school, and that Mother “honestly looks out for the best
interests of the child.” N.T. Contempt Hearing, 3/22/17, at 107.
-3-
J-A01034-18
statement is “merely a narrative and reiteration/recitation of the court’s April
27, 2017 orders” and it “fails to provide the court with any specific errors.”
Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/17. The court, therefore, was unable to respond in
a meaningful manner, and found the issues waived. We agree. Father has
failed to even minimally comply with Rule 1925(b). “Issues not included in
the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
[Rule] are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). See In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345,
350 (Pa. Super. 2013) (concise statement must be specific enough for trial
court to identify and address each issue appellant wishes to raise on appeal;
this Court may find waiver where concise statement is too vague). We,
therefore, affirm the court’s order. See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141,
149 (Pa. Super. 2006) (where appellant alleged only broad grievance that trial
court had erred, forcing court to guess which, if any, error it had committed,
appellant waived issue).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/20/18
-4-