N.P. v. K.C.P. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-A07003-19
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    N.P.                                      :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :         PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant             :
    :
    :
    v.                          :
    :
    :
    K.C.P.                                    :    No. 3386 EDA 2018
    Appeal from the Order Entered October 12, 2018
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
    No(s): 2010-33309
    BEFORE:      OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
    MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                               FILED APRIL 02, 2019
    Appellant, N.P. (hereinafter “Mother”), appeals from the order entered
    on October 12, 2018, which denied her exceptions to a temporary order of
    child support. We quash this appeal.
    Mother and K.C.P. (hereinafter “Father”) married in 1999 and separated
    in April 2011. The parties have two children together: K.K.P. (born in 1999)
    and J.N.P. (born in 2006). On October 11, 2013, Father was ordered to pay
    $296.26 per month in support for his two children.           Trial Court Order,
    10/11/13, at 1.     This order “was administratively changed, per order, on
    August 17, 2017, from two children to ‘one child only,’ due to the emancipation
    of the oldest child.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/18, at 1.
    On April 30, 2018, Father filed a pro se petition for modification of the
    child support order. Father’s petition requested the following relief:
    ____________________________________
    * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-A07003-19
    Please decrease or terminate order based on prolonged
    homelessness I can not continue to survive and pay support.
    Father’s Petition for Modification, 4/30/18, at 2.
    On June 19, 2018, the parties appeared for a hearing on Father’s
    modification petition.     On June 27, 2018, the hearing officer entered the
    following interim order:
    ORDER
    [Father] filed a petition to modify on April 30, 2018.
    Father participated by telephone.
    It is hereby ordered that [Father’s] financial obligation is set
    to a numerical value of zero effective April 30, 2018 because
    [Father] is unable to pay, has no known income or assets and
    there is no reasonable prospect that [Father] will be able to
    pay in the foreseeable future. Arrears are remitted without
    prejudice.
    Either parent is to provide medical insurance coverage if and
    when available at a reasonable cost. The parent who obtains
    medical coverage at a reasonable cost is to enroll the
    child(ren) in the coverage and provide a copy of the insurance
    card to the Domestic Relations Section. [Father] is to pay $0
    per month in cash medical support.
    The financial obligation is to be reviewed for further
    modification upon [Father] attaining employment income, or
    assets that are available to pay support. [Father] is ordered
    to immediately report to the Domestic Relations Section any
    changes in [his] employment, income or assets.              If
    incarcerated, [Father] must report to the Domestic Relations
    Section within one week of release from incarceration for
    further determination of ability to pay support.
    If it is determined that [Father] has committed fraud or
    otherwise materially misrepresented [his] income or arrears,
    and/or if [Father] fails to comply with any provision of this
    order, the prior order and arrears may be reinstated.
    -2-
    J-A07003-19
    Review in [Domestic Relations Office] in 90 days. Father to
    provide signed updated Physician’s Verification Form and
    status of Social Security claim.
    Hearing Officer Interim Order, 6/27/18, at 1 (some capitalization omitted).
    Mother filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer’s interim order and
    the trial court scheduled an October 11, 2018 oral argument on the
    exceptions.   See Mother’s Exceptions, 7/16/18, at 1-2; Trial Court Order,
    7/25/18, at 1-2. On October 12, 2018, the trial court entered the following
    memorandum and order:
    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    A review of the notes of testimony shows that the
    recommendation and order of the hearing officer is
    appropriate.
    As part of that order, the hearing officer ordered a “review in
    [the Domestic Relations Office] in 90 days.” Further, the
    hearing officer ordered “[F]ather to provide signed updated
    Physician Verification Form.”
    The [trial] court will address the above in the order it enters
    this date.
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2018, after a review of
    the record, the notes of testimony, [Mother’s] brief, and oral
    argument by [Mother’s] counsel, [Father] not filing a brief or
    appearing at oral argument, the following is ORDERED:
    1. [Mother’s] exceptions are DENIED.
    2. Domestic Relations Office is directed to forthwith conduct
    the review conference as ordered by the hearing officer’s
    order, the 90 day period having passed.
    -3-
    J-A07003-19
    3. [Father] has complied with the hearing officer’s order by
    sending to [the Domestic Relations Office] an updated
    Physician Verification Form signed by [Father’s] California
    treating physician on October 2, 2018, which form is in the
    [Domestic Relations Office] file and a copy of which the [trial
    court] gave to [Mother’s] counsel at the October 11, 2018
    oral argument.
    4. When [Father’s] spousal support complaint and [Mother’s]
    alimony pendente lite claim, contained within [Mother’s]
    recently filed divorce complaint, having together been
    certified as “complex,” are ready to be scheduled for a
    hearing before a support officer, it shall be scheduled before
    Support Hearing Officer[] Mindy A. Harris, Esquire, in that
    she has recently held a hearing on child support, the topic of
    these exceptions, and is familiar with this family.
    Trial Court Order, 10/12/18, at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted).
    On November 8, 2018, Mother filed a notice of appeal from the trial
    court’s October 12, 2018 order. We now quash this appeal.
    As we have explained, this Court is obligated to “first ascertain whether
    the [order appealed from] is properly appealable, because the question of
    appealability implicates the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt.” Commonwealth v.
    Borrero, 
    692 A.2d 158
    , 159 (Pa. Super. 1997). “The general rule is that,
    unless otherwise permitted by statute, only appeals from final orders are
    subject to appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Sartin, 
    708 A.2d 121
    , 122
    (Pa. Super. 1998). In relevant part, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
    341 defines a “final order” as any order that “disposes of all claims and of all
    parties.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1).
    We have held that, in the context of a child support award, the final,
    appealable order is the one that “dispos[es] of all claims as related to [the]
    -4-
    J-A07003-19
    award of child support.” Deasy v. Deasy, 
    730 A.2d 500
    , 502-503 (Pa. Super.
    1999). In the case at bar, however, the trial court’s October 12, 2018 order
    did not “dispos[e] of all claims as related to [the] award of child support.”
    See 
    id.
     As such, the order is interlocutory and unappealable.
    Here, although the hearing officer’s June 27, 2018 interim order granted
    Father’s modification petition and set Father’s child support obligation to zero
    dollars, the interim order specifically declared that Father’s child support
    obligation must be reviewed, in the Domestic Relations Office, in 90 days.
    Hearing Officer Interim Order, 6/27/18, at 1. The order further provided that
    Father must “provide signed updated Physician’s Verification Form and status
    of Social Security claim” at or before the office conference.     
    Id.
       The trial
    court’s October 12, 2018 order expressly incorporated the above provisions,
    declaring:    “Domestic Relations Office is directed to forthwith conduct the
    review conference as ordered by the hearing officer’s order, the 90 day period
    having passed.” Trial Court Order, 10/12/18, at 1.
    Thus, in essence, the hearing officer and trial court continued the
    proceedings on Father’s child support modification petition for 90 days and
    sent the case back to the conference officer, to hold an office conference and,
    there, consider Father’s “updated Physician’s Verification Form and status of
    Social Security claim.”1 Further, following the office conference, the case will,
    ____________________________________________
    1Mother’s claims on appeal highlight the fact that the trial court’s October 12,
    2018 order is interlocutory. Mother complains on appeal that the trial court
    -5-
    J-A07003-19
    again, proceed in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
    1910.12.2     See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12 (“Office Conference. Hearing. Record.
    Exceptions. Order”).
    The trial court’s October 12, 2018 order explicitly contemplates that
    there will be further proceedings on Father’s modification petition. Therefore,
    the order is not final. See also West v. West, 
    446 A.2d 1342
    , (Pa. Super.
    1982) (“‘interim order’ compelling [the husband] to pay [the wife] ‘$180 per
    week for support and maintenance until further order’” was not a final,
    appealable order because it “invite[d the husband] back into court”) (some
    internal capitalization and corrections omitted).
    ____________________________________________
    “erred in denying [Mother’s] exceptions since the hearing officer erred in
    relying on an unsigned Physician Verification Form.” Mother’s Brief at
    9 (emphasis added) (some capitalization omitted). Regardless of whether the
    hearing officer, in fact, relied upon Father’s unsigned Physician Verification
    Form in fashioning its interim order, one of the primary reasons the hearing
    officer and trial court ordered the proceedings continued was so that Father
    could “provide [a] signed updated Physician’s Verification Form” at the
    office conference. Hearing Officer Interim Order, 6/27/18, at 1 (emphasis
    added); see also Trial Court Order, 10/12/18, at 1-2; Trial Court Opinion,
    11/30/18, at 6 (the trial court declared that its October 12, 2018 order was
    “temporary in nature, in that by its very terms it is to be DRO reviewed within
    90 days to receive updated information”).
    2  In accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.10,
    Montgomery County has “certified to the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules
    Committee that support proceedings are conducted in accordance with” Rule
    1910.12. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Procedural Rules
    Committee, Judicial District Alternate Hearing Procedures, at 2 (found at
    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-5190/file-5591.pdf?cb=50cd2e).
    -6-
    J-A07003-19
    Further,    while    interlocutory      orders   are   appealable   in   certain
    circumstances, none of those circumstances apply to the case at bar. Our
    Supreme Court has explained:
    in addition to an appeal from final orders of the Court of
    Common Pleas, our rules provide the Superior Court with
    jurisdiction in the following situations: interlocutory appeals
    that may be taken as of right, Pa.R.A.P. 311; interlocutory
    appeals that may be taken by permission, Pa.R.A.P. [312];
    appeals that may be taken from a collateral order, Pa.R.A.P.
    313; and appeals that may be taken from certain distribution
    orders by the Orphans' Court Division, Pa.R.A.P. 342.
    Commonwealth v. Garcia, 
    43 A.3d 470
    , 478 n.7 (Pa. 2012) (internal
    quotations omitted), quoting McCutcheon v. Phila. Elec. Co., 
    788 A.2d 345
    ,
    349 n.6 (Pa. 2002).
    Here, the challenged order is not defined as appealable as of right (per
    Pa.R.A.P. 311), Mother did not ask for or receive permission to appeal the
    interlocutory order (per Pa.R.A.P. 312), and Mother has not provided this
    Court with any argument as to whether – or how – the order could satisfy the
    collateral order doctrine (per Pa.R.A.P. 313).3 Thus, since we do not have
    ____________________________________________
    3 The trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion declared that its October 12, 2018
    order was “temporary in nature, in that by its very terms it is to be DRO
    reviewed within 90 days to receive updated information.” Trial Court Opinion,
    11/30/18, at 6. The trial court, therefore, recommended that we quash
    Mother’s current appeal. 
    Id.
     We note that Mother did not address the trial
    court’s appealability concerns within her brief and Mother did not explain how
    the October 12, 2018 order could be considered final. See Mother’s Brief at
    1-21. In view of these circumstances, we distinguish this case from prior
    decisions such as Hrinkevich v. Hrinkevich, 
    676 A.2d 237
     (Pa. Super.
    1996). In Hrinkevich, the order under review designated specific obligations
    payable by husband as child support and spousal support. We held that we
    -7-
    J-A07003-19
    jurisdiction over this appeal, we are required to quash the appeal. See 42
    Pa.C.S.A. § 742.
    Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 4/2/19
    ____________________________________________
    enjoyed jurisdiction to review the portions of the order dealing with child
    support, notwithstanding the pending nature of certain matters pertaining to
    equitable distribution. Id. at 239. We distinguished child support obligations
    from spousal support obligations in light of then-recent amendments to our
    procedural rules, which permitted immediate review of child support orders
    despite ongoing litigation concerning economic matters. Id. The instant case
    involves an entirely different jurisdictional hurdle. It is not the pending nature
    of a divorce decree or other economic matters that bars review in this case.
    Instead, the order from which appeal has been taken expressly provides that
    it is temporary in nature and subject to further review. Hence, the order is
    not final and appealable because it does not resolve the parties’ child support
    claims, which are central to Mother’s objections.
    -8-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3386 EDA 2018

Filed Date: 4/2/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024