Oliver, O. v. Oliver, S. ( 2014 )

J.A13042/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
OBIANUJU S. OLIVER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
STACEY L. OLIVER, :
: No. 2759 EDA 2013
Appellee :
Appeal from the Order Entered September 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Domestic Relations No(s).: 10-09243; PACSES No. 510111750
BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
) appeals pro se from the order
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas awarding her
spousal and child support.1 Wife contends that alimony should be awarded
to her based upon the Federal Poverty Guidelines for her household size of
two
1183(a), also known under Section 213A of the INA as form I-864. Wife has
also filed with this Court an application to file an amended brief and an
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
pro se in this
appeal.
J. A13042/14
on, accept the amended brief, and
affirm.
On May 21, 2012, the Master in Support entered a proposed order of
support which provided that Husband shall pay child support in the amount
of $768.31 per month and spousal support in the amount of $738.58 per
month, plus $50.00 monthly toward arrears.2 On September 6, 2013, the
trial court entered the following order:
Both parties present pro se. The court heard from both
exceptions are denied. The court heard from both parties
Proposed order entered as final support order.
Order, 9/6/13. This timely appeal followed.3 Wife filed a court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal and the trial
court filed a responsive opinion.
On October 28, 2013, this Court entered the following per curiam rule
to show cause order:
This appeal has been taken from the September 6,
2013 order in support. It is unclear if the spousal support
portion of this order is final and appealable. Generally, an
2
The facts are unnecessary for our disposition.
3
The support order was entered on September 6, 2013. The thirtieth day
thereafter was Sunday, October 6, 2013. See
notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2013 and was therefore timely. See
1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (providing that when last day of any period of time
referred to in any statute falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, such
day shall be omitted from computation).
-2-
J. A13042/14
appeal only lies from a final order. See Pa.R.A.P.
341(b)(1) (a final order is any order that disposes of all
claims and of all parties); Leister v. Leister, 684 A.2d
192 (Pa. Super. 1996) (. . . spousal support [is not]
appealable until all economic issues have been resolved);
Fried v. Fried, 501 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1985) (issues are
reviewable after entry of divorce decree and resolution of
all economic issues). Instantly, it is unclear if there has
been a divorce compliant [sic] filed. If a divorce compliant
[sic] has been filed, it is unclear if a divorce decree has
been entered and if all economic claims have been
resolved.
Accordingly, [Wife] is directed to show cause . . . as to
the appealability of the spousal support portion of the
order. . . .
Order, 10/28/13.
Wife filed a response to the order and argued that the spousal support
concerned that errors made in the trial court, if not corrected in the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania, would be made a final order during the divorce
proceedings. [Wife] is not aware of how long the divorce proceedings will
3, at 4
(unpaginated).
On November 4, 2013, this Court entered the following per curiam
order:
In accordance with the rule to show cause order dated
October 28, 2013 and in consideration of your response
that there are still outstanding economic issues to be
solely the issues
regarding child support will be referred to the panel
assigned to decide the merits of this appeal. . . .
-3-
J. A13042/14
Order, 11/4/13 (emphasis added).
Wife raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Is [Wife] entitled to retroactive Spousal Support starting
June 22, 2010? . . .
support obligations? . . .
3. Did the trial court erred [sic] by not revie
annual income[?]
4. Did the trial court erred [sic] by not ordering [Husband]
-864 Affidavit of Support
obligation affect Divorce Settlements? . . .
6. Did the trial court erred [sic] when Judge Peter Rodgers
denied same exceptions? . . .
-8.
As stated above, Wife also filed an application to amend her brief,
ed Brief contains only matters not being resolved at
The amended brief does not contain a statement of the questions involved
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
As a prefatory matter we consider whether Wife has waived the issue
See
-4-
J. A13042/14
rele Harris v. Toys "R" Us-
Penn, Inc., 880 A.2d 1270, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2005). This Court has stated:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must
materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P.
2101. . . . Although this Court is willing to liberally
construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a
legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume
that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.
In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some citations
omitted). An appellant abandons an issue by not addressing it in the
argument section of the brief. In re K.K., 957 A.2d 298, 303 (Pa. Super.
2008) (citing In re Jacobs, 936 A.2d 1156, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2007) (finding
issue waived because appellant did not address it in argument section of
appellate brief)).
Wife did not address the issue of child support in the argument section
of her brief, reply brief, or amended brief. Therefore, we find the issue
abandoned. See id.; Harris, 880 A.2d at 1279. This Court previously
notified Wife we will not hear any spousal support issue.
Order affirmed. Application to file amended brief granted and brief
accepted.
-5-
J. A13042/14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/16/2014
-6-