Smith, S. v. Smith, J. ( 2014 )

J-A17037-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JEFFREY S. SMITH IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
SUZANNE K. SMITH
Appellee No. 2674 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered August 13, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Domestic Relations at No: C0048CV2011-10230
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 09, 2014
Appellant, Jeffrey S. Smith, appeals pro se from the August 13, 2013
order directing him to pay $1,325 per month in child support1 to Appellee,
____________________________________________
1
Our standard of review is as follows:
When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse
the trial court’s determination where the order cannot be
sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the
broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the
discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order.
An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in
reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law,
or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either
manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note
that the duty to support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose
of child support is to promote the child’s best interests.
Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768, 772 (Pa. Super. 2008).
J-A17037-14
Suzanne K. Smith. Also pending before this Court is Appellant’s Application
for Relief seeking modification of the trial court’s order based on the alleged
emancipation of the parties’ child. We affirm the trial court’s order and deny
Appellant’s Application for Relief.
In his brief, Appellant argues the trial court made improper use of
wage survey in assessing Appellant’s imputed income. According to the trial
court, the information in the wage survey comes from “the Center for
Workforce Information and Analysis (CWIA) Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/18/13, at 10-11. The
trial court assigned Appellant the income of an experienced sales
representative based on Appellant’s work history. The trial court imputed an
income because it found that Appellant willfully failed to obtain adequate
employment. The record supports that finding. N.T. Deposition, 5/21/13, at
61-65. We discern no error in the trial court’s decision to impute an income
to Appellant, nor do we discern any error in the trial court’s reliance on the
wage survey in support of the amount of imputed income.
In light of our review of the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, the
certified record, and the trial court opinion, we conclude that the trial court’s
opinion adequately addresses Appellant’s assertions of error. We therefore
-2-
J-A17037-14
affirm the August 13, 2013 order based on the analysis set forth in the
attached trial court’s well-reasoned opinion.2
We deny Appellant’s Application for Relief without prejudice. Appellant
may seek appropriate relief from the trial court.
Order affirmed. Application for Relief denied. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/9/2014
____________________________________________
2
The trial court found Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement to be
deficient and the court urges our affirmance on that basis alone.
Nonetheless, the trial court parsed Appellant’s 1925(b) statement for
discernible assertions of error, and it addressed those assertions on the
merits. As such, we affirm on the merits rather than quash the appeal for
failure to file a proper concise statement of errors.
We also decline Appellee’s invitation to quash this appeal based on
deficiencies in Appellant’s pro se brief. Appellee is correct in asserting that
Appellant’s brief fails to comply with many of the applicable Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The trial court’s opinion, however, provided an
adequate basis upon which we could assess the merits of this appeal.
-3-