Reifsnyder, B. v. Reifsnyder, M. ( 2020 )

J-A07018-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BRIAN E. REIFSNYDER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
MONICAL R.D. REIFSNYDER, N/K/A : No. 1250 MDA 2019
MONICA R. DUNLAP :
Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County Civil Division at No(s):
FC-2016-146
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2020
Appellant, Brian E. Reifsnyder (“Husband”), appeals from the July 3,
2019 Order entered in the Perry County Court of Common Pleas that, inter
alia, distributed the marital property and debt between Husband and Appellee,
Monica R.D. Reifsnyder, n/k/a Monica R. Dunlap (“Wife”), and ordered
Husband to pay Wife alimony for ten years. Upon review, we quash this appeal
because a final divorce decree has not been entered.
A detailed recitation of the underlying factual and procedural history is
unnecessary to our disposition. In sum, on June 28, 2016, Husband filed a
Complaint in Divorce and Custody. On October 5, 2018, after a hearing, the
Divorce Master filed a Report and Recommendations. Both Husband and Wife
filed Exceptions, and subsequently presented oral argument to the trial court.
On July 3, 2019, the trial court issued an Order that, in relevant part,
J-A07018-20
distributed sixty percent of the marital property to Wife, distributed forty
percent of the marital property to Husband, and ordered Husband to pay Wife
$928 per month in alimony for a period of ten years.
Husband appealed, prior to the entry of any final divorce decree. Both
Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
As an initial matter, we must determine if the July 3, 2019 Order is
appealable. “The question of the appealability of an order goes to the
jurisdiction of the Court requested to entertain the question.” Fried v. Fried,
501 A.2d 211, 212 (Pa. 1985). Generally, only final orders are appealable.
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (“A final order is any order that . . . disposes of all
claims and of all parties[.]”). In Fried, our Supreme Court held that issues in
divorce are reviewable after entry of the divorce decree and the resolution of
all economic issues. 501 A.2d at 215-216. See also Campbell v. Campbell,
516 A.2d 363, 365 (Pa. Super. 1986) (holding that a pre-divorce order of
equitable distribution is not a final order); Leister v. Leister, 684 A.2d 192,
195 (Pa. Super. 1996) (holding that a spousal support order entered during
the pendency of a companion divorce action is not appealable until all claims
connected with the divorce action are resolved).
Our review of the record reveals that Husband filed a Notice of Appeal
prior to the entry of the final divorce decree. To date, no final divorce decree
has been entered. We are, thus, without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal
and are compelled to quash.
Appeal quashed. Case stricken from argument list.
-2-
J-A07018-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 02/24/2020
-3-