J.B.S. v. J.L.S., Jr. ( 2021 )

J-S10040-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.B.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
J.L.S., JR. : No. 1188 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered August 11, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Domestic Relations at
No(s): 00021 SA 2019,
PACSES No. 586117413
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JUNE 15, 2021
J.B.S. (Grandmother) appeals from the order entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of York County determining that J.L.S., Jr. (Grandfather) is not
obligated to pay child support to Grandmother for the benefit of his two
biological grandsons, J.T., Jr. (born 9/06) and S.S. (born 4/09) (collectively,
Children). We affirm.
I.
A.
The underlying facts of this case are as follows. In 2009, Grandfather’s
son, J.T., and Children’s mother, R.M., moved into the Grandmother’s and
Grandfather’s (the parties) home with Children. In 2010, J.T. was convicted
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10040-21
of third-degree murder involving the death of his former girlfriend’s eleven-
month-old child and was sentenced to a lengthy term of incarceration in
Maryland. R.M. left the parties’ home in 2010 and she has been arrested on
several occasions for drug-related offenses. R.M. does not have any contact
with Children.
On May 28, 2010, the parties filed a complaint seeking custody of
Children based on the inability of J.T. and R.M. to care for them. R.M. signed
a handwritten document assenting to the custody arrangement. On January
12, 2011, the parties were granted sole legal and physical custody of Children.
Although R.M. was ordered to make child support payments in 2012, no
payments were made.
Grandfather is employed at Florida Handling Systems as a service
manager and his annual net income is $90,000.00. Grandmother worked at
Wal-Mart for many years earning approximately $33,061.00 per year. She
has significant medical issues affecting her ability to work and walk and she
receives disability payments.
B.
On October 31, 2018, Grandfather filed a complaint in divorce and
initiated the instant custody action. The trial court issued an interim custody
order in December 2018 granting the parties shared legal custody,
Grandmother primary physical custody and Grandfather partial physical
-2-
J-S10040-21
custody of Children. This custody order was later amended by the parties to
implement a schedule of shared 50/50 physical custody of Children.
On April 15, 2019, the trial court, with The Honorable Amber Kraft
presiding, entered an order without a hearing granting Grandmother’s petition
seeking child support from Grandfather. Following a status conference in May
2019, the trial court rescinded the order and directed the parties to file briefs
regarding Grandfather’s child support obligation while they litigated equitable
distribution claims arising out of the divorce. On June 11, 2019, the trial court
ordered Grandfather to pay $64.60 bi-weekly in child support and $309.91
monthly in spousal support.
The parties sought de novo review and the trial court, with The
Honorable Kathleen J. Prendergast presiding, held hearings on the support
issue on November 25, 2019, and January 29, 2020. The trial court issued an
opinion and order on May 11, 2020, stating that it was “constrained by the
recent case [S.R.G. v. D.D.G., 224 A.3d 368, 369 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal
denied, 231 A.3d 772 (Pa. 2020)] to find that [Grandfather] is not liable to
[Grandmother] for child support.” (Trial Court Opinion, 5/11/20, at 13).1 On
____________________________________________
1 As discussed more fully infra, the S.R.G. Court addressed the obligation of
grandparents with regard to child support for their grandchildren and this
Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that grandfather did not have a
duty to provide child support payments to grandmother for the benefit of their
grandchild.
-3-
J-S10040-21
August 11, 2020, the trial court vacated any prior orders stating that
Grandfather was obligated to pay child support. This timely appeal followed.
II.
A.
Grandmother first contends the trial court’s ruling that Grandfather has
no child support obligation for Children violates the law of the law of case
doctrine because it is inconsistent with Judge Kraft’s April 15, 2019 order
stating that he is financially responsible,2 as well as being barred by the
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel involve the effect
of a prior decision on a future decision in the same or different cases.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a
final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction
will bar any future action on the same cause of action between the
parties and their privies. The doctrine therefore forbids further
litigation on all matters which might have been raised and decided
in the former suit, as well as those which were actually raised
therein. Similarly, [t]he doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue
preclusion prevents a question of law or an issue of fact that has
once been litigated and fully adjudicated in a court of competent
jurisdiction from being relitigated in a subsequent suit.
____________________________________________
2 “When evaluating a child 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 discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support
order. . . . 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.”
T.M.W. v. N.J.W., 227 A.3d 940, 944 (Pa. Super. 2020), appeal denied, 239
A.3d 1087 (Pa. 2020) (citation omitted).
-4-
J-S10040-21
While res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to bar
relitigation of claims or issues in a subsequent action that
were subject to a final judgment in a prior action, the law
of the case doctrine exists to prevent a party from
relitigating claims or issues that have been resolved
previously within the same action, either in a prior appeal
or by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction. Among rules that
comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand
for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution
of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the
matter; (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not
alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the
same appellate court; and (3) upon transfer of a matter between
trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court
may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided
by the transferor trial court.
All three doctrines are based upon similar policy
determinations, including the idea that a party should not get a
second bite at the apple when he or she had a full and fair
opportunity the first time.
Pollock v. Nat’l Football League, 171 A.3d 773, 781 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(citations omitted; emphases added).
Regarding Grandmother’s contention that the law of the case doctrine
prevents Grandfather from relitigating the child support claim, it is apparent
from the record that the initial child support orders entered by the trial court
were not final orders. These orders preceded the full substantive hearings on
the support issue held before Judge Prendergast in November 2019 and
January 2020. Because Judge Kraft issued no final determination on the
merits concerning Grandfather’s child support obligation, the law of the case
doctrine does not apply.
-5-
J-S10040-21
For the same reason, the denial of Grandmother’s request that
Grandfather be ordered to pay child support is not barred by res judicata or
collateral estoppel because there was no final order. Moreover, neither
doctrine is applicable because those doctrines bar relitigation of claims in a
subsequent action that were subject to a final judgment in a prior or
different action. In this case, no subsequent action is implicated because
Grandmother is challenging the trial court’s final child support order as
inconsistent with an earlier ruling by a different judge within the same action.
Because Judge Prendergast made the final judicial determination
regarding Grandfather’s child support obligation after consideration of the
parties’ testimony and pertinent legal authority, we conclude there was no
prior legal resolution in the case that was overruled by the final child support
order on August 11, 2020. Grandmother’s claim to the contrary merits no
relief.
B.
Grandmother next contends the trial court erred in interpreting S.R.G.,
supra as binding precedent where S.R.G. is readily distinguishable from this
case on its facts. She maintains that S.R.G. involved a grandfather who had
not assumed a parental role and was merely gratuitously providing for the
grandchild. In contrast, she claims, Grandfather took on a full parental role
with Children and pursued custody of them which made him responsible for
the associated support obligation.
-6-
J-S10040-21
Pennsylvania law is clear that the parents of a child have a duty to
support that child financially. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 4321(2). However, there is
no express statutory requirement imposing on a grandparent a duty to support
a grandchild. See S.R.G., supra at 370.
In S.R.G., the grandmother requested child support payments from
grandfather for the care of their daughter’s child. Before the parties’ divorced,
they sought and were awarded legal and primary physical custody of the child.
Child’s mother had a history of mental illness and was not capable of raising
the child. Child’s father had never been involved in the child’s life and was
serving a lengthy prison sentence. However, neither parents’ parental rights
to the child had been terminated or relinquished.
After grandmother relocated to Florida, grandfather exercised partial
physical custody of the child during summers and schools breaks and the
parties shared legal custody. This Court affirmed the trial court’s
determination that grandfather did not have a duty to provide child support
payments to grandmother for the benefit of the child. The Court found that
grandfather had not “become a full parent to the child, but rather gratuitously
assumed the burdens of custody” where both of the child’s biological parents
were unfit. Id. at 372. It further held that “[t]here is simply no statutory
authorization presently in Pennsylvania extending the duty of child support
between two third parties, where neither party has adopted the child, and the
natural parents have not had their parental rights terminated.” Id.
-7-
J-S10040-21
In this case, Grandfather testified that he did not legally adopt Children.
(See N.T. Hearing, 1/29/20, at 19-20). The parties identified Children as their
grandchildren when they registered for school and the state provides the
Children with health insurance. The record reflects that Grandfather did not
become a full parent to Children. Instead, Grandmother and Grandfather
attempted to fill the large parental void left by J.T., who remains incarcerated,
and R.M., who essentially abandoned her Children. Under these
circumstances and in light of this Court’s decision in S.R.G., we discern no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that Grandfather is not legally
obligated to pay child support to Grandmother.
Order affirmed.
Judge Murray joins the memorandum.
Judge McLaughlin concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 06/15/2021
-8-