Grezak, G. v. Grezak, W. ( 2021 )

J-A13004-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
GRAZYNA SKLODOWSKA-GREZAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
WIESLAW GREZAK : No. 1884 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered September 1, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 5575 CV 2016,
No. 55750 CV 2016, No. 751 DR 2005
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 30, 2021
Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak (Wife) appeals pro se from the September
1, 2020 order that denied her “Motion for Contempt, Enforcement of Alimony
and Special Reliefs to Reconsider” that she filed on April 20, 2020. See Trial
Court Order, 9/1/2020. After review, we affirm.
In connection with Wife’s and Wieslaw Grezak’s (Husband) divorce, the
trial court ordered Husband to pay to Wife alimony of $500 per month for
twenty-four months. See Trial Court Order, 3/28/2019. Thereafter, Wife filed
numerous motions with the trial court, some of which concerned Husband’s
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13004-21
alleged failure to timely make the alimony payments.1 As a result, on
February 3, 2020, the trial court issued an order, which stated:
[Wife] shall provide the ABA routing number and account number
of her checking account to [Husband’s] attorney within three (3)
days from the date hereof. Once that information is provided,
[Husband] shall FORTHWITH deposit the sum of $2,000.00 into
[Wife’s] account representing alimony arrearages. All further
payments o[f] alimony shall be made by electronic wire from
[Husband] directly to [Wife’s] account.
Trial Court Order, 2/3/2020.
Then, on April 20, 2020, Wife filed the motion underlying this appeal,
claiming that Husband did not comply with the February 3, 2020 court order.
Specifically, Wife claimed Husband still owed her alimony for the month of
February 2020, and that he should be held in contempt because he deposited
some of the alimony payments by going to the bank in-person to make the
deposits rather than using a wire transfer. Husband responded to Wife’s
motion, denying her claims and a hearing ensued on August 31, 2020.
Husband provided evidence that he paid the first six payments by check that
were signed by Wife for deposit.2 The other payments were evidenced by
receipts showing that Husband delivered the payments directly to the bank
in-person. Despite Wife’s contention that Husband still owed her for the
____________________________________________
1 In reviewing the record in this matter, we are aware of an extensive number
of appeals that Wife has filed with this Court. In fact, Husband claims that
the present appeal is the ninth appeal Wife has filed with this Court. See
Husband’s brief at 7.
2The first of these payments was the check for $2,000 for the months of
November 2019 through February 2020.
-2-
J-A13004-21
February 2020 payment, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the
court informed Wife that the payment due for February 2020 was paid. The
court then issued the September 1, 2020 order, now on appeal, denying Wife’s
motion. Specifically, the court stated that “[d]uring the hearing [Husband]
introduced evidence corroborating the alimony payments in compliance with
our February 3, 2020 [o]rder. After reviewing [Wife’s] [m]otion and the
evidence presented at hearing, we determined that [Husband] was not in
contempt of court and we denied [Wife’s] [m]otion.” Trial Court’s Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) Statement.
On October 1, 2020, Wife filed her appeal to this Court, raising the
following issues for our review as stated verbatim in her brief:
1. Whether Husband has willfully failed to comply again after the
hearing with February 3, 2020 court’s order directing him to
make October 1, 2019 payment of alimony/support when
provided no documentation and created and preserved falsified
evidence using perjured testimony that he is not in contempt.
[consolidated with] Whether Husband should be charged with
willful contempt in the matter of alimony/support and Wife
should be awarded with all special reliefs she requested after
the date of November 1, 2020.
2. Whether no authority existed that permitting ongoing perjury,
false swearing, unsworn falsification to authorities, false
reports to law enforcement authorities of Husband when Wife
proceeded with due diligence.
3. Whether Husband has failed to comply with court’s order to
make the wire transfer of alimony/support to Wife’s bank’s
account. [consolidated with] Whether Husband should be
charged with willful contempt in the matter of alimony/support
and Wife should be awarded with all special relief she requested
after the date of November 1, 2019.
-3-
J-A13004-21
4. Whether Husband should be charged with willful contempt in
the matter of alimony/support and Wife should be awarded
with all special reliefs she requested after the date of November
1, 2020.
5. Whether alimony/support should be modified because of
material and substantial change of circumstances after the date
of November 1, 2020.
Wife’s brief at 4.
In reviewing contempt orders, we must consider that:
Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against
its process. The contempt power is essential to the
preservation of the court’s authority and prevents the
administration of justice from falling into disrepute.
When reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the
appellate court must place great reliance upon the
discretion of the trial judge. On appeal from a court’s
order holding a party in contempt of court, our scope
of review is very narrow. We are limited to
determining whether the trial court committed a clear
abuse of discretion.
Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
Barna v. Langendoerfer, 246 A.3d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. 2021).
Additionally, “[w]e are mindful that this Court defers to the credibility
determinations of the trial court with regard to the witnesses who appeared
before it, as that court has had the opportunity to observe their demeanor.”
Garr, 773 A.2d at 189 (citing Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160, 161 (Pa.
Super. 1999)).
Moreover,
[o]ur standard of review from an order denying a petition for civil
contempt is as follows. This Court will reverse a trial court’s order
denying a civil contempt petition only upon a showing that the
-4-
J-A13004-21
trial court misapplied the law or exercised its discretion in a
manner lacking reason. Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230, 1234
(Pa. Super. 2009) (citations omitted). In proceedings for civil
contempt of court, the general rule is that the burden of proof
rests with the complaining party to demonstrate that the
defendant is in noncompliance with a court order. Lachat v.
Hinchliffe, 769 A.2d 481, 489 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations
omitted). To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the
contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he is
alleged to have disobeyed; (2) the act constituting the
contemnor’s violation was volitional; and (3) the contemnor acted
with wrongful intent. Id.MacDougal v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890, 892 (Pa. Super. 2012).
The thrust of Wife’s first argument appears to rest on her allegations
that Husband failed to prove that he had paid the alimony due her and that
he falsely testified under oath and presented fake documents in an attempt to
prove that he was current with his alimony payments. This argument is simply
an attack on the court’s credibility determinations based on Husband’s
testimony and the documents he submitted into evidence. So long as the
record supports the court’s findings and recognizing that we defer to the
court’s credibility determinations, we are compelled to affirm the trial court’s
decision not to hold Husband in contempt.
The discussion contained in Wife’s brief relating to her second argument
merely states that “[t]his question is the matter of law and in pro se [a]ppeal
should be determined de novo.” Wife’s brief at 12. This statement is
insufficient to support Wife’s second argument. It fails to contain any
discussion or citation to authority as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Rather,
-5-
J-A13004-21
it appears that Wife is requesting that this Court make findings of fact and
credibility determinations, which is the duty of the trial court. Without
sufficient discussion and/or citation to authority, Wife has waived this issue.
Wife’s third argument concerns Husband’s failure to use wire transfers
to pay the monthly alimony to Wife. She fails to explain how she was harmed
by the direct deposits in contrast to wire transfers. Obviously, the trial court
concluded that Wife received the payments due regardless of the method of
payment. Thus, the court determined that Wife failed to prove Husband was
in contempt of the February 3, 2020 order. However, more importantly, Wife
appears to be arguing that Husband’s direct, in-person deposits of the alimony
payments were an attempt by Husband to “hide his income and assets.”
Wife’s brief at 14. Wife also asserts that Husband “willfully failed to report a
material change in circumstances of his higher income when he was ordered
to pay arrears….” Id. These assertions were not presented to the court below
and, therefore, we will not review them because they are waived. See
Jahanshahi v. Centura Development Co., Inc., 816 A.2d 1179, 1189 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (“Claims which have not been raised in the trial court may not
be raised for the first time on appeal.”). See also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues
not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.”).
Next, we note that Wife’s fourth issue is entirely omitted from the
argument section of her brief and, therefore, it is waived. As for Wife’s fifth
-6-
J-A13004-21
and final issue, she again contends that Husband failed to report a “much
higher income” and that the amount of alimony she is due should be increased
from $500.00 a month to $1,000.00 a month. Wife’s brief at 15. Again, these
assertions were not raised in the court below and cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. See Jahanshahi, 816 A.2d at 1189; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
For all the forgoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying
Wife’s motion for contempt.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/30/2021
-7-