R.L.P. v. R.F.M.

J-A32015-14
2015 PA Super 29R.L.P., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
R.F.M.,
Appellee No. 1540 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered October 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2010-06638
BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY OLSON, J.:FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2015
I agree with the learned Majority's conclusion that the substantive
provisions of the trial court's custody order should be affirmed. I also concur
in the Majority's assessment that the original transcribed version of the trial
court's order, with its attendant exchanges between the court and counsel,
is far too convoluted and confusing to comply with Rule 1915.10(b) of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. I write separately, however, as I am
unable to agree with the mandatory nature of the Majority's solution to the
present problem; to wit the Majority's holding that, "in order to be
sufficiently specific to be enforced, an order of custody must be entered as a
separate written order, or as a separate section of a written opinion"
designated under the heading of "Order." See Majority Opinion at 1-2 and 7
(emphasis added).
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A32015-14
As the Majority suggests, it is self-evident that, in many if not most
cases, the process of preparing a separate written order will provide the trial
court with an opportunity to organize its thoughts and coherently articulate
the intended terms of its adjudicatory directive. The format of an order is no
guarantee, however, that it will be sufficiently clear and specific to merit
enforcement, as Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b) requires. Moreover, nothing in our
procedural or appellate rules, or the relevant interpretive case law, dictates
the precise format of an appealable or enforceable order.1 Accordingly,
unlike my learned colleagues, I would conduct any inquiry under Rule
1915.10(b) on a case-by case basis and allow remand for confirmation or
clarification, as occurred in the present case, where an order does not meet
the "sufficiently specific" criteria of that provision.
____________________________________________
1
Our appellate rules provide that “no order of a court shall be appealable
until it has been entered upon the appropriate docket in the lower court,”
Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1), and that “[e]very order shall be set forth on a separate
document.” Pa.R.A.P. 301(b). In my view, so long as the transcribed notes
of testimony docketed as the trial court’s order are sufficiently clear and
specific to permit enforcement of the terms of the court’s custody directive,
then I believe that Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1) and (b) and Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b)
have been satisfied.
-2-