Johnson, M. v. Johnson, A., Jr.

J-A17008-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MIRIAM A. JOHNSON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ALBERT D. JOHNSON, JR., : No. 2311 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 01178N2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 07, 2019
Miriam A. Johnson, Mother, appeals from the trial court order sustaining
the preliminary objections of Albert D. Johnson, Jr., Father, and dismissing
her complaint. Father and Mother are natural parents of their adult daughter,
Jessica who, because of mental illness, continued to receive court ordered
support from Father after reaching the age of majority. The trial court issued
an order terminating support at Docket No. 0582 N 1997, on July 6, 2017,
which Mother did not appeal.1 In that order, the trial court concluded “[Mother]
has failed to prove that Jessica Gardner is unable to support herself, and has
thus failed to rebut the presumption of emancipation that arises as a
____________________________________________
1 Father later filed a petition for special relief seeking repayment for a credit
of overpaid support payments. The trial court denied his petition. Father’s
appeal of the denial is docketed at No. 3315 EDA 2018.
J-A17008-19
consequence of her reaching majority.” Order, Case No. 0582 N 1997,
7/06/17, at 17.
On August 31, 2017, Mother filed the instant action—a complaint for
support of Jessica. Father filed preliminary objections, which the trial court
sustained, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an action for support
of an emancipated adult. Mother appealed the dismissal, arguing that Jessica
is not an emancipated adult, and the court erred in denying her the
opportunity to present evidence to that extent. We affirm.
Mother raises three issues on appeal.
I. [Whether] the trial court err[ed] in finding Jessica
emancipated?
II. [Whether] the trial court err[ed in] granting the preliminary
objection regarding Jessica’s standing since she is an un[-
]emancipated adult[?]
III. [Whether] the trial court err[ed in] not permitting [Mother]
to present any new evidence as to Jessica’s un-emancipated
status?
Mother’s Brief, at 6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Our standard of review of an order of the trial court overruling or
granting preliminary objections is to determine whether the trial
court committed an error of law. When considering the
appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary objections, the
appellate court must apply the same standard as the trial court.
Perelman v. Perelman, 125 A.3d 1259, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
omitted).
Mother first argues that the trial court erred in finding that Jessica is an
emancipated adult. See Mother’s Brief, at 10 (“Did the Trial Court Err in
-2-
J-A17008-19
Finding Jessica is Emancipated?”). On July 6, 2017, the trial court issued an
order terminating support, which adjudicated Jessica an emancipated adult,
and which Mother did not appeal. Although Mother filed the instant complaint
for support as a new case, the trial court is bound by the prior adjudication.
See Florian v. Florian, 689 A.2d 968, 971-972 (Pa. Super. 1997) (“a party
may not attempt to relitigate matters adjudicated in the existing support
order”). Therefore, Mother’s present attempt to challenge the adjudication of
emancipation does not merit relief.
In her second issue, Mother challenges the trial court’s ruling that she
lacked standing to sue for support on behalf of Jessica. See Mother’s Brief
at 6, 11. However, we note that Mother’s brief fails to address standing, and
instead claims that she should have been permitted to present evidence of
Jessica’s health and work history with respect to the claim for support. See
id. at 11. This presents a substantial defect, which forecloses our ability to
review her claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring that each question to be
argued be supported by discussion and citation of pertinent authority); see
also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of
the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed
or dismissed.”). Accordingly, we find Mother’s second issue waived for failure
to develop an argument.
In her third issue, Mother claims that the trial court erred by not
permitting her to present evidence in support of her argument that Jessica is
an un-emancipated adult. See Mother’s Brief, at 12-13. Mother failed to raise
-3-
J-A17008-19
this issue in her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Consequently, it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Lord,
719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement
will be deemed waived”).
Even if Mother had preserved this issue, we agree with the trial court
that Pennsylvania law does not allow the issue of Jessica’s emancipation to be
subject to future review. Generally, a parent’s duty to support a child
terminates when the child reaches eighteen years of age or graduates high
school, whichever is later. See Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. Super.
2008). Therefore, there is a presumption that the parent’s duty of support
ends when the child becomes an adult. See id. This presumption is rebuttable
if it can be shown the child was disabled at the time she became an adult and
the disability prevents her from supporting herself. See id., at 409. However,
the presumption is not rebuttable when the child becomes disabled after
becoming an adult. See id., at 408.
Here, as the trial court notes, the record establishes that Jessica was
disabled at the time she became an adult, and received support for many
years pursuant to that finding. In 2017, though, the trial court found that
Jessica had not rebutted the presumption that Father was not liable for her
support. She was therefore emancipated, and found to be an adult for
purposes of support.
Mother did not appeal the finding of emancipation. As a result, the
conclusion that Jessica became an emancipated adult is unreviewable. See
-4-
J-A17008-19
Florian, 689 A.2d at 972. Further, any future changes in her ability to support
herself are now irrelevant; the presumption that Father does not owe her a
duty of support is now irrebuttable.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/7/19
-5-