Reifsnyder, B. v. Dunlap, M.

J-S23005-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BRIAN E. REIFSNYDER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
MONICA E. DUNLAP
Appellee No. 66 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered December 20, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County
Domestic Relations at No: DR 17-00055
BEFORE: STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2022
Appellant, Brian E. Reifsnyder (“Husband”), appeals pro se1 from an
order dated December 20, 2021 that (1) declared an alimony order dated
April 7, 2021 retroactive to the months of February, March, and April 2021;
and (2) denied Husband’s petition for assessment and payment of
arrearages for the months of February through April of 2021. We affirm.
Appellee, Monica Dunlap (“Wife”), and Husband married on June 27,
1998. Their first child, A.R., was born in May 2005, and their second child,
E.R., was born in October 2010. On June 28, 2016, Husband filed a
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1Husband represented himself pro se throughout all proceedings in the court
of common pleas.
J-S23005-22
complaint in divorce and custody against Wife at FC-2016-146 (“the divorce
action”).
On November 30, 2017, the court in the divorce action ordered
Husband to pay $220.64 in monthly support/alimony pendente lite (“APL”)
plus $50.00 per month in arrears.
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, distributed sixty percent
of the marital property to Wife, distributed forty percent of the marital
property to Husband, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $928.00 per month
in alimony for a period of ten years. On March 24, 2020, the court entered a
divorce decree. Between March 24, 2020 and January 28, 2021, Husband
made monthly payments to Wife of $220.64 in APL plus $50.00 in arrears for
a total of $2,751.48.
Husband appealed to this Court from the March 24, 2020 divorce
decree. On December 9, 2020, this Court vacated the equitable distribution
order and remanded for further proceedings due to the court’s failure to
consider the effect of the Federal Tax Jobs and Cuts Act, P.L. 115-97, an act
passed at the end of 2017.
On remand, on January 28, 2021, following a hearing, the court
entered an order in the divorce action directing Husband to pay alimony of
-2-
J-S23005-22
$881.44 to Wife for ten years, commencing on March 24, 2020, the date of
the divorce decree.
On February 4, 2021, Husband filed a complaint against Wife seeking
child support at DR 17-00055 (“the support action”).
On February 5, 2021, the court suspended Husband’s APL payments
effective March 24, 2020 and credited Husband’s APL/arrears payments of
$2,751.48 after March 24, 2020 to the alimony ordered on January 28,
2021.
Husband filed a petition in the divorce action to modify or terminate
alimony. On March 18, 2021, the court convened a hearing on Husband’s
petition. On April 7, 2021, the court entered an order in the divorce action
denying Husband’s petition to modify. The court further ordered that Wife
owed monthly child support of $574.00 and Husband owed monthly alimony
of $881.44. The court held that these sums offset with Husband owing the
net amount of $307.44, “in full satisfaction of both obligations.” Order,
4/7/21. In an accompanying memorandum, the court rejected Husband’s
argument that his alimony payments should be reduced because his
earnings have decreased. The court reasoned that Husband voluntarily
abandoned a job with the Commonwealth paying $70,000.00 per year for
self-employment. Relinquishment of his job for the independence of self-
employment, the court continued, did not entitle Husband to reduce his
alimony payments. Memorandum, 4/7/21, at 2 (“even if Husband’s earnings
have decreased, his earning capacity has not”).
-3-
J-S23005-22
Beginning in March 2021, the Domestic Relations Section garnished
Mother’s wages due to her failure to pay child support and disbursed two
payments to Husband totaling $508.37.
Following the April 7, 2021 order, the parties litigated the amount of
Wife’s arrears in child support payments in the support action. On April 14,
2021, the court in the support action entered an order that Wife owed
$650.63 in arrears on child support payments. On June 9, 2021, the court
held a conference to determine Wife’s arrears in view of the April 7, 2021
order concerning the alimony offset. On June 10, 2021, the court entered
an order in the support action that Husband owes more to Wife in alimony
than child support paid by Wife between February 4, 2021 and April 7, 2021.
The order set Wife’s child support arrears at zero.
Husband filed a request for de novo review, and the issue of Wife’s
child support arrears was presented before the trial court at a hearing on
November 3, 2021. During the hearing, and again in his appellate brief,
Husband admitted that he failed to pay $307.44 to Wife in March 2021, the
offset between his alimony obligation and Wife’s support obligation.
On December 20, 2021, the court entered an order in the support
action making the April 7, 2021 order in the divorce action retroactive to the
months of February, March, and April 2021. The court also denied
Husband’s petition for arrearages against Wife.
-4-
J-S23005-22
On January 4, 2021, Husband filed a notice of appeal to this Court in
the support action. Both Husband and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Husband raises the following issues in this appeal:
1. Did the Court err by ruling that the Order of April 7, 2021, is
to be retroactive?
2. Did the Court err by not considering Collateral Estoppel and
Res Judicata as [Wife]’s attorney stated at a hearing on March
18, 2021, that he did not believe [Husband] owed money to
[Wife]?
3. Did the Court err in concluding that [Husband] owes [Wife]
more money in alimony than [Wife] owes [Husband] as
[Husband]’s credit described within the Order of February 5,
2021, is greater than alimony owed by [Husband]?
4. Did the Court err in concluding that [Husband] owes [Wife]
more money in alimony than [Wife] owes [Husband] as the
amount [Husband] owes [Wife] in alimony is less than the
amount of [Wife]’s arrears in child support as per the Order of
April 14, 2021?
5. Did the Court err in concluding that [Husband] owes [Wife]
more money in alimony than [Wife] owes [Husband] in child
support in that [Wife]’s exhibit shows [Husband]’s credit from
the Order of February 5, 2021?
Husband’s Brief at 3-4.
Husband first argues that the court erred by directing in its December
20, 2021 support order that the April 7, 2021 divorce order was retroactive
-5-
J-S23005-22
to the months of February, March and April 2021. We hold that this support
order was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion.2
Several facts will place the December 20, 2021 support order in
context. The January 28, 2021 divorce order provided that Husband owed
$881.44 per month in alimony. Consistent with this order, the April 7, 2021
divorce order provided that Husband owed Wife $881.44 in monthly alimony.
The April 7, 2021 order further directed that Wife owed Husband $574.00 in
monthly child support. The two amounts offset and made Husband
responsible for a net monthly payment of $307.44 to Wife.
The December 20, 2021 support order declared the April 7, 2021
divorce order retroactive to February 2021, thus applying the offset in the
April 7, 2021 order (Husband’s alimony obligation of $881.54 minus Wife’s
support obligation of $574.00) to the months of February, March, and April
2021. The court properly determined that each component of this formula
applies retroactively. The first component of the formula, Husband’s
monthly alimony obligation of $881.54, is retroactive to March 2020 under
____________________________________________
2 We apply an abuse of discretion standard to child support orders. J.P.D.
v. W.E.D., 114 A.3d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2015). Abuse of discretion is “not
merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is
overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown
by the evidence of record.” R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33, 37 (Pa. Super.
2013). We will reverse a trial court’s child support determination only
“where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground.” Id.-6-
J-S23005-22
the divorce court’s January 28, 2021 divorce order.3 The second
component, Wife’s support obligation of $574.00, is retroactive to February
2021, the date Husband filed his support complaint. See Pa.R.Civ.P.
1910.17(a) (“An order of support shall be effective from the date of the filing
of the complaint or petition for modification unless the order specifies
otherwise”). Accordingly, Husband’s first argument is devoid of merit.
In his second argument, Husband contends that Wife’s attorney
admitted during the March 18, 2021 hearing in the divorce action that
Husband did not owe any arrears. This statement, Husband claims,
constitutes a “judgment and ruling” that Husband did not owe any arrears
for February or March 2021. As a result, res judicata and collateral estoppel
barred the court in the support action from applying the April 7, 2021
divorce order retroactively to February through April of 2021, because the
determination that Husband owes alimony in these months conflicts with
Wife’s attorney’s admission that Husband does not owe arrears. Appellant’s
Brief at 11-13. We disagree.
Res judicata “holds that 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.” Khalil v. Travelers Indemnity
____________________________________________
3 As discussed below, the January 28, 2021 order in the divorce action was
binding on the court in the support action under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel.
-7-
J-S23005-22
Company of America, 273 A.3d 1211, 1223 (Pa. Super. 2022). Res
judicata “prohibits parties involved in prior, concluded litigation from
subsequently asserting claims in a later action that were raised, or could
have been raised, in the previous adjudication.” Id. Collateral estoppel
“operates to prevent a question of law or issue of fact which has once been
litigated and fully determined in a court of competent jurisdiction from being
re[-]litigated in a subsequent suit.” Vignola v. Vignola, 39 A.3d 390, 393
(Pa. Super. 2012).
These principles make clear that statements by an attorney during a
divorce hearing, such as Wife’s attorney’s statement that Husband did not
owe arrears, do not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in a
subsequent support action. While judgments have res judicata effect in a
subsequent case, Khalil, a mere statement by an attorney during a hearing,
such as Wife’s counsel’s statement on March 18, 2021, is not a “judgment.”
Husband’s characterization of Wife’s counsel’s statement as a “judgment” is
simply wrong. Similarly, while issues of law or fact that the court
conclusively decides have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent case,
Vignola, a mere statement by an attorney, such as Wife’s counsel’s
statement herein, does not constitute a decision by the court on any issue.4
____________________________________________
4 To illustrate the proper application of collateral estoppel principles, several
rulings in the divorce action have collateral estoppel effect in the support
action: (1) the decision on January 28, 2021 that Husband owes monthly
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-S23005-22
Thus, Husband’s claim that Wife’s counsel’s statement carries collateral
estoppel effect is incorrect.5
In his third and fifth arguments, which we review together, Husband
claims that the APL payments he made between March 2020 through
January 2021 totaling $2,275.48 nullify his obligation to make monthly
payments of $307.44 to Wife from February 2021 onward. In support of this
claim, Husband raises the same res judicata/collateral estoppel theory that
he asserted in his second argument above, i.e., since Wife’s counsel
admitted on March 18, 2021 that Husband did not have any arrears, res
judicata and collateral estoppel required the court to apply the $2,751.48 to
his alimony obligations from February 2021 onward. We disagree.
To begin with, as discussed above, Wife’s counsel’s statement on
March 18, 2021 does not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. In
addition, the record refutes Husband’s argument. In November 2017, the
divorce court ordered Husband to make monthly payments of $220.64 in
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
alimony of $881.44, (2) the decision on April 7, 2021 that Wife owes
monthly support of $574.00, and (3) the net effect of these decisions
requires Husband to make monthly payments of $307.44 to Wife.
5 We also observe in dicta that Husband appears to have misinterpreted
Wife’s counsel’s statement that Husband did not owe arrears. While the
record on this subject is not entirely clear, it appears that Wife’s counsel
meant that Husband satisfied his APL obligations between March 2020 and
January 2021. We do not think Wife’s counsel intended to suggest that
Husband did not owe alimony for the months of February through April of
2021.
-9-
J-S23005-22
APL plus $50.00 in arrears. Between March 24, 2020, the date of the
divorce decree, and January 28, 2021, Husband made monthly payments to
Wife of $220.64 in APL plus $50.00 in arrears for a total of $2,751.48. On
January 28, 2021, the divorce court ordered Husband to pay monthly
alimony of $881.44 from March 24, 2020. These facts demonstrate that
Husband’s APL payments of $2,751.48 between March 2020 and January
2021 operate as a credit against his alimony of $881.44 per month that
accrued during the same time period, March 2020 through January 2021.
The APL payments of $2,751.48 do not apply to alimony accruing from
February 2021 onward.
Finally, in his fourth argument, Husband contends that the court erred
by denying his petition for arrearages against Wife. We disagree. The
divorce court’s April 14, 2021 order stated that Wife owes $650.63 in
arrearages on child support. However, as Husband admits in his brief, he
failed to pay the offset amount of $307.44 in March 2021. In addition,
beginning in March 2021, the Domestic Relations section of the court
garnished $507.44 of Wife’s wages and paid this sum to Husband. These
two sums, $307.44 and $507.44, exceed the amount of Wife’s arrearages.
Thus, the court properly denied Husband’s petition for arrearages.
For these reasons, we affirm the court’s December 20, 2021 order
making the April 7, 2021 order retroactive to February 2021 and denying
Husband’s petition for arrearages.
- 10 -
J-S23005-22
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/30/2022
- 11 -