Petit, N. v. Petit, M.

J-A12043-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

NANCY PETIT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

:

v. :

:

:

MICHEL PETIT : No. 1577 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 25, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at

No(s): 2016-00593,

PACSES; 821115830

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2024

Plaintiff/Appellant Nancy Petit (“Mother”) appeals from the May 25,

2023, order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

granting in part and denying in part her Motion for Reconsideration and

Modification of the trial court’s April 26, 2023, child support and Alimony

Pendente Lite (“APL”) order. For reasons that follow, we vacate and remand

with instructions that the trial court recalculate child support and reconsider

Father’s ability to satisfy a portion of his support arrearages in a lump sum

payment.

Appended to this decision is the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion

dated September 26, 2023, which sets forth a detailed and comprehensive

factual and procedural history, with references to the many evidentiary

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A12043-24

hearings held during the relevant period, such that we need only provide a

summary thereof. Mother and Defendant/Appellee Michel Petit (“Father”)

were married in 2001, separated in 2015, and divorced in 2019. They are the

biological parents of one minor child, born in 2013, who currently lives with

Mother and her maternal grandmother in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The

record established that Father has joint legal custody of his son, but he has

not seen or contacted him since 2018. N.T., 7/25/22, at 90-92.

Father is remarried and currently lives in Texas, where he is employed

as a sales representative for a fracking sand supplier, Smart Sand, Inc., a

publicly traded company doing business with oil and gas companies. From tax

years 2016 to 2021, Appellant’s earned income from Smart Sand fluctuated

from a low of $123,349.37 in 2021 to a high of $294,093.41 in 2019, with a

six-year average of approximately $196,790.00. N.T. at 46-48. In addition

to his regular W-2 earnings, Father’s compensation package included receipt

of non-qualified Smart Sand restricted stock, which was reflected in his regular

statement of earnings with income taxes withheld. N.T. at 107. As described,

infra, the stock was restricted when issued, but pursuant to restrictive

covenant agreement it became fully unrestricted within several years and was

then capable of liquidation by Father. Id.

Prior to Father’s employment with Smart Sand, he played 17 seasons—

from 1982 to 1998—as a professional hockey player in the National Hockey

League (“NHL”). N.T., 12/3/20, at 8. Injuries he sustained during his playing

years, however, made him eligible to file a workers’ compensation claim and

-2-

J-A12043-24

to join a class-action concussion lawsuit against the NHL. He had retired from

the NHL by the time he married Mother in 2001.

Since the birth of the parties’ minor son, Mother has been a stay-at-

home parent and serves as her son’s sole caregiver. N.T., 3/4/21, at 31.

Mother has not been employed in years, and she pays $1,500.00 in monthly

rent to live with her son in the lower level of her maternal grandmother’s

home. N.T., 7/25/22, at 188.

On March 11, 2016, Mother filed a complaint for child support and APL

against Father. On August 1, 2016, the parties appeared before a Hearing

Officer, who issued a recommended order requiring Father to pay child

support, APL, and the mortgage of the marital home for a total of $4,755.94

per month, effective March 11, 2016. TCO, 9/26/23, at 2. The Hearing Officer

also found Father’s income to be $9,326 per month and Mother’s income to

be $0. The Hearing Officer ordered Father to pay, inter alia, unreimbursed

medical expenses and medical insurance. Id.

On August 16, 2016, Father filed a counseled notice of demand for a

hearing de novo. On February 17, 2017, the trial court issued a Final Support

Order in which it imputed an annual earning capacity for Mother of $24,900.00

and, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, imputed a net monthly income of

$8,395.75 to Father based on his Smart Sand income. Id. The court set

Father’s child support obligation according to child support guidelines. Id. On

May 12, 2017, the trial court modified the support order in part upon

consideration of Father’s Amended Petition for Reconsideration. Id. at 3.

-3-

J-A12043-24

The current custody order was entered on December 11, 2018, based

on a Hearing Officer’s recommendation. Among other things, Mother was

awarded primary physical custody subject to Father’s supervised custodial

visit with child at scheduled intervals. Both parents were awarded joint legal

custody. On January 24, 2019, the parties entered into a property settlement

agreement, upon which the trial court entered its February 28, 2019, equitable

distribution order. The parties Divorce Decree was entered on April 2, 2019.

Id. at 4-5.

As catalogued in the trial court opinion, the ensuing five years have

involved numerous petitions for special relief and motions for modification of

child support. TCO at 5-8. Among the issues raised and addressed at the

corresponding proceedings were whether Father’s workers’ compensation

award, concussion settlement, and other assets may be considered income

imputed to Father if they were contemplated in the equitable distribution

property settlement agreement, and whether Father was liable to pay

retroactive child support for alleged misrepresentations about his income,

when the parties had stipulated to his income. TCO at 7.

After conducting several de novo hearings and considering the parties’

submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court issued its

decision and Final Support Order of January 13, 2023, in which it assessed

significant arrearages based on its finding that Father had misrepresented his

income at prior hearings. However, the court determined that it lacked any

basis upon which to seize property pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3703(2)

-4-

J-A12043-24

(permitting the “taking and seizure of goods and chattel” to pay arrearages)

and §4352(d.1) ( “overdue support obligations” may constitute a lien against

real property) and order Father to pay a lump sum towards his arrears because

it found Mother had not presented admissible evidence to establish the value

of Father’s assets which could be seized for such purposes. Once the value of

such assets is obtained, the trial court indicated, Mother may take further

enforcement action through Domestic Relations to satisfy the arrearages.

Mother filed a motion for reconsideration, to which the trial court

granted reconsideration in part and denied in part through its orders of April

26, 2023, and May 25, 2023, respectively. This timely appeal follows.

Mother presents the following three questions for this Court’s

consideration:

1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion

in computing Father’s income for purposes of awarding child

support where it failed to include Father’s workers’

compensation award, funds received from the NHL concussion

litigation settlement, and the proceeds from a 401(k)

withdrawal, where the record reveals that those funds were

pre-marital or post-marital assets that were not included in the

equitable distribution of the marital estate?

2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion

in failing to include in its child support calculations the value of

shares of stock in Father’s employer, Smart Sand, a publicly

owned company, where the record revealed that Father was

paid in stock in lieu of salary to reduce his income available for

child support?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, when, after finding that

Father had intentionally misrepresented his income and

willfully violated a non-disbursement order, it failed to award

Mother a lump-sum payment of child support and attorneys’

-5-

J-A12043-24

fees from Father’s $158,400 workers compensation award or

other assets but instead permitted Father to pay his $102,501

in child support, APL, and attorneys’ fees out over many years?

Brief for Appellant, at 15-16.

Our standard of review is as follows:

When evaluating a 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 the discretion or

insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of

discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a

conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the

judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly

unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,

discretion has been abused. 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.

M.E.W. v. W.L.W., 240 A.3d 626, 634 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation

omitted).

“[W]ith regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence,

this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the

proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand. When the

trial court sits as fact finder, the weight to be assigned the

testimony of the witnesses is within its exclusive province ... and

the court is free to choose to believe all, part, or none of the

evidence presented.” Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.

Super. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted),

appeal denied, 995 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2010).

Reich v. Reich, 315 A.3d 89 (Pa. Super. 2024).

After careful review of the record, party briefs, the applicable law, we

agree with the trial court that Mother’s first claim on appeal is without merit.

In reaching this conclusion, we rely on the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion,

which provides a thorough review of the first issue and determines it is without

merit. See TCO, 9/26/23, at 19-23 (Issue #5).

-6-

J-A12043-24

Specifically, the trial court correctly observed that the parties’ counseled

property settlement agreement of January 24, 2019, was reduced to writing

and formed the basis for the trial court’s equitable distribution order of

February 28, 2019. The equitable distribution order provided, inter alia, that

Mother receive the marital home valued at $699,000.00, after buying out

Father’s $50,000.00 interest therein, assume responsibility for the mortgage,

taxes, utilities, and other expenses, and receive 25% of the increase in the

value of Father’s NHL pension. To Father, the equitable distribution order

awarded him his full interest in the Sun Life Whole Insurance policy with

responsibility for the loan balance, and “all right, title and interest” to his then-

pending State of California worker’s compensation claim, to his NHL pension

as his sole and exclusive property, and to any settlement verdict, judgment

or other disposition of funds awarded in the then-pending NHL class action

concussion lawsuit.

Therefore, because Father’s interests in question formed part of the

consideration offered in the negotiations that led to an equitable distribution

agreement between the parties, the trial court properly deemed those

interests marital assets in its equitable distribution award and concluded,

therefore, that they could not also be considered sources of “income” for child

support purposes pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302 lest the trial court engage in

“double counting” of such assets. See Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520, 524 (Pa.

Super. 2019) (holding an asset awarded in equitable distribution may not be

included in an individual’s income for purposes of calculating support

-7-

J-A12043-24

payments). Because the trial court aptly identified controlling authority and

applied it to the present facts, we discern no basis on which to grant Mother

relief under her first claim.

In Mother’s second issue, she maintains the trial court erroneously failed

to impute to Father as income available for child support his employer’s stock

paid to him as compensation in lieu of cash wages.1 At the April 2022 child

support hearing, Father admitted he receives Smart Sand stock “every year”

as compensation, N.T., 4/28/22, at 63, 64. He explained that part of his gross

compensation in each of calendar year 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 typically

consisted of a payment of 2000 shares of Smart Sand stock, N.T. at 62. He

acknowledged the stocks were fully “restricted” at first but, by the time of the

April 2022 hearing, all were “unrestricted.” N.T. at 62, 64.

The trial court understood Father’s testimony to describe a stock option

compensation arrangement, whereby part of his compensation consisted of

stocks that vested incrementally over time, at which point he acquired the

right to exercise the option to buy or sell.2 The trial court determined,

____________________________________________

1 Father testified at the April 28, 2022, hearing that “in every year” Smart

Sand compensates him with a certain number of stocks, see infra, and he

explained that Smart Sand sells the portion of the stock to acquire proceeds

necessary to pay his withholding taxes and awards him the remaining 1,000

to 1,300 shares of the restricted stock, as net pay. N.T., 4/28/22, at 59, 64.

2 The trial court understood Father’s testimony to describe a “stock option”

compensation arrangement, whereby part of his compensation package

consisted of restricted stocks that became “unrestricted” or vested gradually

over a predetermined time known as a vesting period. To the extent the trial

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-8-

J-A12043-24

however, that Mother failed to produce evidence of either the stock options’

values at the time of the hearing or of Father’s ability to readily avail himself

of their cash values to address his support obligations. We disagree.

Father, himself, testified that Smart Sand stock was, at the time of the

April 2022 hearing, “trading at $3.00, and in those days [when he was initially

compensated with the stock] it was $18, $19, $20 a share.” N.T. at 65. To

this testimony, Mother’s counsel asked Father, “[D]o you agree it’s around

$3.86 a share currently?” Father replied, “Do I agree? I can look at it . . . or

____________________________________________

court understood the stock compensation award to confer to Father the option

to sell stock that had reached unrestricted status and to receive cash payment

equal to its then-current value, we concur with its understanding.

To the extent, however, that the trial court also concluded Father was required

to exercise an option to buy the stock already awarded to him as

compensation, see Trial Court “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,”

1/13/23, at p. 43, the record belies this conclusion. Documentary evidence

and Father’s testimony confirm the stock compensation arrangement between

Smart Sand and Father was a “Restricted Stock Award” governed by a

“Restrictive Covenant Agreement” in which the Smart Sand employee receives

an award of restricted stock that vests or becomes unrestricted in one-quarter

increments annually over four years. Under the terms of the Agreement, and

consistent with Father’s own testimony, all of Father’s stock received from

2016 to 2019 had become fully unrestricted and available to him to cash out

at his sole discretion—and without any further expense—by the time of the

2022 hearing, as Smart Sand already withheld income taxes applicable to the

stocks prior to awarding them to Father as compensation. See Restricted

Stock Award Agreement; N.T. at 59. The only option left for Father to exercise

was whether and when to sell his unrestricted stock to access its value.

-9-

J-A12043-24

I can say, yeah, I agree.” Id.3 He also admitted, after initially offering a

denial, that he had cashed out some of his Smart Sand stock in the past, N.T.

at 63.4

Regardless of the diminution in the stocks’ trading values over the

relevant period5, the record supports the conclusion that at the time of the

hearing Father possessed approximately 4,800 post-withholding, unrestricted

shares of company stock which, if sold at about $3.86 per share on the day of

his testimony, would have held a net value of $18,528.00 in the aggregate.

In MacKinley v. Messerschmidt, 814 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. 2002), this

Court held that vested stock options constitute income for child support

____________________________________________

3 Father testified at the April 28, 2022, hearing that the stock had lost much

of its value during the relevant time, but he did not deny Mother’s counsel’s

assertion during examination that the stock had a then-present value of $3.86

per share. He also admitted, after initially offering a denial, that he had

cashed out some of his Smart Sand stock in the past, N.T., 4/28/22, at 63,

and that all his stock has reached unrestricted status. Id.

4 The Restricted Stock Award Agreement further indicates that the four-year

phase-in scheme by which an employee stock becomes increasingly

unrestricted as long as one remains an employee is an incentive/award for

remaining in the employ of Smart Sand. Under this record, which establishes

that Father received this stock each year from 2016 through 2019, and

remained an employee of Smart Sand at the time of the most recent hearing

on April 10, 2023, it must be concluded that at the present time, all stocks

issued to Father prior to July 2020 are fully unrestricted under the Restricted

Stock Award Agreement’s four-year phase-in scheme, and any other stocks

awarded in the same manner in 2021, 2022, and 2023 are partially

unrestricted.

5 The trial court took note of Father’s tax returns showing he experienced a

net loss in the value of his stocks from 2016-2020, a fact that was

acknowledged by both parties during the April 2022 hearing.

- 10 -

J-A12043-24

purposes regardless of when a parent elects to exercise them. The dispositive

occasion in this context, MacKinley explains, is the moment a parent may

access a stock’s value, as the “dominant interest of a child’s immediate needs,

the recognition that children should not be made to wait for support, and the

possibility of a parent deferring income until they choose to avail themselves

of it” militate in favor of preventing such unilateral, voluntary, dilatory

parental conduct aimed at reducing child support obligations. Id. at 683. See

Hanrahan v. Bakker, 186 A.3d 958, 980 (Pa. 2018) (Applying policy

considerations identified in MacKinley to reverse an order that awarded high-

income parent a downward deviation in child support obligation after parent

made considerable contributions to a trust benefitting children; money

available to an obligor should be made available to children for their

immediate needs).

The same rationale applies here to support the conclusion that Father’s

employment compensation in the form of restricted shares of stock—a method

of compensation by which, Mother contends, Father sought to avoid child

support obligations—constituted income for child support purposes once the

shares became unrestricted and, thus, accessible to Father. Contrary to the

trial court’s opinion that Mother presented no evidence of the stocks’ value,

the record shows Mother established through both testimonial and

documentary evidence that Father’s Smart Sand stock awards had a

discernable present value readily accessible to Father to apply towards his

court-ordered obligations to his son. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court

- 11 -

J-A12043-24

erred in excluding Father’s Smart Sand stock awards from its income

calculations for purposes of setting Father’s support obligations.

Because adding the aggregate value of all Father’s unrestricted Smart

Sand stocks will increase his imputed income to some degree, we remand this

matter for proceedings wherein the trial court shall recalculate Father’s income

for purposes of determining Father’s child support and APL obligations.

Furthermore, in light of Father’s access to unrestricted shares of stock, the

trial court shall reconsider Mother’s third issue pertaining to Father’s ability to

pay a portion of his $117,432.76 arrearages in a lump sum. In making the

lump sum payment determination, the trial court shall consider not only the

availability of his unrestricted stocks but also the unrefuted evidence that

Father took no precautions for his son’s sake to account for predictable

fluctuations in his annual income by saving in high-income years and cashing

out his stocks when they began to vest at higher prices several years ago and

applying the proceeds to child support.

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with

this decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 8/21/2024

- 12 -

Circulated 07/30/2024 07:53 PM

TN, THE COU1tTOF:COMMON PLEAS ()FDELAWARE COUNTY;;PENNSYLANIA

FAMILY EiND JUVENILE

NANCY PETIT , SUPERlOR'CQURT No. , 1577 EDA.2:023

App'eltant

V. FACS.ES NO 82111'583A'

DOCKET NO. 2016-Q0593

MICHEL PETIT,

Appetlee IN SUPPORT

Virginia Hinrichs McMichael, Esquire;Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

Michel Petit, Pro :Se Defendant=Appellee

OPINION

KI:El1„J Filed: September 26, ".2023

L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Tn tlli5 C?piriion ,piirsuan"t to Pennsylvania Rule of A}ipcllate-pr6c6duie 1925(4);;the'tnai.

≥eour her„el yineorporate5;i sEineliiigs of Faet;and Con us ons of'Lavv-ancl final Support Ordex

issued on.January 1.3, 2023, its Reconsideration decis''lon issued on,Apri1.26,.2023 and its second

Reconsideration decision issued on May 25, ;2023. `l

he tmirt. attaches,fheselepiAons and orders'

to this Upiriion and relies.,vn them to: explain its rationale for its decisions:;

Below ,please fired the °court's analyses of the error'`s raised tx.PlaintiffNancy Petit's

"M.,

othbr" . Rule 1925 •.

b• Concise Statement ofErrors seriatim Fdr the rcasons stated:below,_the

trial court, contends that.its,decisions fail to.constitute an abuse of discretion or:an.error of law

and,respectfully requests that its decisions be affirmed.

II. PROCEDURAL: HISTORY

the trial court'heretiy reproduces its Procedural' F-listory ,within its Findings of Fact.as.

contained' ! its January 13, 2023 Finding's of Fact and Conclusions .

of Law at-pp, J-1.3 (",January

°1:3,;2023 Decision"):;

Plaintiff N4ncyN it"(`Mothe ' tit'V•ife".)'and Defendani•Michel Petit

(".Father" or "Husband')' are the biological parents of the minor child, B:P.,

,

DOB 2/22/13 ("child";or "minor child".):

Plaintiff."Nancy Petit i nitial] " filed heir. complaints for child support- and

;alimony . pendente life-('`APL"), on March- 1'l, 2U'1`6.'Domestic Relations'Case

Noteleport, 3/17/16=at 56,

The parties appeared before Hearing;Q£ficerpohnelly on August 1,1016 who

issued a- recommended-, order requiring Defendant Michel Petitto pay child

support; APL:.and the-mortgage on the marital home for atotal of $4,755:94

per,month, the effective.date of the-order:was March_l 1, 2016. Domestic

;Relations IDocket:History Report at 25

The „Hearing Officer'aI

, 66"found Defendant s''i'ncome to be $9;32 per month.

and Plaintiff s zero. Her'Order included appartionnient of unre, bursed

medical expen' ses,..various credits' gitd tbAt :Defendant was 4aprovide medical.

'irisu'rance '

Icl..

;On August r6,"2016; Defendant filed -a-notice 'ofdemai id for hearing de novo

through, his c ounsels- Frank urso;_Esquire. Domestic Relatibos:IDocket Histi ry

Report at 24.

On Febru " __ 17. 2917;HonoraEile bomenic Pileggi issued' a"Fina1'Support;

.Order, utter taking this matter under advise ncht on December 12, 20. 16.

Exlubit'P= 15j10 1 ound the t '

ollowirig:::

a:, .11e:mputec an earning capacity ' forMother d 14;900 forua net

monthl .y

tParti'es•aree•

r

g that Father's

: 1•794AZ•Id>;at

employment, at that tithe; ;yielded anet

monthly income of $8,395.75 The parties also stipulated'that Father

worked in'sales for"Smart'Sand, Inc Id. atI,110

c„ Pursuant to child support- guidelines ifs,effect at the" time, Judge

Pileggi found-that: basic child support for one chiIdwith, anet

monthly household incorrie of $10,189:77 is $°1,410.0,0'.per month:

Father's share-4the.net.morithly household income vas 82% while

Mother's. was 18% As aresult,.,Bather's basic,monthly child support

obligation was $1,1.56. 20.',-Id,,at 7, ¶211.

'fudge Pilegga fiirther analyzed Niother's.request for an upward;

custody deviation and found n, ,her'favor in light of Father's failure

to avail himself of court-ordered "parents ' gtithe.. He awarded a10

uI'w ard̀custody deviatioh' in the amount of,, Sl:l 5.62. Id ," at -8, x(29'.

e. ;Next; JudgePileggi tackled daycare expenses as =required when

imputing, income. l=le' found that Mother's yearly imputed cost of -

;

dayeare at $250 perweek would'8be`$13,000

2% annually or`$1,083.33

per month. As Father's-share is., his responsibility would be

$888.33.permonth. Id: at 1:0-11,130.

f judge Pileggi then. found.that Father' shealth - insurance cosfs'were

268,66 per month. - Mother's share was 4 0$/u, :or $48;36, which

Judge Pileggi subtracted : from Father's support obligation:ld at 1`l,

'•31,.

g.. He'thtt `calculated Mothe6 alimony pendenfe i* away"d as

1$1 ,

,.346-

.9 8_Id: at l, ,! ;:

li. He awarded Mother an upward mortgage devtati6n;,Based on the

parties' monthly mortgage, of.$2,011 ZT; ;in the arnount.of

I& ; at 1'1 12,'" 33 ,

Basedon.the above findings, `he concluded that Father' s:monthly,

alimony pendente, lite and; child support obligations towardsM- other

were $3,845':06 plus 10% on arrears, $3:84.00' per month; fora total

of $14;229:06. Icl, at 14-T6,`¶ 36;.

a: Last ;he ordered Wther`be responsible for the -first WO of

unreimbursed,medical`expenses for Mother, and.tninor child, the,

excess to be split 5,0/50;: He failed'to`meution`.any,award of extra-

curricular expenses. ld..at. 14-15; !n37-38.

Upan'consideratian Of Defendant's'•Amended !Petition`for Reconsideration;

Plaintiff's AAnswer thereto and ahearin gon May 12 201.7, Judge Pile9V

`modified his 1*ebruary 17, XV (Order in part: LLExhibit Y-7:: He tourid the,

following

a;. He,'affiraied his'prior decisian'to award an,upward ' usto''y

deviation of TON: Id. at 3;1, .2.j.

b; : He affirtiied his decision. to. award Mother reasonable 'mpufed;

childcare costs,;atthe previous amount awarded. Id. at 4, 1 3,

ee, He modifed the March 3.1,'2020 decision to reflectMather's

entitlement to acliild.and`tax dependent care credit in the ariiount

of$900 Id.,;

d.: °He affirmed Father•'s:agreed het monthly income as .$8,395 75. Id,

'at 4,115.

e.. ;Fie found that 'Mother's gross imputed yearly income at the same,

ainount,.$24,960' but deducted childcare taX credit, Medicare'and

Pennsylyania income tax and Social Security taxes to yield an

annual net income of '$23,284.29a with ,amonthly net of $ 1,940:36:

He found that Mosher had norfederal'tax liability: Id at 5-6,' 5;

°f Based on. hismodified;calculations`for Mother's income , , he'found

'that.net m6nt' hly;'total household income was $ 10;336`l ),, resulting

.ih.a monthly aw'ard.of$ l°,423.00 in child.:support.'fof,bne'child,

Father was. apportioned 81%0 of the net household income while.

Mather, " 19°,•o Idat6 ¶ 9:.

g. He found.tlie upward custody devr'afiori to be.$LI 00•per n6htfi.

Id. at 1; .¶ 10,

b Mother's childcare,.expenses were hot iiaodif ed_ but-Judge P,ildggi,

subtracted the $300 childcare fax credit, resulting in $ 1-2,10Q from

$13,000 as stated in the,.Fe>aruary Order, Id. at 8;'x,11 .The net.

monthly'.ch tdcare, was modified to be $1,083.33"per month. When.

multiplied,; y'81 %, Faiher's.sliare is 01: 4net per month..Id at=

¶'ll.

Based on ilie Court's 6odification:af Mother'0heome;-the Court-

adjusted ' the health insurance accordingly;

Her new,contribution`Was $ 5.1.05, to be subtracted froin lather's

support and APL obligatinn..Id at 8-4,"'11.

Similarly ;based on the.Court's modifcation'of'Motlrer's income;

ihe; Court' adjusted Mother's alimony pehdente lite award, resulting:

in Father's monthly alimony pendente lite obligation to be

$1 326:62. Id at 9i 10 `j11

iG. Again, based.on the Courtsmodification of Mother's"income,"the

Court ch'anged,thelnortgage deviation,ta

I COculating,the child support and alimony: pendente life awards

with"custody and imortgage'deviations' childcare expenses and'

health :insurance as stated" above,. the Court concluded that Father's

total"monthly otiligati6, li usive ofeh'ild supportannd,alimony,

pendente "lite rwas'$3,740'.29 plus- 10 in,arrears or $374-Q0, xd.,

,

Order at 1241,14;,

.'pi Unreimbuised'medical - expensesforbothMother and ;child

remained the. same: Mother was responsible for :the first $250, wish-,

parties splitting'inreimursed medical expenses. Id, O"rdcr at 12-

Mother filed aPetition to.Moi dify Support on or abotit :

August 6, 201;

8. Cast

Note Report at 39 Tte matter was heard before Hearing'Officer Bonner who'.

'took this matter;under"advisement, on. September 12; 2018. Domestic Relations,

`Docket at,15.

01J September 12, 2018,•at aproceedirig'on contempt before Honorable Ann

Osborne, the `Court asked -that- Domestic" Relations reAist the,,mattei• to review

medical documents submitted-" that marriiing. She Held'the.contemptproceeding

in'abeyance. Domestic Relations_ Docket at M.

,On Cetober l2, 2018," Hearing Officer Bonnet dismissed Mother''s-Petitfod%.

finding credible Father's testimony ,that " M- other ,

'had failed'`to present any

substantial change jw6reumstances, Domestic Relations Docket History

Report at 15.

'On.0 i,6ber 23 `201 & 'Mother filed aDemand for, Hearing rye no o; Domestic;

Relations -Docket History Report a'14.

The current°Custody Order liras ent' ' don Decemberll, 2018' Based -on<a

heanng pfficer's reco hftiendation. Mother `was awarded primary ,physical

custody''subject.to Father,"'s supervised custodial, visrtwith child every thxeej

months on aSaturday for'eight hours with at least seven days' notice,.to

Mother in Writing, Both'parents were awarded joint,legal`custody 7)25/22

hearing, Exhibit P-19:.

13; O iApril 8, 2019," Domestic Relations received a,copy of.the parties'"-Divorce;,

Decree;entered on,or about-A0rit,2,'2019. The equitable'distribution order

issued by -Honorable bomenic..Pileggi based. on an agreement entered on the ,

record on January 24, 201"9_ after both.parties "were subjected tia, afull

cplloquyI -Wps issued on Febmary' 28 i2019" E.O.Order; Case NotC:Report°at

-

14.. On August 7; 2019, Domestic Relatiioti's recWeti acopy 0 . parties' "P AVIV

stating that Mother rwas.to.receive `.`rehabilitative alimony effecta o February-

1'9; 2019 fo July 202% eighteen consecutive months. .Id: at 29.

15 ;After several-continuances, Judge Pileggi heard' other's de novoVpeal one

July'9, 2019. Upon request, on'July 11, 2019, Judge Pileggi ordered Motherts.,;

Motion to Compel and her de hoy6 appeal be hei in abeyance: He fuithet

,ordered that the matter could be re'listed upon request. Domestic Relations

'Docket _History.at 16.

M, 'Subsequently, Father filed•a Petittar , for Mo' dification'in 2019. 3,On September

23 ,

,, -

2020, Hearing Officer Bonnet dismissed his Petition for Modification

because Mcither's. de novo Appeal atld Motion W Compel.heard on` July

201,9 1were still pending. Docket History Report.at 29.

J7; On.October -29,'2020, Domestic Relations received.a request to. e'list the

Demand for Hearing De Noua held in abeyance by Judge Pileggi from July .:

2019: The:matter Was listed'before this Court on Uecember,.3,: 2020 laomesde

;Rela'tions ,Case Note Report at 23,

On December'3, 2020, this Court ,held tbe,de novo'appeal. nabeyance and

ordered thaf Defendant's..child support obligation'be offset:against his $ 3;000

'c,redit: The matter Was rescheduled for March 4' '202.1:.Docket History'Report

at ,0 _ .

l9: On Mardh 4, -20211 this Court. entered a `comprehenSi've-graduated interim

order, ordering the de, novo:appeal.to be held'in abeyance and'thatthis :matteir

be; specially.listed. The interim order provided:

a. On an interim basis; effectNe.rahuary ,1,: 2020; the C6 11 ordered.

child'support awarded for one'child at$1 ,239 per month plus $ 123 ,in

arrears. In addition, the ,Court ordered-that responsibility far

,unreimbursed medical expenses were to be split in the, fol lowing

way: `Father, 86%, Mother, 1'4 %: The, Court based this-fnding on

;Mother's net monthly income as $ 1,358.68 and:Father's as.$8,511

ft same, income from. Judge Pileggi's 2017 decisaons: :

After reviewing the record ,'th'e_Court noted that the Divorce Decree,and February28, 2019 equitable;

distribution.Order wcrcnot made part of the record,in this ,de:novo..appeal. The,Divorce.Decree was.

,docketed on April ,1019. The attached, final support Order shall order -re-opening of the. record and

submitting thcsc.documcnts which'are,part of the court:docket at the Delaware County Court:ofCommon,

Pleas'- to bc' inc"orporated'a's part ofthe Do'mes'tic. Relations docket:.As,the.Court wilkezplain aboyc,;this

'Orderas not only crucial to calculate Mother's alimonypendentelite'and-her alimony award,- the Ord' eris,

also ' crucial".to`address'parties'`arguments_about,the_iinclusion or.:excItision.of.various -settlements and the.,

proceeds of 'alife.insurance'policy..

Qn February 2R; 2019,,the Court, pert-ileggi, issued an Ordcr based on the equitable distribution

8

acxtens•nt by boothYp of

_• all partieds

Y .throe Bh counsel, placed on'the record on -January 24, 2019 after an

qu " As ,aresult;., the Court had. entered-an agreed order'snotapproved:a.

'Property settlement agrcement -or. PSA. The Domestic Relations, notation`therefore`appears in error.

sDomestic R.elations.Doc6t History,:fa is to indicate the filing date 4fhis Pehtton for Modi# cation. S`ee

pocket History Report at. l-1•,

'h. .

Effective 1(.T/ 19'-1731119, the Court ordered $,1;587 in,childsuppott'

and $2,734 in APL, fora otal of $4,32.1 per month. with $4321n'

amars.. The Court further found, that Plaintiff snet monthly income

was $ 1

X3.6.8; and Defendant '

snet monthly income was $12,579;

unrc mbursed. medical expenses ,

to be shared .

at. Defendant 90%;

'Plaintiff 10%.

l;"ffective 12!]`119=1219•T%]•9, base support .

for.one,child was

$1,586;and alimony` " $ 1;000, for total supp6it,of $ 2,587 with

,$258 yin arrears .The . Court further found Mother 'snet month income

to. be.S ,368:68;and Fat'her's to be $'12 ;579,50. Unreimbursed

medical expenses were to be split Father 90°fo,_ Mother 10%: The

Court ordered'Office of'Support Enforcerrient ("OSE") or th'e

Domestic Relations`Office. ("DRO') to provide Mother's receipts t o.

Defendant for unreimiursed medical expenses - and extra= curricular

activities for the years .

that she had fled: 201'8,'201,

9, and 2020

Defendant was to provide documentation of the $22,000 :be received

from the. NM-for hockey cards. Docket,History°Report.at,6-8,

On:April ,23; 1024 ,this. Court denied'- Plaintiff'

sMotion for, Reconsideration.of ,

i,ts Interim Orderwithout prejudice and scheduled'a'hearing for Thursda y,,.

May 13 ;2021 at` 1:30 p:m! Itfurther marked the hearing "Must: be Tried:"

Docket IIistory-°Rleport, at 4,

,21 On April 23, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff s'Pefition.for Production of

Documents, and denied Plaintiff'

sMotion fox Modification, of Child°Support

as anI

àppeal was pending.

22.• The ,

May.,: 13,,2021 hearing was continued until July.

21,,:2021:; In addition, on

June 28,,;2021, upon. consideration of Plairitiffs.Amended EmergencyPetition

far Speeial'.

Relief, the Court ordered that it beheard with the continued

hearing for Plainfifl'sRequest for. Discyvery and 'her'1Zeyuest for De, •'Vavo

'Hearing:

bn July22,'2021 the Court entered another interim order pending parties'

tul mission of additional d&umentAiofi ,- To account for receipt of his

workers'compensation award, the Court ordered Defendant to escrow

$50,000 for future child support by August 22, 2021.

24:, On ;October 25 ,20­21, '

the Court ordered Defendant to produce acopy' ofhit,

1040 income tax returns;and all accompanying .chedules and attachinents, -for-

tax years 2016 and 201 7,no later thanNovember 2, 202<1-. On.October, 29,

202,1, the Court issued apre-heannk conference order.

25i On November A,°2021 ,the Court issued another pre hearing order

summarizing the current posture of the, case and',outlining.the;outstanding

legal issues The''Court ordered that;pactie-s provide custody orders i-effect

between March 2016 and the present_ and proposed support guideline

calculations .

for calendar ;

years 2076 through the present' with two,calculations

for20L9, before and'af3er the- Divorce Decree,.utilizing figuresIfrom.

Defendant ' sincome tax returns.

26; The Court also insfrticfed Mother to,: pibvide guidelines detailing the

discrepancy between incomefigures previously provided to the Court and`the:

guidelines she believes are correct based on-the tax. retums..Documentswere;

to be exchanged no later than Novetber'] 7, 2021,'with.:a Microsoft Teams'

conference to, be held on November 23, 2021.

27,.; However; ihe'Court was unable to schedule the'hearing, as Court

Administration had not yef:releakd the coil tschedule for January to June

2022.

18: On, January 26,1022, , the Court issued asecond pre-hearing conference order

outlining matters discussed- at: thepre hearing conference on-January"! 2;2022..

This.order required,further exchange of documents; most'notably a,copy of.

4he"1040, tax.reWms with''signatures'or electronic.si gnatures'and 2021 W-2s

and .1099s. ,

29: The'Court also , ordered'that parties submit metnoranda'with points'and

authorities on -various points of law, including,whether the,.workers'

compensation award and concussion settlement- maybe, con. sidered income if

they were:part".of tfieequitabte distribution property settlement agreement

whether Mother may seek,retroactive child,support"and alimony pendente lite ,

from the date: of her 2016 :petitioiis if the Court. finds misrepresentation,by

Defendant, even if parties had stipulated to his, income; and•whether the :Court

may, stillconsider Mother's submissions for extra=curricular'and unreimbursed

medical. expenses from 2016 to present. The Court ordered parties to submit.

..evidence and argumentr'egarding any custody deviatk tis at the, upcoming

,hearing and:ordered-Mother:to°submit alist of her efforts to find ernployznent

-within the past six months no later than thirty days before the next hearing.

Last, the Court,order`ed that any efforts to escrow Defendant's workers'

'compensation' be held in abeyance until' further order of court.

30. Qn February- 9, 2022, theCourt issued'an Order to Appear for the fmA14e,

•novo support hearing -on. April 28,'2022.

31.. On February ',l Q, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for

Reconsideration. After reviewing responses from counsel, the'Courvissued an

Interim Order on March 8,'2022,. -lJpon consideration ofPlaintiffs outstanding,

discovery_°requests, Defendant's objections,, Plaintiffs Emergency Motion , for

Rec,onsideration,W4 her Emergency Motion for Contempt, the Court ordered;,

It:denied Plaintiffs Emergency,Petition:for Contempt-

:b:; It notedparties' submissions of points and authorities and also noted'

that it will entertain,arguments,,as well-as testimony;- and,

,

'introduction of evidenceat the, support bearing, on April 28; 2022:.

c: The Court granted in part'and denied inpart Plaintiff's request for,

reconsideration, The Court required"Father'to;sign authorizations for,

his tax-returns for tax years 2016-2020; along with.schedules and

'documents attached,:i.e:, W=2's and 1Q99's..Defendant-was;.also

requiredto:provide the same for his=2021 tax_return. Plaintiff was

directed to -'

file a;.motion to'=compel;

32. On'March 1.8, 2022; parties On , feeO into astipulation in whichaheyagreed

that"the _March '4, 202.1 , Interim Urder inadvertentlyexcluded"Defendant's.

alimony obligation of $"1,000 per.month, °to be"pai"d from January 2020

through July 202d,;consistent With-the paities "February 28, 2019'equitable

distribution order."They agreed'thatthe amount due in 2020 shallbe increased-'

by $ 7,000 to account for this inadvertent ,erioz:

:33. On April 28,,2'022 the Court convened the hearing de novo and was:unableto

complete the hearing after almosta full trial day 'as the`Court.had anot}ier

.matter scheduled at Since

end of the day." Defendant-was in themdst:of

testifying`in:Plaintiff's case "`as on-,cross,," the Court issued an'`Order holding

-therecord open to complete the,hearing and to submit updated :guidelines to

be-introduced- as D4. and P-14. Last;the Court ordered that`Fathe'r was

`prohibited from, cominunicatingwith counsel, about`his testimony until

completion of his testimony "as oncr`oss,.

34. On.May:16, 2022, the Court issued a"third pre-hearing 'order. ,The matter`vvas.

scheduled for August 5" at 9:304m ,and.allotted:five hours-for the be

The lengthy' continuance was given:to allow Plaintiff's counsel to obtain

copies of Defendant's' tax returns from, the I

RS, `

arid" to accommodate,parties'?'

and.counsels' schedules. The"-Court closed discovery as"of April 28,2022,

for"the abovemen i.oned tax returns, and issued further" pre-hearing

except ,

instructions.

:35 On June 16 2022, due to the unavailability of one bf the counsel or paitie's,

the Court rescheduled,the support`heahh' for July"25, 2022.

36. At the'conclusion of an additional'sMbours of hearing on July 25 , ,,2022- the

Court issued a,post-hearing order, granting fhe parties the opportunity to

submit proposed Findings of Fact and C onc lusi o

nof Law in lieu of closing:

arguments. Iri addition, the Court heldthe ; record open,onlyfor, Mother to°

submit copies of Father's fed er alincome tax returns and accompanying

.'schedules;, if any,. that°she had requested from the Internal Revenue Service

;months before.

37" '

These Findings of-Fact and'•Conclusions of Law were due ohb before'

September 12, 2022: However, via email to, chambers, parties'_requested an

additional week, and the Court.granted their request.'

3'8 Parties-filed their Findings -

of Factand Conclusions of LA* with Domesfic;

Relations on September 19,`2022": In addition, Mother fled copies of Father's'.

executed 2016,-2021 federal tax'#*rns received from the internal Rexenue

Service;

Januar.Y`43,, 2023 Decision :

at:1=1.3

ppon consideration ofthe parties'" "

submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions: of Law

and all the evidence"P resented at.the de,itova hearings on April'2:0,-2022 and Tiny 25; 2022, ;the

trial "couit:issue&its ]an uAry" 412023 Decision..

'S

Subsequently, on February 10, 2023 ►the court granted Plainfi's 1Vfotion for

Reconsideration and scheduled ahearing on Marcli:l6, 2023 td1bar -legal argument on her

MotioWibk Reconsideration and Defendant's response.

On'February 24 2023, Defendant's counsel, Aaron Weems, Esquire, and his firm, Fox

Rothschild, LLP, were granted leave:to withdraw as counsel. Defendant entered his appearance

Pro se. To date, no other counsel has entered their appearance for Defendant.

Plaintiff appeared on March 16 .2023 at the appointed time with her counsel,Rebecca

Kolsky, Esquire. Defendanxfailed to appear. In addition, the Court noted Defendant's residence

iti Texasand that he had failed to file amotion to obtain tfie.court's permission to participate

motel- -by telephone..

After waiting afew minutes for Defendant to call or appear, the trial court asked that the

Domestic Relations clerk telephone Defendant. After reaching Defendant on the telephone and

placing him under oath, Defendant testified that he had received no notice of the hearing. Over

strenuous objection from Plaintiff scounsel, the trial!court continued the hearing until April 10,

2023 and'granted Defendant perniission,

to participate via telephone.

OWMazch 17,2023. the -Trial court issued an Order summarizing the.1VXar•b 16; 2023

proceedirigs;'ordering both parties to appear on-April 1

:

0,.2.023 .

60 00 a.m. . )EDT -ST and

ordering both'Mmestic Relations and the court's chambers to send notices to both parties. The

trial courtalso ordered that retention of new counsel and their unavailability shall not constitute a

basis for continuance and that continuances would be granted only in case of emergency. The

:aourt:alsopermitted Defendant to appear remotely. Last, the court granted Defendant the

opportunity to write aresponse to Plaintiff's Motion.

9

The hearing occurred on April 10, 2023. Plaintiff appeared in person with her counsel

and Defendant participated pro se via telephone. After hearing argument from both parties, the

court took-the matter.under advisement.

On-Apri126, -

2023, the trial court`issued an-eleven page Older Granting Plaintiff's Motion

Ja Part' and `Denying I* Motion -in Part ("Reconsideration Order'):

:On May 17,;:2023;,.Plaintiff-fled an,additi' 1 Mation.to Reconsider the court's decision

of Aprih' 6,2023. The court:issued an Order ("Second Reconsideration Order' on M y.:25,..

2023, granting her Motion, further modifying its previous`Ordcrs and January 1

: 2023-

Docisiion.

Defendant filed threeNotices of Appeal that correlate withbetrial-court's three

decisions; 1562 EDA 2023; 1563 EDA 2023 and 161.6EDA`2623•

'.'The 1562 EDA 2023 and

.563.-EDA 2023.appeals were filed on May 26;.2023; and the I616 EDA 2023.90p iivaa:fil'ed:

;on.lune. 21' 2023: Moreover, Plaintiff filed four.Nptiees of Appeal on or about May 26;.2023:

1574`EDA 2023,.1575.EI3A;2023; '1576 EDA 2023 and 1°577 EDA 2023.

Ori June 2:3;.;2023; the court issued an Order requ iring.that Plaintiff filq a..Cpncise

Statement ofErrors Complained"ofon Appeat-'pur`suant td-pi R.App:P. 1925(b)•vwithiatwenty-

one_ (21) days of the date of the Order ibeffie. -

following-appeals 1574-1rDA.;2023 y L573'EDA

2023 1.576 190A.2023,, and 1577 EDA 2023. Also, .on June 23,_2023,.the .couit issued'-an• 4r•ier

raqui"ring tliat-

Defend;* file..Rule Pa:R.App.P.::1925 (

b) Statetnent.vt►ithin twenty one (

21)-days

of the date. Of the- Order for the-following appeals:.`1562:EDA.'2023:and 1563 EDA 2023. Finally;;

on July-S, 2023, the court issued an Order requiring Defendant'to flea Rule Pa:R.App:P ::

1.025(b); Statement within twenty-one (21) days of the en

try°:of tKe Order ili. appeal T6'I6 EDA

2023:,

10

:r:

On July 5, 2023l'Plaintii s.tievir eounselaVirgin%'Hinriehs McMichael, Esquire, filed an

Application: for Extension of Time to File Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement. of Errors, -alleging

'that she was just hiied, had not been previously';kvolved, in-'these matters and required additional

time to review the voluminous record in this matter. On July 14 ;2023, the court granted her

'request andAtetidWle_deadline in which to.. file plaintiff's Concise Statement of Errors until

July--_,76;2023.

Defendant's Concise Statements for 1562: EDA .2023 and 1563 EDA. 2023 were due July

14, 2023. His Concise Statement for 1616 EDA 2023 was due on July.25,-,2023. To; date,

Defendant failed Wffile his Concise. S.tatement of Errors in any of his appeals. OmJuly. 25 2023 ;

Pl.aintiff.filed °her Rule'1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors.

only one appeal is active Tlaintiff's'157T

The Superior Court docket shows that currently.-

appeals weie

EDA 2023 appeal: The 1574 EDA 2023, 1575 EDA 2023 and 1576 EDA 2023 :

discontinued on July'28, 2023:

.On August 10;'2023;-the Superior-Couit quashed Defendait's`ISGZ .EDA 2023;appeal

to, Show Cause issued:on:

because 'ofDefendant's failure to respond to the SuperibuCourt's, Ofde :

July 18 ;2023;:Similatly, on August l1, 2023,;'the. Superior:Court.quashed.Defendant's 1563_

EDA 2023 appeal because of Defendant's failure to'.respond-to the;Superior Court's Order to

Show Cause issued oii 7uly'24;:.2023. On ;August 24, 2023; the Superior Court dismissed

Defendant's 1611&EDA 2.023.appeal bebause•of Deiendant's failure to respond to the Superior

Court's Drdcr to Show Cause'issued..on August$,. 2023,.Thus;:all,of Defendant's appeals to

Superior Court have been dismissed.

Plaintiff's 1577 EDA 2023 Oppeal islthe only outstanding appeal,in-tlii ,. matterslhe:

trial court will address the issues;=raised';

in'Mintiff's Rule 1925.(b):Concise.Statemedbe1pW:

.144

,

i

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard ,

of review,

it i'sAxiumatie that the appellate:courts will uph6ld asupport Girder: absent an abuse.of

.discretion. Cvionna R_661NMO,;, 581 Pa .1,:855 A :2'd 648; 64,1 (Pa. 20104)• (citing Bafl v:. Minnick,

53S Pa. 441, 648 A:2d 1192 (Pa. 1994)). Abuse of discretion has been defihed as "nnt merelyan

'drror ofjudgmentsbut if reaching aconclusion the laWis overridden or misapplied; outhe

judgiri nt exe> cisedis manifestly unreasonable; A.r ibo result of partiality, pxejudice abias;'o•r i11-

will,- as shown by the evideoceaf record::..," Blrie v Blue, 53• Pa.,Sl, 616 A:2d 628, 63.1

.(Pa;19/ )..(citation;o,nittcd). Accdrd'i'I'.D:u: w ED , 2015 Pa.. Super. 10K.A 14 A:.3&987 ;889'

This• court respectfully eoritends that it'-failed to abuse its di'scre b .0p-.6rred a amatte,of

law.,In addition; it espectfulIy contends that its.eXP s . ofjudgment was-reasonabie and devoid

gfpartiality; prejuciicebas'or'illvll: For•the.ceasons stated below and the reasons stated in:its

three decisions; isicorporated. in this 1925(a) 0 inion, this court respectfully requests That its

decisions'be affirmed >;or•"tlie reasons takd'below.

B. Plaintiffs Statement of:Errors Comolained of On Avveal

.- Mother's: invocation of the doctrine:ofunclean , hands ,and its ,citation as'an error ,

or abuse of discretion is inapposite'to the caseat hand `and therefore should. not

Abe dismissed by the avpellate court:

Mo'ther's first claiirried error states:-

Ttie trial .court erred as matter of laur °of'ibused its`discretion iri failing to., apply,the

0.0 trine °of.unclean hands after finding that Defendant Michel Petit'("Father")

intentionally misled the.court'by i?aaking multiple fal`se,statemenis under oath regarding

I

his income, assets and the settlement of two lawsuits; a(

sic) NHL Concussion lawsuit

and aWorker's Compensation lawsui LThe record reveals that, before the hearing the:

NHL Concussion lawsuit had also settled and the proceeds paid t oF athe r; t

he Worker 's

Compensation lawsuit had also settled and acompromise and release had been executed.

But Father, testifying underpath, denied the existence ofboth lawsuits and his receipt of

settlement funds.

Mother's reliance on this error is mistaken.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that "[a] court may deprive aparty

of equitable relief where, to the detriment of the other party,. the party applying for such relief is..

guilty of bad. conduct relating to the matter at issue." Terrirciano v. Com., Dept. of

Transporlation, Bureau ofDriver Licensing, 753 A.2d 233, 237 (

Pa. 2000) (quoting Shapiro v,

Shapiro, 204 A.2d 266, 268 (Pa. 1964)). Further, Terraciano holds that "[t]he doctrine of

-unclean hands requires that one seeking equity act fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the

controversy in issue. Id. at 238 (citing-Jacobs v. Halloran, 551 Pa. 350, 710 A.2d 1098, 1103

(1998)). Thus, the unclean hands doctrine is invoked to deny.a party equitable relief upon a

showing of fraud or deceit:in the transaction at issue. This argument is inapposite to this matter

on several grounds.

.First, Plaintiff sought no relief in equity. The case at hand is achild support and APL

appeal based solely on the statutory scheme established in 23 Pa.C.S. § 4301 et seq., the child

and spousal: support statutes, and 23 Pa.C.S.§ 3702, the APL statute. In this matter, Appellant

was neither entitled to equitable relief nor did she seek it. Therefore, the trial court contends that

this doctrine is inapplicable to the instant case.

Second, Appellant's statement of error is vague and difficult to understand. She fails to

state what error the trial court had committed and what relief the court failed to award ,her. On

the contrary, the trial court grantedAlother's requested relief in fading that Father had

misrepresented his income to the court and had failed to report changes in his income as required

13

by statues, rules of procedure and caselaw. This finding resulted in arrears in excess. :

of $100,000.

See January 13,'2023 Decision at 17-18: Mother's:assessmentof error fails to clearly state what

equitable relief she sought that the trial court had failed to grant.

A Concise Statement must. 'specify the error to be addressed on appeal." Cornmonwealih

v: Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (

Pa. Super, 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275

(201.1) (citation omitted). The appellate court may find awaiver: of an appellate issue or issues

where the filed concise statement is too vague. See Commonweaf[h v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 ;

686 (Pa. Super. 2001,); see also Lineberg v. Wyeth, 849, A.2d 141, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2006) (a

trial court should not be required to guess what:issues appellant is raising on appeal)..

Because the doctrine of unclean hands is inapplicableand the issue. as framed by Mother

is too.vague; the Superior Court should "

deny Mother relief on this ground or decline to address

this issue.

2. Mother Failed to Establish the Existence of Anv Assets or Their Value for the

Trial Court to Order aLump Sum Pavment.

.Mother's second issue states:

The trial court erred as amatter of law or abused its discretion in refusing to require

Father to pay arrearages,for child support, APL, alimony, and attorney's fees _in .alump

sum rather than in monthly payments, where, among other things, Fath er has substantial

resources; Fathcr intentionally misstated and underreported his inc ome f or man yyears

and lied under oath about his finances; Father violated court orders by refusing to

produce documents verifying his- income; the minor child is entitled to many more years

of child support; and Father is.59-years -old and in ill health.

Mother's ,statcment of this issue is rambling and is anything but concise. However;as the

trial court understatids this issue, Mother contends .that it erred in failing to order Father to pay a

14

luirip sum to satisfv his arrearages for child support, APL and attorney's fees. ° However, as the

trial court explained in its April 26, 2023 Reconsideration Order, Mother failed to identify any

assets from which Father could tender alump sum payment in excess of $ 100,000..

Reconsideration Order at 3-5,1MI 2.g-s.

Mother correctly asserts that the trial court found.that'Father liedabout his income, This

ultimately led to his arrearages assessed as aresult of the calculations.contaiined.in'the:Finaf

Support Order issued on.January 13, 2023.

Moreover, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3703(2) :permits ;after hearing, the "taking and seizure of goods.

and. chattel" to pay arrearages. See also 23._Pa G.S'. §4352(d.1) ("overdue support obligsiod s

may constitute alien against real property).

However, in the absence of any admissible evidence to establish the-value of Father's

assets, the:courf lacked any basis to order Father to pay alump sum towards his arrears. The sole

information that the trial court and Domestic Relations currently possess demonstrates that

Father has aW-2 job for which his wages are attached and through which the monthly support

order has been satisfied plus a30% payments towards arrears, as provided in the court's

Reconsideration Order at 5-6.

Indeed;. the trial court'rioted. in its Reconsideration .

Order, that as the matter has already

been designated complex,:Mother may .

file amotion or petition requesting the court to order

Father to produce verif catiaii -

of the-walue of his assets. Reconsideration Order, 4/26/23 at

Counsel mistakenly asserts that Father has arrearages for alimony. Judge Pileggi ordered that Father pay Mother

"rehabilitative alimony" for eight een mon th s co mmenc i

ng Feb ruary 20 19. Find i

ngs of Facts at ¶ l4 at 5, Father's

wages have always been attached and he has never been in default of his court-ordered child support, alimony and

APL payments until the implementation of this trial court's January 13, 2023 Decision and accompanying Final

Support Order. See Domestic Relations Lase Financial Summary. This reflects that Father paid the monthly support

order on time every month via awage attachment. Therefore, the Domestic Relations record reflects no delinquency

of monthly child support or any arrearages. On the contrary, Father had acredit which often totaled in the thousands,

15

1q. Once tbe;value of these assets, iS.9scertained;Mother may take fuurtther enforcement action.

through Domestic Relations to satisfy the arrearages,

Therefdre;,Mother's 'as§. tion of error is misguided and the trial court respectfully`

requests that its decisions be affirmed.,

1 The Trial 'Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Declined to Escrow

Father's Funds Because He Was Current on~All Child"Support Pavrneats

In lier,ta0 iGi ` Statement. gother asserts in her third issue:

Tkie Trial courf erred as amatter of law ,or- abused itsdiseretion when it refused to order

Father to escrow-funds; including-,but not limited to.his workers' compensation award and

Aension, for the payment'of child support and -other.arrearages

Mother's reliance on ibis issue is'miisplaced Thb."Case=financial: Summary from-at least

.ord'er which resulted in

December 16,`2020 uaitilJaiivary 13; 2023; when the trial court.issued its :

,Father's=arrearages had'reflected acbi:Wsteiit credit in- c]iild .,s

upport

pport and APL;not any arrearage:

Simrlarl'y, the,Ca -, .FinancYal in Pather, paid, the monthly.support

or: er an.tiine.every,mgntlS ;

via wage:attachment. Therefore,..th e Domes ti c Relations:record

re e0 no: delinquency of monthly° chi ld°support' or any arrearages at the time Mother sought to

gsexow F4 er':sworkers'' compensation award. On the contraty,.Father had`inaimained'a credit

which often16t'aled in the ihoUsands. Father only;'aceiued .arrearages for back child support; aticl.

AI'L_after•:#he' trial court.i'ssued.its January 13; 2023 Decision.

23 Pa. S § 4305(b!Q-' (ii),.authoriies'Dotnestic Relations agencies to-"[i]ssue orders

where there.is ,asupport. arrearagc to- sectire.as's tb satisfy.aurrent supporf' obligatipn and the

arrearage.Uj%:.. Interceptmg:pr seiz.. gludgmenfs.oi stflements.

Accolzlin 1 _", RRO'Fathe rmaiiita ped aeredit in hss e} ild.suppor(and APL, Domestic.

Relations edger;liad i

I o„arrearages, and he-:timely p

aid ;his„monthly child support order' eveiy=

n tk Dbmd fc Relations lacked the authority io seize Father's workd comperisat on

1:6°

a

payments in 2021 until Father accrued arrearages when this court's January 13, 2023 Decision

and Final Support Order were implemented by Domestic Relations. 23, Pa C.S. § 410(b)(1.0). At

escrowed,. discovery was outstanding and the final

the time Mother sought that his award be. -

support appeal hearings ha ' not occurred. in 2022. As aresult, Father's account reflected no

arrearages and Father owed Mother no money other than his monthly child support and APL

order which was paid in full every month via wage attachment. Therefore, Domestic Relations

And this court lacked any authority to order that Father's workers' compensation award be seized

and escrowed.

Moreover, Mother asserts that the court abused its discretion in failing to order that

Father's "pension" be escrowed.. Indeed, throughout this litigation, the evidence of record failed

to. show Father's receipt. of alump. sum from any pension or the existence of apension.

Therefore, Mother's as"sigiiinentof'errof thould not be considered by the appellate court. ` Pa.

R:App.P. 302(a) (Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first

time on appeal). See Commonwealth y: Deible, _ A.3d 2023, W.L. 4715187 (2023 -Pa.

Super. 129 ,(7/25/23) ;cifirrg Commonwealth v. Thorne,,_ PA. 276 A.3d 1192, 1.196

(2022).

Absent an abuse. of discretion, asupport order shall be upheld. Colonna, 855 A.2d at 641.

The trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed an error of law and its decisions

should be upheld. See Blue, 616 A,2d at 631.

For these reasons, the trial court requests that the Superior Court affirm its decisions.

4. The Court Granted Mother's Motion for Reconsideration and Ordered that

Father Pay 30% of His SumortOrder Toward His Arrears.

5In her first Motion for Reconsideration, Mother co ntends that Father h as a residence worth $ 800,000. and apension

withn.Su Life Financial worth over $500;000. Motion for Reconsideration at 2. As stated i ni tsRec on sideration

Order and this Opinion at 14--'1'6.and.at 28, the record is devoid of any documentation of the existence of these assets

ortheir worth..Upon producing this e vide nce ,

Mother maysee kre li effrom th i scourt to satisfy Father's arrearages.

17

Mother's fourth issue reads;

The trial court erred as amatter of law or abused its discretion when. it required Father to

pay only 30% of his monthly Order towards his total arrears, which currently equal

$1.18,340.79, because with an additional payment of only $454.03 per. month.($5,448.36

per year), it will take approximately twenty-two years f or F at her to pay off the

arrearages that -have accrued to date, '

at which time Father w ill be 81 years old .

Consequently, the -

funds will not be available when needed to support the minor child..

Mother's reliance on this issue is misplaced.

Mother correctly asserts that in its January 13, 2023 Decision and Final Support Order,

the trial court ordered .Father to pay 10% of his Final Support Order toward arrears. Final

Support Order; J %13/23 at 5-9.

In Mother's first Motion for Reconsideration filed with Domestic Relations on February

3., 2023, s'

he argued that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding only an additional 10%

payment towards the. arrears exceeding $ 100,000. Motion for Reconsideration .at 2, 4.b.6 Mother

further argued that the trial court should have awarded thirty percent (30%) additional payment

towards the arrears, rather- than 10%.

In its April 26, 2023 Reconsideration Order, the trial court granted,Mother's request and

ordered that arrears be collected at 30% of the child support order. Reconsideration Order at S-6.

.Having granted Mother's Motion that payment towards arrears be increased from 10%' to

30%, Mother now assents "as.error that the trial court should have increased it`even more. This

argument is frivolous and should not be.considered.

In.granting .Mother' sMotion for Reconsideration on April 26, 2023, the trial .court

considered Mother's arguments raised in her Motion and both Mother's and Father's arguments

during the oral argument on her Motion for Reconsideration. It considered the amount of the

6'Mother'sNotion for Reconsideration is;unpaginated but the trial.c.0 references the'second page of herMotio n.

18

arreaf -

-

dnd the it',pact-.' Mother and_,child and,Father's rnonthfy net income Asia result; the

f. i41,06urt determined Mother's argument meritorious and gran teri her'Motion in rfull'regarding

this ,issue;

The trial court coiiteiids that it granted Mother's Ivlotion.for Reconsideration in full

rcgardingthis, is. pe,and therefdre this"is sue.should not he'considered. Eiir the reasons described

:'a ave

" the trial court requests that the Superior.Court affmt its decisions;

-

5. Case'law Clearly Pro••ides that Father'

sWorkers' Compensation Award, NHL,.

Concussion Settlement and SunLife Insurance ,PoRev Cash- Out Was Marital

Property Pursuant to Parties' Equitable Distribution Order and Cannot. Be.

Considered as, Income for Child S̀upport -Purposes:

InIg. Aft: issue„I40iher asserts:

The. trial court; erred'`as amatter o law -or abused its -

discretion in excluding Father's

Workers ' Conipensadon - wa`rd }Narional Hockey League ('NHL)Coneitssion Settlement; :

and Life Insurance Cash-Out in the Courti's support and APL:caleulations.

Asvith herpreviousJ4#i this .040•tacks inerit.

The t061- court addicssed..t .is issue at.,length in.its fanuary 1.3, 2'423 Decision. See Jarivao

13, 2'023 DeoW6fi4f 1.7=1.5 aizd 37-42.'To summarize, the parties,_`represented.bycouh§e-1,

entered into. an.agreed,,propertytsettlemerit agreement ,on the record before the Hon. Domenic

Pileggx nn'JanuaryN 2019. In.eiitering'into this agreed p'top-ertysatlexnent; .Mother and Father

Mete subjected tc .an, "extensive: colloquy" on the record 7court: Court Rtbibif 1, E.D;C}rder af;,

l Januar}F ;13; 2b23 Decision at 39 :This agreed order on the record ,*6s' redueed 'to writing by

Judge Pileggi and issued,as an order on February.

ebrua y.#., 2019:

The E:D; Order,, Ptovided, ig:.Pertinent ;part as the trial court explained:in>,its :Findings

Fact:

Plaintiff received `.the marital home and thereafter.,vvas responsible for -

the mort gage;

taxes;, utilities,and `other expenses,

19

2:- Plaintiff would buy,out Defendant's , interest `in the marital .home by`ter;dering $ 50;000

within ten days of the Order:,

3, `, Plaintiff would .receive the; contents .of the house, subject to`Defendant's return to the`

home on January 25,2019 to remove items previquslyagreed:.were his_.

••Bot>a parties kept their own bank accounts.

5; Defendarit waived any right to anal - ed distributions that might;have been:

previously taken by Plaintiff;

6;Eachparty:keptvehrclesin,their possession.

7: Husband was,awarded the Sun AfeẀhole insurance.

policy but was responsible

for the loan balance 11d. at ¶3.k

8.Husband was awarded "all right, title and interest in a worker's- compensation

claim currently pending in the State of California for pre-marital injuries

received by .Husband and Wife hereby waives any'and all iight,; title and interest

which she m ay ,have to that claim ." E.D. Order at ¶3L

Husband was awarded "all right,title and interest w hich he m ay have.to any

settlement yerdict, judgment or other' disposition of funds=awarded to, b" in a.

pending lawsuit filed by the NHL Players Association as aresult (if injuries.

sustained by players during - their •playing career." Mat ¶3.m..

'IQ,, Husband'wa•s `awarded his, NHL pension ashis sole and exclusive property to,

the exclusion ofwife whwhereby waives any andall right,,title'and interest

therein except as,specifled herein below."Id. at ¶3:n.

11. Wife was awarded "25% of the increase- in value of Husband's pre-marital NHL.

pension :with the -

date of marriage specified as..June '29, 2001,, until, the '

date' of

separation specified as :December 24,'2015...' Id. afi¶3.n(i),

January 13 ;-2023 Decision ot.39-40JEmphasis'added); Court'EXliibitj.

The trial court cotitinueil in .

its:analysis;of'the E D. tOrder:

further waived'the right to seek further equitable 'distribution, agreed to be

Parties -

responsible for their own debts Qd- at t1o) and agreed, that Defendant would pay

Plaintiff $1,0 oper month alimony commencing February l ;2019 for-eighteen ( 1.8)

months. Id, it 14. Last, each. pai ty.agreed to Beat th6irown counsel fees: Id. at ¶$:

Further, the;trial -citart determined';

=Review,of the ` languageiwihis,agreed Order-.demonstrates ,that=there must have .

been considerable negotiation between -the parties to resolve the parties" equitable

distribution claims: Of partkc lar,note is`the language of the Order which'incorporated:the

parties' agreement:,

Hust and`is awarded at] right, title and interest in aworkmen's.

compensation`clairn currently,pending in the State bf Califforn afor pry

marital injuries received by Husband °ancl Wife hereby waives,any and all.

right; title and interest which she.riay have to;the clan;

:Husband is awarded all right, title..and interest which he may have to. any.

;settlement; verdicts judgment or'oiher'°disposition offunds awarded tobim

2

in apending lawsuit filed by the NHL Players' Associ ation as aresu lt of

injuries sustained by players during their playing career.

January 13, 2023 Decision, quoting Id. at 4, ¶¶ m and n.

The trial court further determined that "while the-language pertaining to Father's

workmen's compensation claim: references pre-martial injuries, in no way does the language in

the agreed E.D. order stipulate that any, funds received from this claim are entirely pre-marital

pursuant to 23 Pa C.S.A. § 3501(a)(1) and thus excludible from the marital estate." January 13;

2023 Decision at 40.

Rather, the language agreed to by the parties provides that,although the injuries were

incurred prioi :to the parties' 'marriage, Mother has some claim to these monies. Therefore,

Mother or "Wife;" as she is referred to in: the E.D. Order, agreed to "hereby waive any and all

right; title And interest which she may have to the. [workmen's compensation] claim.."Id E.D.

Order at 114m.

This interpretation is bolstered by Ms. Petif sreceipt of other property and funds pursuant

to the Eb,, showing that parties had engaged in negotiations regarding- the martial estate and that

she bad received consideration in returti for waiving her right to Mr. Petit's worker's

compensation award. Indeed, Ms- Petit received the martial home valued at $619 ;000, eighteen

months of iehabilitative alimony as well as other consideration, E.D. Order, Court Exhibit 1at

¶113a. and 4at 2and 5.

The trial court applied the same analysis to Father's concussion and Sun Life Insurance

policy, deeming it part of the martial estate which the parties had agreed to distribute. See

13, 2023 Decision at 41; E.D. Order at Jf n, ¶3.k:

.January -

21

As the trial,codit discussed in its January 13, 2023: Decipn, li

jjer. ;

y,,

.!flitter, A.783 A Zd'

832 (

Pa.,_$Olicr. 2001,)`...', 0related '

04W§ gavem th%s situation, Tanuary .13, 2'023 Deci"sion.aflt-

39;.'S' dfiaM; it determlUed:

In ]!Miller, Wife filed for modification'of the child support'order to: seek

recalculation of Husband's child support obligation as aresult,of ,proceeds.he received:

from equitable distribution: In sowguing, Wife cited the definition of "income"

contained in 23 Pa. " C;S.A. §4302 and contended that th es eprocee ds fall within that

expansive definition:.

In considering Wife's argument; the Miller oibi-t first noted that the proceeds' ,

received from equitable distribution were intended, to "effectuate economic-justice

,between parties who are divorced:., and insure afair and just determination and

scttlementof their property rights," 23 Pa: C.S.A ;§;3102;:7.83 A.2d':af835. (Other ,

,citations <omitted).

In. is analysis, the Court found thatit1's Seal&lam" *ihat income used to

calculatechild support_ cannot be considered.a,mantalasse't'for equitable distribution

:Purposes3 Having drawn'that conclusion,, the court held the opposite, is also true:'inon ,

c

,

received "from the sale of a' asset. awarded in equitable distribution cannot be includedas

income to calculate child ' support payments. The sole,caveat' the court added, any gain in.

Ibe sale of an asset must be included ,in support. I 783 A.2d at $35. See,also

.C`6nner. v -Conner, 217A.3d ;304317 (Pa,, Super: 2Q19).

Jatiiiary'I3;1023 Decisidn :$t38-39';

Accoidingly; the triaC.courf concluded:

-Like the litigant's- in yiller, in the, Agreed Order,'Plaintiff waived' any claim to

Defendant'"s concussion and workmen "s compensatiori settlements or awards in return QT.

other kinds, of.consideration: a.marital portion of D"efendant"s NHL pension, the marital ,

home and eighteen months of alimony„ just to namea ""few. The negotiations -reflecied in;

the -Order, particularly award of F,ather's workmen's compensation and concussion

settlement to him and award of the marital home and alimony`to-Mother, are -not

°`windfalls'" to ,either party - they reflect; as the Miller court',held, effectuation of

economic justice between divorced parties' and ' a: "fair and just deteriniriationand

settlementof their property rights. Miller ,783 A. 2d at 835, citing 23 Pa: C:S A. §3 02(a)'

(Other citation otiutted), Inclusion of these settlements in any.child support calculation

would constitute "double dipping" and therefore is notperrriissible under Culler and its:

progeny;

JarivarYJ3,;2023 Decisa4n at 42:

Ac,cordingty, these assets, "already:-

dividedbetweeh:the parties to effectuate;ed nomic

justice under the Divorce Code; should'riot be considered "income" pursiiantto"23-Pi C.S:

22;

§;4302. The ,trial court correctly excluded them from any child support and alimony pendente lite

calculat Qns, Thusjts decisions ;failed to constitute an abuse of discretion and should be

affirmed.

6. The Record i sDevoid of Any'Oither Accountable Source of Father' s $49,000

Sum of CashWhich , Led the Trial Court to Determine That it Was a,Cash-out

of the Sun Life - Insurance Policy.

other's `siicth issue statest

The

supptort cal u ationds $49,0_00 6f available he

1ble,cash where Father failed to sustain his burde n

of Proving that the funds derived from him cashing out of tii5 life insurance.,

Despite:IVlotliei%s: ensive.discovpry in this case, several hearings and ad nova 'hearing:

lasting abdut:twdlve hours, MotherAiled to produce any evidence -that any other life insurance.

,Poky bmjsted in this matter other than the $.un Life,Insurance policy referenced .in the ED.

Order;,whicli Fatherreeeived pursuant to the Agreed Order. E. 0. Order,.'•3.Ic

`. wsuant to.- iller, discussed at length above, itllssue 5and in''the trial court's January 13,

2023. dcGision;..as'• he Sun:Life'Insurance.policy i•va§iawari3ed to Father in the Ea. , C)rder, it i

not ,includible. iai :support and alimony Pend I ' te lite calculations. 7d

C

Superior.Cottrtiwiil_not interfere with the, broad discretion afforded -theiri'al court

absent an abuse of [] discretioti:or insufficient:'evidence to sustain the support order," Arbelsv,

k'604,190.A ;2d 34,, 39 (P'a.,Super: 20Q4):(citing Laws-v: ,:Lmvs,758 A.2d 1.226; t22'8 (Pa, Super;

X000, ('ciiatioris c•mifted).

Therefore; Mother's d3a m that the .tr al.courterred iw1a ,ing.tci` incluiie the valve of.

Fathcr's:life.i_nsurancein :the support and API:, calculations has no merit: The trial court's

decision fails to constitute,an abuse4diseretion and'therefore should'b°e affirmed..

2

7. Mother Failed to Establish that -

Father'

sSmart Sand Oiitions M ad Any Value,

Therefore the Trial Court .Excluded Them from Its Support and APL

Calculations.

'e

the

In her.

trial

Concise

court erred

Statement,

a's amatter

Mothetf's.seventhJsssue

of law'Or abused its

alleges-

discretion in refusing'to include the

value of, Father's SmartSand Stock as ` ncome'in the child support and,APL calculations .

where the record revealed that Father's compensation -from his, employer :includes shares

of stock:

:Mother'_s reliance Oxn'N 'isstte-is;, sguiddd because.she faiaed,toiesiahlish that Father received

aiiy.ipcol.

be frpm I .

&SmartSarl istock, or captions as explainedbelow.

'C7hild.supporC and AP>•pbliptims are calculated by.*termining ibe:parties' monthly net,

incomes, Pa:k.C:P.10,10-16.2 ::Mother ,

correctlyasseris that the record establishes that.Father,

received stock options,as. compensat on,from his employment. Slie never established the value of

Chese stocl options: Father rieve-reported areceijifi bf.the stock optioin"s:'as ucome ou his4ax

Oti.

101 . Mother failed to f6llow•:up'and'establi`sh;anyvalue.ofthe§e optiotIs: She could have:.

e4ablisbed t1ii` valbe through discovery, at ozie of the, hearings through testimony or by retention

:. 6f'n expert: She t9p . none of these actions,: Indeed' Father's Schedule C fornns, appended to his,

tax returns, demonstrate'a net loss from hisstocks for tax years 2016-2020.;See Exhibit'R20.

-

Absent. any admissible evidence to stow the value of the stock:options, and any stock;the

trial, court remained Gloss to include them,as income_to,calculate child ,support, and APL.

Indeed, plucking afigure out ,of the -

void - and-assessingthe, value sua spoirte^would constitutean

abuse of. discretion. See kue,:X16 A.2d at 63.1 a:court.conimits an error.of 1aw,if when reaching

As conclusion; "tlie lawis:ov'erridden or misappli•d,.'or the judgment,exercised, smanifestly

unreasonable;:oi the result tifpartiality,,prejudice,=bias,or ill,-w.iil, as shown by the evidence,of

'T

ereeds,

result' the trtatco itt requests that=rfs decisions be-a rmed,

s° *

8: The Trial Cour't's'Denial of-Ezfra-Currlcular Activities "Was A Proper Exercise,

of its Discretion and Should Be Affirmed.

Mother's ,eighth issue states:

erred as.a rdatter oflaw*'abused its; discretion in refusing to award

The` trial court _

Mother reimbursement for'extracumcular expenses on the.,grourids„'that Mother-failed to

eonsult with lather before, signing;thc child up for-activities,.where tbe.record "revealed.

that Mother has 100°f physical custody, Fatherrhas ha&n6contact_vwith ihe,, child-since.

September 20'18, and father'bas never exercised his joint legal custodyor expressed any

desire to participate in.°decisions involving the child._

"eIies on`its discus

1n response;the trial iourt r ­11sign.iti its January. 3'; X023, Decision:

Mother=also claims that Father, has failed ,to reimburse her for child's extra

.curricular activities: The Court notes that the parties' Custody Order of,'

2018; provides thatparties share legal custody: Exhibit P=19 .

20

Legal custody is'defined in'23 Pa. C.S'§5322 as , "[t]he righ'tfo make major.decis ons

on.behal'f ofthe child, including; but not limited to; medical ;religious "arid 'educational

decisions:"Judge'Pileggi noted that Father rarely availed himself of his partial custody

in,his,February and May 2017 Orders'. February.17,'2017 Support Order, Exhibit P-

at 8, ¶29; May 12, '2017 Support Order; Exhibit; P-7, at, 8, 1129: Moreover, Father

acknowledged that he has not`seen or spoken to his so since 2018 N.T. 7/25/22.at, ,,

9I

Notwithstanding, parties' failure to communicate .and Father's' failurc'to'vis'it or,

speak with°child ;Father still retainslegal.custody Since parties continue to share legal

custody, Mother has been obliged to notify Father of her intent to eriroll'child in extra-

curricular activities toseek his consent: Mother failed to, present any :evidence of, her'

efforts to ;consult with:Fatherpraoraa enrolling child in extra-curricular activities since,

2016.

The record reflects that•Mother. and Fatherhave not communicated for year§N&

Mother had'other`options to seek Father's consent for extra- curricular activities, like

;sending her proposals for,extra-curricular'aetivities to Father eitherwia-text;',emai.lor

even U.S:_rnail.with a, deadline to respond and acaution that she woutdconstrue his

failure to respond as consent: Motherfailed_;to exert this rninimal effort to consult.

.Father:

January 13,E 2023 Decision of-46:

The trial court also notes that these extra-cuniccular.activities have been.expeiisive'

Bidiibit P-28 outtines monies .

for -extra-curricular actiAfkq expended lyMother, In 2018 she

25

spent $1.773 for which she sought $1595.57,- for 2019 she spent:$2008.80 for which she sought

'$1647.2.16, activities appeared to have been suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic, and in

2021., she spent $2337.06 for which she sought $2103.35 from Father..As these costs were not

.modest, the court deemed it unfair to ask Father to bear 90% or more of these costs without any

warning.

The trial court continued in its January 13, 2023. Decision,

The Court appreciates .how Mother believes that child should be engaged in

physical activity and, that child has benefitted from these activities. However, given

Father's joint legal custody and Mother's failure to consult him about child's extra-

curricular activities prior to enrollment ; the :Court declines to require Father to

reimburse Mother for these extra-curricular activities, as Mother made absolutely no

effort to include Father in any decision to enroll child or advise Father of child's

prospective extra-curricular activities prior to his enrollment.

January 1.3, 2023 Decision at 46.

Forthese reasons, the trial court declined to -

award Mother extra-curricular expenses. The

trial court respectfully contends that its decisions failed to constitute an abuse of discretion and

its decisions should be affirmed.

9_ The Trial Court Proverly Ordered That Father Must Satisfy the Child Support:

and APL Arrearaees Before Mother's Attorney's Fees and Costs-Are Paid.

In her ninth issue., Mother states:

The trial court erred as amatter of law or abused its discretion in refusing to require

Father to promptly pay 100% of Mother's attorney's fees and costs.from the inception of

this case as asanction for Father's dilatory and obdurate behavior, unclean hands, and

blatant contempt of court orders.

The trial court :considered this issue raised in Mother's Motion for Reconsideration filed

Ftbruary 3, 2023. Motion for Reconsideration at 5-6. 7The trial court's January 13, 2023 as well

as its. subsequent orders on Mother's two Motions for Reconsiderations make it clear that it

7 Mother's Motion for Reconsideration is unpaginated

26

disapproved of Father's conduct during the course of this litigation. In this decision, the trial

court concluded:

Given the large disparity between Father's reported:wages to Mother and Domestic

Relations over more than two years,. 2016 to 2018, the Court must conclude that Father's

failure to timely and accurate report his wages and to correct his stipulated wages with

Mother were not advertent but willful.

January 13, 2023 Decision at:1 -

Moreover, the trial court concluded -

that- Father had mispresented his income to Domestic

Relations, to Mother and to the court.on multiple occasions. Id. at 36. Brazenly,, Father then

sought to hold Mother responsible for this multiple misrepresentations to the court. The trial

court dismissed' this attempt, noting that: "[it] defies logic -for this Court to:hold Mother

responsible for Father's dissimulation§ and for this Court to. permit Father to profit from his

misrepresentations." Id. at 37. The court further noted "Father's bald-faced misrepresentation to

the Court on March 4, 2021, where he denied.anyknowledge of the workers' compensation

settlement he had entered. into several weeks before. (Citations omitted). Id. at 27, ¶ 131.

However, as stated in the trial court's prior reconsideration decision, 23 Pa.C.S. § 4351

requires that "[p]ayment of support owed to the obligee shall have priority over [attorney's] fees,

costs and.expenses.". (Emphasis added). The use of the word "shall" eliminates the trial court's

discretion regarding any child support arrearages. Therefore, the court. simply lacks the authority

to order that attorney's fees be paid before Father satisfies his child support arrearages; atotal

'amount of $30;248.13. If it did so, it would constitute reversible error as an error of law.

The trial court also exercised. reasonable discretion in this matter, requiring that Father

pay Mother's APL arrearages before remitting her attorney's fees and costs.

Further, it also observed that during this litigation, hrough alengthy discovery process;

the trial court admitted into evidence extensive information about Father's yearly income.

27

However, Mother failed to submit any -evidence regarding additional assets available to satisfy

these arrears, other than those mentioned above, the workers' compensation award, the

concussion settlement and the Sun Life Policy;which the trial court deemed unavailable to

Mother for child support and APL. See above at 18-22; January 13, 2023 Decision at 37-42.

Even though the trial court ordered APL and child support be paid first before attorney's

Fees and costs, it understood the importance of Father fulfilling his long overdue obligations to

Mother and to her attorney. It referenced Mother's ability to seek discovery of any assets which

may satisfy Father's arrearages and his financial obligations towards Mother's attorney. After

A13Land child support were satisfied, the trial court then stated that: "[w]ith over $ 100,000 in

child support and APL owed to Plaintiff, the Court's information gleaned from these proceedings

confirmed.Defendant's net yearly income available to satisfy APL and child support. It failed to

provide any information about additional assets that might be available to satisfy the arrears as

well as attorney's fees and costs." Reconsideration Order fit„

10, ¶VIII.b.

In declining to enter an order to require Father to immediately remit $40,000 in attorney's

fees plus $4040.50 in costs to Mother's counsel, Rebecca Kolsky, Esquire, the court properly

exercised its discretion. It placed payment of child support as apriority as required by law.

Fuitlier, it reasonably exercised its discretion in requiring that Mother be paid her APL arrears

after the child support arrears have been satisfied. Finally, in its Reconsideration Decision, it

suggested*,hat Mother still retained remedies toSecure further payments through the discovery

process by ascertaining the existence of additional assets through Domestic Relations.'Without

such information, the trial court deemed ordering Father to pay such alarge sum immediately a

doomed enterprise that may jeopardize Father's current child support. payments as well as

payments towards the child:suppgrt ;

and APL arrearages.

;84

For these reasons ;the trial cour ;properly "exercised its,discretion,and its decisions should

be of mied.

CONCLUSION

For the'foregong reasonsathe trial court respectfully requests that its January lay 2023

Findings of.Fact and Conclusions of Law; April 26,,1023 ' Order Granting Reconsideration in Part

and .Denying in tart and. May 25 ;2023 Order Granting Motion for ,:Reconsideration be affirmed

BY THE COURT;

-

r

STEPHANIE H. KLVN, J.

29