Opinion
J-A23019-16 No. 1825 WDA 2015
01-12-2017
ERIC JOHN ASKINS Appellee v. LISA ANN DAVISON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Domestic Relations at No: NS200901183/PACSES No. 9371100996 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Lisa Ann Davison ("Mother"), appeals pro se from the October 22, 2015 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County ("trial court") denying her petition to modify an existing child support order. Upon review, we affirm.
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion filed on December 10, 2015, the trial court provided the following factual/procedural history.
Mother, on July 17, 2015, filed her [p]etition for [m]odification requesting a decrease in her child support obligation, or suspension of the order. In her petition, Mother alleged that "she is unable to work due to injury from car accident and short term disability has been denied." At the time of filing, the parties were governed by a January 22, 2015 [o]rder of [c]ourt setting Father's [(Eric J. Askins)] monthly net income at $4,674.69,
Mother's monthly net income at $3,818.96[,] and ordering Mother to pay the guideline monthly support amount of $610.63, plus $92.50 for arrears. Following a support conference, an interim [o]rder of [c]ourt issued maintaining Mother's monthly support obligation of $610.63. Mother filed a [d]emand for [c]ourt [h]earing.Trial Court Opinion, 12/10/2015, at 1-2.
On October 22, 2015, [the trial court] presided over a de novo hearing on Mother's [p]etition for [m]odification. At the hearing, Mother asserted that her support obligation should be reduced as she is not able to work due to injuries from a February 26, 2015 motor vehicle accident. In support of her position, Mother's only evidence was her own testimony. Mother testified that, but for periodically using vacation time from her job at GE Transportation Systems, she continued to work from February through May following the accident. She did not see a doctor because she "totally forgot about it" until she was reminded by the insurance company to go check with a physician. When Mother finally saw her physician, she asked for rehabilitation for pain in her lower back and neck and was granted 30 days off of work. Mother asked for short-term disability from her employer, however, she was denied the same in June. Mother has an appeal of the disability denial pending with her employer.
Following the hearing, [the trial court] issued its October 22, 2015 [o]rder denying modification of Mother's support obligation and maintaining the order at $610.63, plus arrears. Mother[,] on November 19, 2015[,] filed her [n]otice of [a]ppeal from the [trial court's] October 22, 2015 [o]rder. Thereafter, Mother filed her [c]oncise [s]tatement of [e]rrors [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal[.]
On appeal, Appellant purports four errors, which we repeat here verbatim.
I. Did the [trial court] err in determining that [Mother's] claim was without merit?
II. Did the [trial court] err in recalculating and determining appropriate reduction/modification in the support order?Appellant's Brief at 2 (unnumbered). We note that Appellant's issues are intertwined, disjointed, and repetitive; however, we decline to find that Appellant has waived these issues on appeal. See Rich v. Acrivos , 815 A.2d 1106, 1108 (Pa. Super. 2003). Essentially, Appellant's argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her petition to modify the existing child support order.
III. Did the [trial court] err in modification/reduction with appropriate calculations given in evidence received?
IV. Did the court err in basing inappropriate support order on false monthly net income on behalf of [Mother]?
Additionally, Appellant's brief fails to properly develop her argument or cite to legal authority for her positions.
Our standard of review on appeal of a support order is well established.
"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." Calabrese v. Calabrese , 452 Pa. Super. 497, 682 A.2d 393, 395 (1996). 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. Id. 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. Depp v. Holland , 431 Pa. Super. 209, 636 A.2d 204, 205-06 (1994).Samii v. Samii , 847 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting Laws v. Laws , 758 A.2d 1226, 1228 (Pa. Super. 2000)). Furthermore,
When a modification of a child support order is sought, the moving party has the burden of proving by competent evidence that a material and substantial change of circumstances has occurred since the entry of the original or modified order. The lower court must consider all pertinent circumstances and base its decision upon facts appearing in the record which indicate that the moving party did or did not meet the burden of proof as to changed conditions.McClain v. McClain , 872 A.2d 856, 863 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).
In the matter sub judice, the trial court adequately addressed the reasons for denying Mother's petition for modification in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. In addition, we note the only evidence Mother presented at the hearing was her own testimony, which the trial court found contradictory. The trial court also found the testimony of Father credible. He presented documentary evidence of Mother's participation in Tae Kwon Do when she allegedly could not work because of an injury. Mother attached two statement letters from General Electric and a disability statement to her brief. These items were not introduced into evidence and were not part of the certified record; therefore, we cannot consider them on appeal. See Commonwealth v. McBride , 957 A.2d 752, 757 (Pa. Super. 2008) ("[A]n appellate court is limited to considering only the materials in the certified record when resolving an issue.") (quoting Commonwealth v. Preston , 904 A.2d 1, 6 (Pa. Super. 2006)). Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's petition to modify the child support order.
We direct that a copy of the trial court's December 10, 2015 Opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/12/2017
Image materials not available for display.