Opinion
J-S54036-16 No. 96 WDA 2016
10-24-2016
KENNETH N. BAKER, Appellant v. CRYSTAL HAYES-BAKER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order December 17, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil Division, No(s): 20330-1998 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Kenneth N. Baker ("Baker") appeals, pro se, from the Order directing Crystal Hayes-Baker ("Hayes-Baker") to pay Baker $100.00 per month until the total amount of $2,705.00, as part of the parties' divorce settlement, was satisfied. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant underlying facts:
On July 7, 1998, [Hayes-Baker] filed a Complaint in Divorce against [Baker]. Following an all-claims hearing before the Honorable [Peter] Steege ["Judge Steege"], a Decision and Decree was entered on January 30, 2002. [Hayes-Baker] was awarded the marital residence and all furniture, goods, and appliances. [Baker] was awarded 40% of the marital share of [Hayes-Baker's] Incentive Savings Plan with Aetna, a sum of $2,705.00. [Baker] was incarcerated at the time the Divorce Decree was entered. [Baker's prison term was due to his repeated threats and harassment of Hayes-Baker. Baker's convictions included, inter alia, recklessly endangering another person and terroristic threats.]
On November 23, 2005, [Baker] filed a Petition for Contempt, alleging that [Hayes-Baker] had not paid him the $2,705.00[,] as ordered. A hearing was scheduled for November 17, 2005.
That hearing was then continued to January 19, 2005, and again to April 12, 2006, at which time Judge Steege continued the hearing generally.
On March 18, 2015, [Baker] filed [a] Motion to Enforce Settlement. On May 18, 2015, the [trial c]ourt directed [Baker] to file proof that [Hayes-Baker] had been served [with] his Motion. On September 4, 2015, the [trial c]ourt held a hearing on [Baker's] Motion to Enforce. [Baker] was present but [Hayes-Baker] was not. [Baker] testified by phone because he is incarcerated. [Baker] testified that [Hayes-Baker] has remarried and owned property located at 714 18th Avenue, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. That hearing was continued to insure that [Hayes-Baker] had received notice.
On September 9, 2015, the [trial c]ourt entered an Order directing [Hayes-Baker] to file a Notice of Pro Se Appearance[, listing] her phone number and mailing address. On November 9, 2015, the [trial c]ourt then entered an Order scheduling a hearing on [Baker's] Motion for December 4, 2015. At the hearing[, Hayes-Baker] appeared and [Baker] testified again by phone from SCI Forest. [Baker] testified that [Hayes-Baker] had not paid him the sum of $2,705.00[,] as required by Judge Steege's Decision and Decree.
[Hayes-Baker] testified that there was an attempt to file a Child Support Order[.] [However, in December 2005,] ... the Honorable [John] Dohanich [] denied [c]hild [s]upport[,] without prejudice[,] because [Baker] was receiving cash assistance. [Hayes-Baker] testified that she has been responsible for paying for the higher education of the parties' daughter, Christina Scott ["Scott" (d/o/b 11/18/90)]. [Hayes-Baker] further testified that she still had approximately $4,900 left in the Aetna Incentive Savings Plan, which she said was a 401(k) plan. She testified that she intended to use these funds for Scott's graduate education. She further testified that there would be tax consequences and penalties for withdrawing the money from the 401(k) at this time.
The parties' daughter, [] Scott, also testified at the hearing. She testified that in July of 2009[,] after she had graduated [from] high school, she visited her father at a Dairy Queen[,] where he said he wanted [Hayes-Baker] to use the money to pay for her education. She testified that her mother helped with her loans
and payments because they did not have enough money for her education.Trial Court Order, 12/17/15, at 1-3 (footnote omitted).
Following the hearing, the trial court entered an Order directing Hayes-Baker to make minimum monthly payments of $100.00 to Baker until the total amount of $2,705.00 is satisfied. Baker filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement.
On appeal, Baker raises the following questions for our review:
I. Is the trial court being unreasonable to [Baker] by allowing [Hayes-Baker] to make minimum payments to [Baker] instead of the entire amount that has been owed for fourteen years?Brief for Appellant at 7 (capitalization omitted).
II. Should the trial court have ordered a garnishment of funds received by [Hayes-Baker] to insure payment of funds owed?
We will address Baker's claims together. Baker contends that the trial court erred in allowing Hayes-Baker to make minimum payments, instead of paying the entire amount, despite the fact that the payment was due in 2002. Id. at 12. Baker argues that Hayes-Baker is unwilling to pay the monies owed to him, even though she could afford to pay the full amount based upon her salary. Id. at 13, 15. Baker asserts that in light of Hayes-Baker's refusal to pay the full amount, the trial court acted unreasonably in refusing to enforce the arrearages through the garnishment of Hayes-Baker's wages. Id. at 14-15, 16.
Here, the trial court set forth the relevant standard of review and law, and determined the equities of the case require Hayes-Baker to fulfill her obligation in $100.00-per-month installments until the full amount is paid. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/12/16, at 1-6; Trial Court Order, 12/17/15, at 4-5. The trial court based its finding upon the longevity of the case, the fact that Baker did not assert his rights for ten years, the changed circumstances of the parties over those years, and the taxes and penalties Hayes-Baker would suffer as a result of paying the amount owed in a lump sum. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/12/16, at 5-6; Trial Court Order, 12/17/15, at 4-5; see also Childress v. Bogosian , 12 A.3d 448, 455 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that "it is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and decide credibility[,] and this Court will not reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by the evidence.") (citation omitted). Moreover, Baker has not demonstrated, through any citation to the record, that Hayes-Baker could pay the full amount in a lump sum based upon her salary or that Hayes-Baker would not make the payments as directed by the trial court. Thus, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or err as a matter of law in allowing Hayes-Baker to pay Baker the amount owed under the payment schedule, and affirm based on its sound reasoning. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/12/16, at 1- 6; see also Schenk v. Schenk , 880 A.2d 633, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that the circumstances of the case must be measured against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties to achieve a just determination of their property rights).
We note that Baker also asserts that the trial court should have imposed "sanctions" against Hayes-Baker. Brief for Appellant at 16. However, Baker does not specify the "sanctions" that he seeks in his brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that the argument section of the brief must include "such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent."). Thus, we conclude that Baker's claim is waived. To the extent that Baker seeks interest on the amount owed, the trial court determined that he is not entitled to interest. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/12/16, at 6. Further, to the extent Baker raises claims regarding alimony in his appellate brief, the trial court properly found that alimony was not an issue in this case. See id.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/24/2016
Image materials not available for display.