Opinion
J-A12026-16 No. 1976 EDA 2015
10-07-2016
MIRIAM LISSER POLIS Appellee v. ROBERT POLIS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 29, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 1992-22326 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Robert Polis ("Father"), appeals from the order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, granting Miriam Lisser Polis ("Mother") certain expenses owed, ordering Father to purchase and maintain a life insurance policy, which will cover his remaining alimony arrearages pursuant to the parties' 1992 Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA"), and finding Father not in contempt of the PSA. We affirm.
The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case; therefore, we see no reason to restate them. See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 28, 2015, at 1-5.
We note a few errors in this trial court opinion that we correct here: the order from which Father appealed was filed on May 29, 2015; the parties' divorce decree was filed on June 21, 1994; and the court's memorandum opinion and order were filed on December 22, 2014.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO APPLY THE [FOUR]-YEAR CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO [MOTHER'S] PETITION AND, THEREFORE, DISMISS [THE] SAME?Father's Brief, at 12.
DID THE HONORABLE COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY OF [FATHER] AS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY THAT THE $600,000.00 FIGURE STIPULATED BEFORE THE HONORABLE BERNARD MOORE ON MAY 6, 2002, INCLUDED ALL [OF MOTHER'S] CLAIMS TO DATE[?]
DID THE HONORABLE COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO FIND THAT THE $600,000.00 ARREARS STIPULATED BEFORE THE HONORABLE BERNARD MOORE ON MAY 6, 2002, INCLUDED ALL [OF MOTHER'S] CLAIMS TO THAT DATE WERE THE COURT RECORDS SHOWED A LOWER FIGURE ABOUT [TWO] YEARS PRIOR TO THAT DATE[?]
DID THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO FIND THAT THE $600,00.00 ARREAR STIPULATED BEFORE THE HONORABLE BERNARD MOORE ON MAY 6, 2002, INCLUDED ALL [OF MOTHER'S] CLAIMS TO THAT DATE WHEN [MOTHER'S] PETITION STATED ARREARS (NON-CONTRACT) WERE $550,000.00 AND ALL HER CONTRACT CLAIMS TO MAY 6, 2002, WERE RAISED IN HER PETITION?
On appeal from an order interpreting a marital settlement agreement, we must decide whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. See Tuthill v. Tuthill , 763 A.2d 417, 419 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc). "We do not usurp the trial court's fact-finding function." Id. (citation omitted).
"[J]udicial discretion" requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and due consideration. Such discretion is not absolute, but must constitute the exercises of sound discretion. This is especially so where, as here, there is law to apply. On appeal, a trial court's decision will generally not be reversed unless there appears to have been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying correct principles of law. An "abuse of discretion" or failure to exercise sound discretion is not merely an error of judgment. But if, in reaching a conclusion, law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable or lacking in reason, discretion must be held to have been abused.In re Deed of Trust of Rose Hill Cemetery Ass'n Dated Jan. 14 , 1960 , 590 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. 1991) (internal citations omitted). "Because contract interpretation is a question of law, this Court is not bound by the trial court's interpretation." Stamerro v. Stamerro , 889 A.2d 1251, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
Additionally, our standard of review concerning challenges to the admissibility of evidence is as follows:
Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not reverse the trial court's decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but rather where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.Commonwealth v. Young , 989 A.2d 920, 924 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal citations omitted). Hearsay is defined as "a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Pa.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the rule against hearsay applies. See Pa.R.E. 802. This Court has held that it is within a lower court's discretion to preclude hearsay testimony sua sponte, even when the opposing party had failed to object to it. See In re R.T., 778 A.2d 670, 683 (Pa. Super. 2001).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Gail Weilheimer, we conclude Father's issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issues presented on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 28, 2015, at 8-10; Trial Court Opinion, filed December 22, 2014, at 2-5. We affirm based on those two decisions.
We also note a couple of errors in this trial court opinion that we correct here: the master report was dated May 9, 2014; and the court's order deferring action on Mother's counter petition was filed on July 31, 2001.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/7/2016
Image materials not available for display.