From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dopico v. Leone

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 28, 2016
No. 42 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2016)

Opinion

J-S61014-16 No. 42 WDA 2016

09-28-2016

SHALA DOPICO Appellee v. REMO LEONE Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): FD-06-3722-004 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.:

Appellant, Remo Leone ("Father"), appeals from the order directing him to pay Shala Dopico ("Mother") $825.78 in child support per month. Father argues that the trial court erred in considering evidence that it had previously barred Mother from presenting due to Mother's non-compliance with a discovery order. After careful review, we affirm based upon the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion.

We take the facts and procedural history of this case from the trial court's opinion.

The parties are parents to a nine-year-old son, whose child support entitlement has been the subject of some litigation. Recent history begins in February 2015, where, upon a modification and compliance review, the hearing officer established an interim child support obligation of $441.24 to be paid by Father, pending the resolution of a complex master hearing. Notably, Mother's monthly net income was determined
to be $2,006.33. The ultimate case, now designated complex, was listed for a September 2, 2015 hearing date. In weeks prior to the trial, Father brought an "Emergency Motion to Preclude," wherein he alleged Mother had not complied with his discovery requests. Mother "has failed to respond in any way to [Father's] Request for Production of Documents ... The purpose of [Father's request] was to ascertain whether [Mother] had new or additional expenses since the support conference that she would be introducing at the hearing and to assess whether there has been a change in her income since the support conference." This [c]ourt ordered Mother to comply within three days or she "shall be precluded from entering any documents into evidence or any evidence or testimony regarding additional expenses at the [complex support hearing.]" Mother did not so comply. The [c]ourt preserved the issue of sanctions, allowing the Master to make the appropriate determination.

At the hearing, the Master first calculated Mother's income by relying on a figure established by the interim order seven months prior. That figure, utilized in the February 2015 temporary order, was based on Mother's W-2 wages she earned as a hair dresser, a position she had since left. Pursuant to this [c]ourt's August 28 order to preclude, Mother's counsel was prevented from submitting any evidence or testimony which might demonstrate a decrease in her income. And while Father's counsel refused to stipulate to Mother's income, his attorney, remarkably, chose not to pursue cross-examination.

Consequently, the entirety of the hearing concerned Father's income. Father is a self-employed mason who comingled his personal and business monies. The transcript is replete with personal purchases paid out of Father's business account. ... After factoring in the appropriate reductions, the Master determined Father's net income to be $4,826 per month. ... Father filed timely exceptions, which this [c]ourt dismissed.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 1-4 (citations omitted) (brackets in original).

In this timely appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in allowing Mother to present documents in contravention of its earlier discovery sanction and in including a wedding gift in his 2014 income. Our standard of review for a child support order is well-settled.

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.
Kimock v. Jones , 47 A.3d 850, 854 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

After careful review of the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court's opinion, authored by the Honorable Kathryn Hens-Greco, thoroughly and properly disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/16, at 4-7 (concluding that Mother's documentary evidence concerned only Husband's income and did thus did not violate the sanction order, and that there was no reason to disturb the Master's credibility determination regarding the alleged wedding gift). We, therefore, affirm the order based on the trial court's opinion.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/28/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Dopico v. Leone

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 28, 2016
No. 42 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2016)
Case details for

Dopico v. Leone

Case Details

Full title:SHALA DOPICO Appellee v. REMO LEONE Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 28, 2016

Citations

No. 42 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2016)