Opinion
J-S33005-17 No. 59 MDA 2017
06-01-2017
ROBERT J. PANEK, Appellant v. DIANA PANEK, Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered December 8, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 16-DRO-0250 PACES NO. 004115837 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Robert J. Panek (Husband) appeals from the order entered on December 9, 2016, that denied his exceptions to a master's report. The order also concluded that Husband's and Diana Panek's (Wife) agreement entitled "Marital Separation Agreement" (Agreement) was a valid and enforceable post-nuptial agreement that barred spousal support and alimony. After review, we affirm.
In Husband's brief, he sets forth the following eight issues for our review:
I. Whether the [c]ourt erred finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" signed by the parties was a valid agreement as Pennsylvania does not recognize legal separation pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S.[] §§ 3301(c) and 3301(d)?Husband's brief at 9-10.
II. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" signed by the parties was not a separation agreement but instead an enforceable postnuptial agreement?
III. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" was valid despite [Husband's] contention that he was under duress at the time of execution of the Agreement?
IV. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" was valid despite [Husband's] contention that [Wife] misrepresented the permanency and terms and conditions of the Agreement to him at the time of execution of the Agreement?
V. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" was valid despite [Husband's] contention that he was coerced into signing the Agreement by [Wife]?
VI. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" was valid despite [Husband's] contention that he did not understand the terms and conditions of the Agreement?
VII. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" was valid despite [Husband's] contention that the Agreement is not compliant with and is invalid and nonbinding in conjunction with the laws and rules of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
VIII. Whether the [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding that the "Marital Settlement [sic] Agreement" was a legally binding contract?
Initially, we must comment on the inadequacies of Husband's brief. Although Husband has listed eight separate issues that he submits for this Court's review, he has not complied with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which states that "[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part ... the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent." Rather, Husband merely provides four pages of argument in which he purports to address all eight issues. Moreover, he has not included any citations to case law to support his positions relating to his arguments.
Due to the failure to abide by the rules of appellate procedure, Husband's appeal could be dismissed. However, following our review of the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned analysis provided by the Honorable Julia K. Munley of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in her opinion dated February 2, 2017, we conclude that Judge Munley has correctly disposed of the issues presented. Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm the order on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/1/2017
Image materials not available for display.