Opinion
J-S83032-17 No. 945 EDA 2017
01-18-2018
M.M.F. Appellee v. V.A.F. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order February 14, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Domestic Relations at No(s): DR-36710, PACSES Case #922111536 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, V.A.F. ("Father"), appeals from the order entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which finalized the November 10, 2016 order that dismissed Father's petition to modify the existing support order. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED [AN] ERROR OF LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ADJUST THE PRESENT SUPPORT ORDER AS TO THE AMOUNT [FATHER] IS TO PAY IN MONTHLY CHILD SUPPORT RETROACTIVELY TO MAY 2015 TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT APPELLEE [("MOTHER")] HAS BEEN RECEIVING AN ADDITIONAL $1,201.47 PER MONTH AS: (A) HER PRO
RATA PORTION OF FATHER'S PENSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $701.47; PLUS (B) A PENALTY PROVISION FROM [FATHER'S] PENSION OF $500 PER MONTH, AND MOTHER IS PERMITTED TO BE CHARGED RETROACTIVELY DUE TO THE FACT THAT MOTHER FAILED TO REPORT THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME AS REQUIRED BY 23 PA.C.S. § 4353(A)?(Father's Brief at 4).
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT [COMMITTED] AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ESSENTIALLY CHARGING FATHER WITH THREE (3) FULL-TIME INCOMES: (A) FOR A MONTHLY PRO RATA PORTION OF HIS FORMER LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION FROM A FORMER WORKERS COMPENSATION SETTLEMENT; (B) FOR A MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION FROM HIS PENSION OF $201.24; AND (C) FOR HIS FULL-TIME JOB WITH AMAZON.COM, ANY OF WHICH SITUTATIONS ALONE WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED A "FULL-TIME" JOB AND THUS THIS "TAKING" REPRESENTS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY NOT BIFURCATING THE PRESENT CHILD SUPPORT ORDER GIVEN THAT [FATHER] DID NOT...START HIS POSITION WITH AMAZON.COM FOR OVER A MONTH, I.E.[,] UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2016, AFTER HE HAD FILED HIS PETITION FOR MODIFICATION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2016, YET THE PRESENT ORDER DOES NOT REFLECT HIS REDUCED INCOME FOR THE PRIOR FIVE (5) WEEKS?
Preliminarily, we observe that appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). Regarding the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a) provides:
Rule 2119. ArgumentPa.R.A.P. 2119(a). "[I]t is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal authorities." Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 703, 940 A.2d 362 (2008) (internal citations omitted). "This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." Id. If a deficient brief hinders this Court's ability to address any issue on review, we shall consider the issue waived. Commonwealth v. Gould , 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa.Super. 2006) (holding appellant waived issue on appeal where he failed to support claim with relevant citations to case law and record). See also In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 618 Pa. 677, 56 A.3d 398 (2012) (holding appellant waived issue, where argument portion of appellant's brief lacked meaningful discussion of, or citation to, relevant legal authority regarding issue generally or specifically; appellant's lack of analysis precluded meaningful appellate review).
(a) General rule.—The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Instantly, the argument section of Father's brief is significantly underdeveloped. All three of Father's issues lack meaningful discussion of his position, and instead Father mostly restates the facts of his case. See In re R.D., supra. The citations to authority Father included in his brief fail to strengthen any argument. Although the authorities Father cited do involve child support orders, they are not pertinent to Father's case. See Hardy , supra ; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Therefore, Father waived his issues for appellate review. See Gould , supra.
Moreover, even if Father properly preserved his issues, we would affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 16, 2017, at 12-19) (finding: (1) Father filed his most recent petition for modification of support on September 12, 2016, and sought to have support order modified retroactively to May 2015, when Father claims Mother began "misrepresenting" her income by failing to report her receipt of portion of Father's pension; court denied Father's request because Father had direct knowledge of pension payments made to Mother since May 2015, and could have petitioned to modify support at any point after May 2015, but Father failed to seek modification of support until September 12, 2016; thus, Father did not promptly file his most recent support modification petition; moreover, Father presented no compelling reason for retroactive application of any modification order to May 2015; further, record does not indicate Mother misrepresented her income, and Father did not proffer any other reason to support his retroactivity request; to extent Father disputes Mother's entitlement to portion of Father's pension, this issue has already been litigated; record is devoid of any evidence requiring court to change effective date from date of filing of modification petition; (2) court correctly considered Father's three sources of monthly income when calculating his child support obligation; at October 26, 2016 conference, Father reported he had been hired by Amazon and provided wage certification; Father's income from Amazon position constitutes "income" for purposes of child support; income assessed from Father's pension and worker's compensation have been previously litigated; both funds are "income" for purposes of child support; Father's assertion that court violated his equal protection rights in calculating Father's income lacks legal basis; (3) regarding Father's effort to "bifurcate" current support order to reflect Father's reduced income between September 12, 2016, and October 21, 2016, when he was not yet employed with Amazon, Conference Officer decided there was no basis for Father's requested support modification; rather, Conference Officer saw basis for increase in Father's support obligation, but she decided against any increase because it would create undue hardship for Father; given that finding, bifurcation was unwarranted). Accordingly, Appellant waived his issues for appeal, and we affirm the court's order dismissing Father's petition to modify the existing support order.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/18/2018
Image materials not available for display.