Opinion
J-S75032-16 No. 1073 EDA 2016
12-05-2016
TRICIA A. KLINGER v. EDWARD R. GEIGER, JR., Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order entered March 7, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Domestic Relations Division, No(s): DR-116715 PACSES 14510478 BEFORE: BOWES, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Edward R. Geiger, Jr. ("Geiger"), appeals from the March 7, 2016 Order (hereinafter the "Support Order"), which made final a prior Order requiring him to pay child support, in the amount of $232 per month, to Tricia A. Klinger ("Klinger"), the mother of Geiger's minor child. We affirm.
The trial court thoroughly set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt herein by reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 1-8.
In this timely appeal, Geiger presents the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to enter a written order consistent with the trial court's specific decision stated at [the] conclusion of the [January 27, 2016] de novo hearing [(hereinafter "the de novo hearing")], including that the support matter would be dismissed, the trial court would direct [Domestic Relations Office ("DRO")] case workers to contact [Klinger], and if [Klinger] intended to pursue the
matter, the case would be relisted for a conference/hearing, and[,] instead, denied [Geiger's] de novo request for [a] hearing?Brief for Appellant at 5 (capitalization omitted).
B. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to deny and dismiss the support Petition in response to the multiple and cumulative arguments of [Geiger,] where [he] argued that the support matter was improperly commenced[,] in violation of Pa.R.C.P. [] 1910.3; that there was no evidence of a substantial change in his earning[] capacity; that, absent such evidence of a change, res judicata barred the re-litigation of his earning[] capacity; and further, that the trial court should have compelled [Klinger's] attendance (in some form) at the [de novo] hearing?
C. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to conduct a full and fair de novo hearing as required by Pennsylvania law and the Rules of Civil Procedure?
D. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by making findings and conclusions of law where no testimony or facts of record exist to support the trial court's determinations regarding [Geiger's] and [Klinger's] earnings, as well as [Geiger's] support obligation, and further, by disregarding the prior, uncontradicted findings of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County regarding [Geiger's] earning[] capacity and support obligation?
A parent's financial obligation to his children is absolute, "and the purpose of child support is to promote the child's best interests." Morgan v. Morgan , 99 A.3d 554, 557 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). We review a child support order for an abuse of discretion. J.P.D. v. W.E.D., 114 A.3d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Style v. Shaub , 955 A.2d 403, 406 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that "[t]he trial court possesses wide discretion as to the proper amount of child support and a reviewing court will not interfere with the determination of the court below unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." (citation omitted)). Additionally, "[t]he fact-finder is entitled to weigh the evidence presented and assess its credibility[.]" Samii v. Samii , 847 A.2d 691, 697 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
In his first issue, Geiger argues that the trial court abused its discretion "where the trial court stated its decision to grant [Geiger's] request at the de novo [] hearing, and further, where all counsel agreed with the trial court's decision, and yet, the trial court then issued [the] directly contradictory [Support O]rder denying [Geiger's] request." Brief for Appellant at 11. According to Geiger, at the de novo hearing, "the trial court [judge] plainly and unequivocally stated that the existing support case would be dismissed, [and] Northampton [County] DRO would contact [Klinger] to determine whether she wished to proceed with a claim for support against [Geiger.]" Id. at 12. Geiger further asserts that "at the conclusion of the ... [de novo] hearing, the trial court [] stated that [Klinger] would need to file a new petition for support[, to] which [Geiger's] counsel and [Klinger's] counsel agreed." Id. at 13. Pointing to the purportedly "contrary" Support Order, however, Geiger challenges "the trial court's failure to adhere to its own decision[, i.e., at the de novo hearing,] as well as the agreement of counsel ...." Id. at 14.
To the extent that Geiger presents other, unrelated arguments under the same subheading of his first issue, see Brief for Appellant at 15-16, 19-21, these arguments are not fairly suggested by the Statement of Questions Involved section of Geiger's brief, nor did he raise them before the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (stating that "[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby."); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that a claim cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). Accordingly, these arguments are waived. See id.
In its thorough Opinion, the trial court addressed Geiger's claims and determined that they do not entitle him to relief. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 12-17. The trial court's cogent reasoning is supported by the record and the law, and we therefore affirm on this basis as to Geiger's first issue. See id.
In his connection with his second issue, Geiger asserts several sub-issues, which he summarizes as follows:
i. [] [T]he support matter was improperly commenced[, i.e., purportedly by Northampton County DRO,] in violation of Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1910.3;
ii. [] the matter was barred by operation of Res Judicata due to the prior determination by the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas' [] regarding [Geiger's] earning[] capacity;
iii. [] the matter was barred by operation of Res Judicata and [Klinger's] abandonment of her prior case in Carbon County;
iv. [] despite [Geiger] requesting a de novo hearing, and the hearing notice requiring both parties to appear, [Klinger] failed to appear. [Geiger's] counsel asserted that [Klinger] abandoned her appeal, and in the alternative, [requested] that the trial court compel [Klinger] to appear;
v. [] alternatively, there was no evidence of a change in [Geiger's] earning[] capacity from the prior [O]rder of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County; [and]
vi. [Geiger] also notes that he may have raised additional arguments had the court conducted a proper de novo hearing[, i.e., had the court stated at the de novo hearing its intention to "dismiss" Geiger's claim].Brief for Appellant at 22; see also id. at 22-28 (expounding upon these claims).
The trial court thoroughly addressed Geiger's second issue in its Opinion, set forth the relevant law, and determined that the issue and each sub-issue lacked merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 18-27. The trial court's cogent reasoning is supported by the record and the law, and we therefore affirm on this basis concerning Geiger's second issue. See id.
In his third issue, Geiger argues that the trial court erred and prejudiced him by failing to conduct a full and fair de novo hearing. See Brief for Appellant at 29-32. Specifically, Geiger asserts that
by filing for de novo review, [Geiger] did not request that the trial court simply review the findings of the hearing officer to determine whether such findings were appropriate; to the contrary, ... [Geiger] wanted a full reconsideration (i.e.[,] a new hearing) of his case. Yet, the trial court did not conduct a full hearing.Id. at 31 (citing Warner v. Pollock , 644 A.2d 747, 750 (Pa. Super. 1994) (stating that "[a] de novo hearing is full consideration of the case anew. The reviewing body is in effect substituted for the prior decision maker[,] and re[-]decides the case." (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Brief for Appellant at 31 (pointing out that [Klinger] did not appear at the de novo hearing, and asserting that the trial court improperly thereafter "issue[d] an [O]rder directly and inexplicably contrary to its own decision announced in open court[,]" which, Geiger argues, deprived him of a full de novo review. (emphasis omitted)).
The trial court addressed Geiger's third issue in its Opinion, set forth the relevant law, and determined that he was, in fact, afforded a full and fair de novo hearing. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 28-30; see also id. at 24-25. We agree with the trial court's rationale and determination, and thus affirm on this basis as to this issue. See id. at 28-30.
Finally, Geiger asserts that,
as argued throughout this [brief], ... the trial court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion by making findings and conclusions of law where no testimony or facts of record exist to support the trial court's determinations, and further[,] by disregarding the prior, uncontradicted findings of the Court of [C]ommon [P]leas of Carbon County regarding [Geiger's] earning[] capacity and support obligation.Brief for Appellant at 33.
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Geiger's final issue, correctly observed that it is "essentially a restatement of several aspects of the previous issues raised[,]" and determined that the issue did not entitle Geiger to relief. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 30-31. We agree with the trial court's rationale and determination, and thus affirm on this basis concerning Geiger's final issue. See id.
Accordingly, because we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court in conducting the de novo hearing, or entering the Support Order, we affirm.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/5/2016
Image materials not available for display.