Belts, M. v. Morris, B.
Belts, M. v. Morris, B. No. 93 WDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 27, 2017Background
- Appellant Brandon J. Morris, while incarcerated, petitioned the trial court on Sept. 14, 2016 to terminate a $50/month child support obligation, claiming no known assets and relying on Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.19(f).
- A domestic relations officer dismissed the termination petition; Morris requested a de novo hearing before the trial court.
- The trial court scheduled a hearing for Dec. 15, 2016 but could not reach Morris by telephone at SCI-Camp Hill and proceeded without him.
- At the hearing the trial court noted records indicating Morris made regular payments during incarceration, suggesting prison employment or prison-pay income.
- The trial court denied the termination petition on Oct. 19, 2016; Morris appealed pro se to the Superior Court and was ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement but failed to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morris) | Defendant's Argument (Appellee/Domestic Relations) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support should be terminated because Morris has no known assets and is incarcerated | Morris argued he had no known assets and thus support must be terminated under Rule 1910.19(f) | Domestic relations pointed to ongoing payments during incarceration and opposed termination | Trial court denied termination; Superior Court dismissed appeal for procedural defects rather than reaching merits |
| Whether Superior Court should dismiss appeal for failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement | Morris did not file the 1925(b) statement and argued pro se status | Appellee urged waiver under precedent for failure to comply with trial court order | Superior Court found failure to file a timely 1925(b) statement constitutes waiver but declined to dismiss solely on that ground here; dismissal rested on combined procedural defects |
| Whether pro se brief sufficed to present appellate issues | Morris filed a one-page pro se brief with five short paragraphs asserting error | Appellee relied on Pa.R.A.P. requirements and case law that inadequately developed briefs are not reviewable | Court held Morris’s brief was substantively inadequate and could not be reviewed |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for substantial noncompliance with appellate rules | Morris relied on liberal construction for pro se litigants | Appellee relied on rules (Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2111–2119) and precedent requiring compliance | Court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and substantial noncompliance with Pa.R.A.P. requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement waives issues on appeal)
- Branch Banking & Tr. v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (inadequate briefs will not be considered on the merits)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but no special procedural exemptions)
- Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2008) (pro se status does not relieve obligation to follow appellate rules)
- In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues waived where brief lacks meaningful discussion and record citations)
- Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellant must support claims with discussion, record references, and legal citations)