Gadd, K. v. Gadd, T.
410 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Terence and Kimberly Gadd are divorced and share joint custody of a minor child; the trial court previously ordered child support and alimony pendente lite.
- The parties’ September 2015 Settlement Agreement provided for $400/month non-modifiable alimony for 24 months and continued child support per Domestic Relations calculations; the Divorce Decree incorporated the Agreement.
- In January 2016 Terence sought modification of support due to reduced income; the Support Master recommended child support and $400/month alimony; both parties later filed further modification petitions.
- After a multi-day support hearing, the trial court issued a November 4, 2016 Support Order calculating three different child-support amounts for different 2016 periods (based on Kimberly’s changing income), ordered $400/month alimony per the Agreement, and reduced total support by $60.29/month for medical insurance Terence provided.
- Terence filed timely post-trial motions and appeals pro se; the trial court denied reconsideration and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gadd) | Defendant's Argument (Kimberly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly deviated from the Support Guidelines without complying with Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (written/on-record reasons) | Trial court was required to award support strictly per the Guidelines and must state deviations in writing/ on the record | Trial court calculated guideline amounts, implemented the parties’ Settlement Agreement alimony, and provided a written order reducing support for medical insurance (a stated deviation) | The court upheld the order: the trial court complied with Rule 1910.16-5 by specifying guideline calculations and the reason for deviation in writing; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether other asserted errors (due process, abuse/manifest abuse of discretion, error of law) warranted relief | Terence raised due-process and several abuse-of-discretion/error-in-law claims on appeal | Kimberly and the court contend issues not raised in Terence’s Rule 1925(b) statement and poorly developed in the brief are waived; pro se status does not excuse procedural defaults | The court found those issues waived for failure to raise them in the Rule 1925(b) statement and for inadequate briefing under Pa.R.A.P. 2119; affirmed the order |
Key Cases Cited
- Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003) (standard of appellate review for support orders; abuse of discretion scope)
- Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Landis v. Landis, 691 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 1997) (presumption in favor of guideline support and permissibility of deviation)
- Dietrich v. Dietrich, 923 A.2d 461 (Pa. Super. 2007) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pro se status does not confer special procedural benefits)
- Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (pro se litigant still must properly present claims)
- B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008) (failure to develop appellate argument results in waiver)