V.S. v. A.A.
V.S. v. A.A. No. 1634 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- Child born Jan 2016; parents executed a temporary guardianship letter giving paternal grandmother (Appellant, A.A.) custody while mother was incarcerated and father unable to care for child.
- Paternal Grandmother (residing in New Jersey) filed for emergency custody in PA on Mar 31, 2016; court granted temporary custody pending hearing and later awarded her primary legal and physical custody, with Maternal Grandmother (Appellee, V.S.) given partial physical custody.
- Maternal Grandmother petitioned for contempt on Aug 8, 2016 alleging Paternal Grandmother denied her court-ordered partial custody; court scheduled an Aug 29 contempt hearing which Paternal Grandmother did not attend.
- At the contempt hearing the court found Paternal Grandmother in contempt, awarded Maternal Grandmother four months of make-up custody time, and later (on reconsideration) allowed limited visitation for Paternal Grandmother during that period; Paternal Grandmother timely appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court concluded Paternal Grandmother’s appellate briefs were procedurally defective (lack of balanced statement of the case, unclear questions, no developed argument or legal citation) and held her claims waived, affirming the contempt decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of contempt finding based on notice | V.S.: Paternal Grandmother refused access and failed to appear despite notice; contempt proper | A.A.: She lacked notice of the contempt hearing and therefore the contempt finding was improper | Court found adequate notice (regular mail not returned; certified refused), Mother had informed A.A.; contempt affirmed, though action modified to permit visitation during make-up period |
| Waiver of appellate issues due to brief defects | V.S.: Appellant failed to follow Pa.R.A.P.; issues should be waived | A.A.: Raised multiple supposed errors and factual disputes in pro se briefs | Court held A.A.’s briefs violated Rules 2116-2119 and 2117 (no balanced statement, unclear questions, no developed legal argument), resulting in waiver of appellate claims |
| Sufficiency of appellant’s statement of the case/questions | V.S.: Statement requirements must be met for review | A.A.: Presented her factual narrative and legal theory | Court found A.A.’s statement one-sided, omitted material facts, and did not comply with Rule 2117; inadequate for review |
| Requests for additional relief filed in Superior Court (jury trial, writs, petition to transfer) | A.A.: Filed various motions alleging judge misconduct and requesting relief | V.S.: Opposed; sought enforcement of custody orders | Superior Court denied all additional filings and requests for relief as meritless or procedurally improper |
Key Cases Cited
- First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Frempong, 744 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 1999) (pro se status does not confer special advantage)
- D. Jones v. Rudenstein, 585 A.2d 520 (Pa. Super. 1991) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
- Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellate briefs must conform to Pa.R.A.P.)
- Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2000) (issues waived when appellant fails to develop argument)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (arguments not appropriately developed are waived)
- Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellant must support each question with analysis and authority)
- C. Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statement of the case must be balanced and non-argumentative)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (failure to support claims with authority precludes review)
- Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (omission of questions presented is particularly grievous)
- In re K.L.S., 934 A.2d 1244 (Pa. 2007) (when issues are waived on appeal, affirm rather than quash)