Petit, N. v. Petit, M.

Case Information

J-A12043-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

NANCY PETIT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA Appellant :

:

:

v. :

:

:

MICHEL PETIT : No. 1577 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 25, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at

No(s): 2016-00593, PACSES; 821115830 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2024

Plaintiff/Appellant Nancy Petit (“Mother”) appeals from the May 25, 2023, order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County granting in part and denying in part her Motion for Reconsideration and Modification of the trial court’s April 26, 2023, child support and Alimony Pendente Lite (“APL”) order. For reasons that follow, we vacate and remand with instructions that the trial court recalculate child support and reconsider Father’s ability to satisfy a portion of his support arrearages in a lump sum payment.

Appended to this decision is the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion dated September 26, 2023, which sets forth a detailed and comprehensive factual and procedural history, with references to the many evidentiary ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A12043-24

hearings held during the relevant period, such that we need only provide a summary thereof. Mother and Defendant/Appellee Michel Petit (“Father”) were married in 2001, separated in 2015, and divorced in 2019. They are the biological parents of one minor child, born in 2013, who currently lives with Mother and her maternal grandmother in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The record established that Father has joint legal custody of his son, but he has not seen or contacted him since 2018. N.T., 7/25/22, at 90-92.

Father is remarried and currently lives in Texas, where he is employed as a sales representative for a fracking sand supplier, Smart Sand, Inc., a publicly traded company doing business with oil and gas companies. From tax years 2016 to 2021, Appellant’s earned income from Smart Sand fluctuated from a low of $123,349.37 in 2021 to a high of $294,093.41 in 2019, with a six-year average of approximately $196,790.00. N.T. at 46-48. In addition to his regular W-2 earnings, Father’s compensation package included receipt of non-qualified Smart Sand restricted stock, which was reflected in his regular statement of earnings with income taxes withheld. N.T. at 107. As described, infra , the stock was restricted when issued, but pursuant to restrictive covenant agreement it became fully unrestricted within several years and was then capable of liquidation by Father. Id .

Prior to Father’s employment with Smart Sand, he played 17 seasons— from 1982 to 1998—as a professional hockey player in the National Hockey League (“NHL”). N.T., 12/3/20, at 8. Injuries he sustained during his playing years, however, made him eligible to file a workers’ compensation claim and

- 2 -

J-A12043-24

to join a class-action concussion lawsuit against the NHL. He had retired from the NHL by the time he married Mother in 2001.

Since the birth of the parties’ minor son, Mother has been a stay-at- home parent and serves as her son’s sole caregiver. N.T., 3/4/21, at 31.

Mother has not been employed in years, and she pays $1,500.00 in monthly rent to live with her son in the lower level of her maternal grandmother’s home. N.T., 7/25/22, at 188.

On March 11, 2016, Mother filed a complaint for child support and APL against Father. On August 1, 2016, the parties appeared before a Hearing Officer, who issued a recommended order requiring Father to pay child support, APL, and the mortgage of the marital home for a total of $4,755.94 per month, effective March 11, 2016. TCO, 9/26/23, at 2. The Hearing Officer also found Father’s income to be $9,326 per month and Mother’s income to be $0. The Hearing Officer ordered Father to pay, inter alia , unreimbursed medical expenses and medical insurance. Id .

On August 16, 2016, Father filed a counseled notice of demand for a hearing de novo . On February 17, 2017, the trial court issued a Final Support Order in which it imputed an annual earning capacity for Mother of $24,900.00 and, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, imputed a net monthly income of $8,395.75 to Father based on his Smart Sand income. Id . The court set Father’s child support obligation according to child support guidelines. Id . On May 12, 2017, the trial court modified the support order in part upon consideration of Father’s Amended Petition for Reconsideration. Id. at 3.

- 3 -

J-A12043-24

The current custody order was entered on December 11, 2018, based on a Hearing Officer’s recommendation. Among other things, Mother was awarded primary physical custody subject to Father’s supervised custodial visit with child at scheduled intervals. Both parents were awarded joint legal custody. On January 24, 2019, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement, upon which the trial court entered its February 28, 2019, equitable distribution order. The parties Divorce Decree was entered on April 2, 2019.

Id. at 4-5.

As catalogued in the trial court opinion, the ensuing five years have involved numerous petitions for special relief and motions for modification of child support. TCO at 5-8. Among the issues raised and addressed at the corresponding proceedings were whether Father’s workers’ compensation award, concussion settlement, and other assets may be considered income imputed to Father if they were contemplated in the equitable distribution property settlement agreement, and whether Father was liable to pay retroactive child support for alleged misrepresentations about his income, when the parties had stipulated to his income. TCO at 7.

After conducting several de novo hearings and considering the parties’ submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court issued its decision and Final Support Order of January 13, 2023, in which it assessed significant arrearages based on its finding that Father had misrepresented his income at prior hearings. However, the court determined that it lacked any basis upon which to seize property pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3703(2)

- 4 -

J-A12043-24

(permitting the “taking and seizure of goods and chattel” to pay arrearages) and §4352(d.1) ( “overdue support obligations” may constitute a lien against real property) and order Father to pay a lump sum towards his arrears because it found Mother had not presented admissible evidence to establish the value of Father’s assets which could be seized for such purposes. Once the value of such assets is obtained, the trial court indicated, Mother may take further enforcement action through Domestic Relations to satisfy the arrearages.

Mother filed a motion for reconsideration, to which the trial court granted reconsideration in part and denied in part through its orders of April 26, 2023, and May 25, 2023, respectively. This timely appeal follows.

Mother presents the following three questions for this Court’s consideration:

1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion

in computing Father’s income for purposes of awarding child support where it failed to include Father’s workers’ compensation award, funds received from the NHL concussion litigation settlement, and the proceeds from a 401(k) withdrawal, where the record reveals that those funds were pre-marital or post-marital assets that were not included in the equitable distribution of the marital estate?

2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion

in failing to include in its child support calculations the value of shares of stock in Father’s employer, Smart Sand, a publicly owned company, where the record revealed that Father was paid in stock in lieu of salary to reduce his income available for child support?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, when, after finding that

Father had intentionally misrepresented his income and willfully violated a non-disbursement order, it failed to award Mother a lump-sum payment of child support and attorneys’ - 5 -

J-A12043-24

fees from Father’s $158,400 workers compensation award or other assets but instead permitted Father to pay his $102,501 in child support, APL, and attorneys’ fees out over many years?

Brief for Appellant, at 15-16.

Our standard of review is as follows:

When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the trial court's determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note that the duty to support one's child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child's best interests.

M.E.W. v. W.L.W. , 240 A.3d 626, 634 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

“[W]ith regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand. When the trial court sits as fact finder, the weight to be assigned the testimony of the witnesses is within its exclusive province ... and the court is free to choose to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.” Mackay v. Mackay , 984 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.

Super. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied , 995 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2010).

Reich v. Reich 315 A.3d 89 (Pa. Super. 2024).

After careful review of the record, party briefs, the applicable law, we agree with the trial court that Mother’s first claim on appeal is without merit.

In reaching this conclusion, we rely on the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, which provides a thorough review of the first issue and determines it is without merit. See TCO, 9/26/23, at 19-23 (Issue #5).

- 6 -

J-A12043-24

Specifically, the trial court correctly observed that the parties’ counseled property settlement agreement of January 24, 2019, was reduced to writing and formed the basis for the trial court’s equitable distribution order of February 28, 2019. The equitable distribution order provided, inter alia , that Mother receive the marital home valued at $699,000.00, after buying out Father’s $50,000.00 interest therein, assume responsibility for the mortgage, taxes, utilities, and other expenses, and receive 25% of the increase in the value of Father’s NHL pension. To Father, the equitable distribution order awarded him his full interest in the Sun Life Whole Insurance policy with responsibility for the loan balance, and “all right, title and interest” to his then- pending State of California worker’s compensation claim, to his NHL pension as his sole and exclusive property, and to any settlement verdict, judgment or other disposition of funds awarded in the then-pending NHL class action concussion lawsuit.

Therefore, because Father’s interests in question formed part of the consideration offered in the negotiations that led to an equitable distribution agreement between the parties, the trial court properly deemed those interests marital assets in its equitable distribution award and concluded, therefore, that they could not also be considered sources of “income” for child support purposes pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302 lest the trial court engage in “double counting” of such assets. See Hess v. Hess , 212 A.3d 520, 524 (Pa.

Super. 2019) (holding an asset awarded in equitable distribution may not be included in an individual’s income for purposes of calculating support

- 7 -

J-A12043-24

payments). Because the trial court aptly identified controlling authority and applied it to the present facts, we discern no basis on which to grant Mother relief under her first claim.

In Mother’s second issue, she maintains the trial court erroneously failed to impute to Father as income available for child support his employer’s stock paid to him as compensation in lieu of cash wages. 1 At the April 2022 child support hearing, Father admitted he receives Smart Sand stock “every year” as compensation, N.T., 4/28/22, at 63, 64. He explained that part of his gross compensation in each of calendar year 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 typically consisted of a payment of 2000 shares of Smart Sand stock, N.T. at 62. He acknowledged the stocks were fully “restricted” at first but, by the time of the April 2022 hearing, all were “unrestricted.” N.T. at 62, 64.

The trial court understood Father’s testimony to describe a stock option compensation arrangement, whereby part of his compensation consisted of stocks that vested incrementally over time, at which point he acquired the right to exercise the option to buy or sell. 2 The trial court determined, ____________________________________________

1 Father testified at the April 28, 2022, hearing that “in every year” Smart Sand compensates him with a certain number of stocks, see infra , and he explained that Smart Sand sells the portion of the stock to acquire proceeds necessary to pay his withholding taxes and awards him the remaining 1,000 to 1,300 shares of the restricted stock, as net pay. N.T., 4/28/22, at 59, 64.

2 The trial court understood Father’s testimony to describe a “stock option” compensation arrangement, whereby part of his compensation package consisted of restricted stocks that became “unrestricted” or vested gradually over a predetermined time known as a vesting period. To the extent the trial (Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 8 -

J-A12043-24

however, that Mother failed to produce evidence of either the stock options’ values at the time of the hearing or of Father’s ability to readily avail himself of their cash values to address his support obligations. We disagree.

Father, himself, testified that Smart Sand stock was, at the time of the April 2022 hearing, “trading at $3.00, and in those days [when he was initially compensated with the stock] it was $18, $19, $20 a share.” N.T. at 65. To this testimony, Mother’s counsel asked Father, “[D]o you agree it’s around $3.86 a share currently?” Father replied, “Do I agree? I can look at it . . . or ____________________________________________

court understood the stock compensation award to confer to Father the option to sell stock that had reached unrestricted status and to receive cash payment equal to its then-current value, we concur with its understanding.

To the extent, however, that the trial court also concluded Father was required to exercise an option to buy the stock already awarded to him as compensation, see Trial Court “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” 1/13/23, at p. 43, the record belies this conclusion. Documentary evidence and Father’s testimony confirm the stock compensation arrangement between Smart Sand and Father was a “Restricted Stock Award” governed by a “Restrictive Covenant Agreement” in which the Smart Sand employee receives an award of restricted stock that vests or becomes unrestricted in one-quarter increments annually over four years. Under the terms of the Agreement, and consistent with Father’s own testimony, all of Father’s stock received from 2016 to 2019 had become fully unrestricted and available to him to cash out at his sole discretion—and without any further expense—by the time of the 2022 hearing, as Smart Sand already withheld income taxes applicable to the stocks prior to awarding them to Father as compensation. See Restricted Stock Award Agreement; N.T. at 59. The only option left for Father to exercise was whether and when to sell his unrestricted stock to access its value.

- 9 -

J-A12043-24

I can say, yeah, I agree.” Id . 3 He also admitted, after initially offering a denial, that he had cashed out some of his Smart Sand stock in the past, N.T.

at 63. 4

Regardless of the diminution in the stocks’ trading values over the relevant period 5 , the record supports the conclusion that at the time of the hearing Father possessed approximately 4,800 post-withholding, unrestricted shares of company stock which, if sold at about $3.86 per share on the day of his testimony, would have held a net value of $18,528.00 in the aggregate.

In MacKinley v. Messerschmidt , 814 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. 2002), this Court held that vested stock options constitute income for child support ____________________________________________

3 Father testified at the April 28, 2022, hearing that the stock had lost much of its value during the relevant time, but he did not deny Mother’s counsel’s assertion during examination that the stock had a then-present value of $3.86 per share. He also admitted, after initially offering a denial, that he had cashed out some of his Smart Sand stock in the past, N.T., 4/28/22, at 63, and that all his stock has reached unrestricted status. Id .

4 The Restricted Stock Award Agreement further indicates that the four-year phase-in scheme by which an employee stock becomes increasingly unrestricted as long as one remains an employee is an incentive/award for remaining in the employ of Smart Sand. Under this record, which establishes that Father received this stock each year from 2016 through 2019, and remained an employee of Smart Sand at the time of the most recent hearing on April 10, 2023, it must be concluded that at the present time, all stocks issued to Father prior to July 2020 are fully unrestricted under the Restricted Stock Award Agreement’s four-year phase-in scheme, and any other stocks awarded in the same manner in 2021, 2022, and 2023 are partially unrestricted.

5 The trial court took note of Father’s tax returns showing he experienced a net loss in the value of his stocks from 2016-2020, a fact that was acknowledged by both parties during the April 2022 hearing.

- 10 -

J-A12043-24

purposes regardless of when a parent elects to exercise them. The dispositive occasion in this context, MacKinley explains, is the moment a parent may access a stock’s value, as the “dominant interest of a child’s immediate needs, the recognition that children should not be made to wait for support, and the possibility of a parent deferring income until they choose to avail themselves of it” militate in favor of preventing such unilateral, voluntary, dilatory parental conduct aimed at reducing child support obligations. Id. at 683. See Hanrahan v. Bakker , 186 A.3d 958, 980 (Pa. 2018) (Applying policy considerations identified in MacKinley to reverse an order that awarded high- income parent a downward deviation in child support obligation after parent made considerable contributions to a trust benefitting children; money available to an obligor should be made available to children for their immediate needs).

The same rationale applies here to support the conclusion that Father’s employment compensation in the form of restricted shares of stock—a method of compensation by which, Mother contends, Father sought to avoid child support obligations—constituted income for child support purposes once the shares became unrestricted and, thus, accessible to Father. Contrary to the trial court’s opinion that Mother presented no evidence of the stocks’ value, the record shows Mother established through both testimonial and documentary evidence that Father’s Smart Sand stock awards had a discernable present value readily accessible to Father to apply towards his court-ordered obligations to his son. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court

- 11 -

J-A12043-24

erred in excluding Father’s Smart Sand stock awards from its income calculations for purposes of setting Father’s support obligations.

Because adding the aggregate value of all Father’s unrestricted Smart Sand stocks will increase his imputed income to some degree, we remand this matter for proceedings wherein the trial court shall recalculate Father’s income for purposes of determining Father’s child support and APL obligations. Furthermore, in light of Father’s access to unrestricted shares of stock, the trial court shall reconsider Mother’s third issue pertaining to Father’s ability to pay a portion of his $117,432.76 arrearages in a lump sum. In making the lump sum payment determination, the trial court shall consider not only the availability of his unrestricted stocks but also the unrefuted evidence that Father took no precautions for his son’s sake to account for predictable fluctuations in his annual income by saving in high-income years and cashing out his stocks when they began to vest at higher prices several years ago and applying the proceeds to child support.

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 8/21/2024

- 12 -

Circulated 07/30/2024 07:53 PM TN, THE COU1tTOF:COMMON PLEAS ()F DELAWARE COUNTY;;PENNSYLANIA

FAMILY EiND JUVENILE NANCY PETIT , SUPERlOR'CQURT No. , 1577 EDA.2:023

App'eltant FACS.ES NO 82111'583A'

V. DOCKET NO. 2016-Q0593

MICHEL PETIT, IN SUPPORT

Appetlee

Virginia Hinrichs McMichael, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

Michel Petit, Pro :Se Defendant=Appellee

OPINION KI:El1„J Filed: September 26, ".2023

L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Tn tl li5 C?piriion ,piirsuan"t to Pennsylvania Rule of A}ipcllate-pr6c6duie 1925(4);;the'tnai. ≥eour her„el y ineorporate5;i s Eineliiigs of Faet;and Con us ons of'Lavv-ancl final Support Ordex issued on.January 1.3, 2023, its Reconsideration decis''lon issued on,Apri1.26,.2023 and its second Reconsideration decision issued on May 25, 2023. `l he tmirt. attaches,fheselepiAons and orders' to this Upiriion and relies.,vn them to: explain its rationale for its decisions:;

Below , please fired the °court's analyses of the error'`s raised tx.PlaintiffNancy Petit's "M. othbr" . Rule 1925 b• Concise Statement ofErrors seriatim Fdr the rcasons stated:below,_the •.

trial court, contends that.its,decisions fail to.constitute an abuse of discretion or:an.error of law and, respectfully requests that its decisions be affirmed.

II. PROCEDURAL: HISTORY the trial court'heretiy reproduces its Procedural' F-listory within its Findings of Fact.as. contained' ! its January 13, 2023 Finding's of Fact and Conclusions . of Law at pp, J-1.3 (",January °1:3,;2023 Decision"):;

Plaintiff N4ncyN it"(`Mothe ' tit' V•ife ".)'and Defendani•Michel Petit (". Father" or "Husband')' are the biological parents of the minor child, B:P. , , DOB 2/22/13 ("child";or "minor child".):

Plaintiff." Nancy Petit initial] " filed heir. complaints for child support- and ;alimony .pendente life-('`APL"), on March- 1'l, 2U'1`6.'Domestic Relations'Case Noteleport, 3/17/16=at 56,

The parties appeared before Hearing;Q£ficerpohnelly on August 1,1016 who issued a-recommended-,order requiring Defendant Michel Petitto pay child support; APL:.and the-mortgage on the marital home for a total of $4,755:94 per,month, the effective.date of the-order: was March_l 1, 2016. Domestic ;Relations IDocket:History Report at 25

, The „Hearing Officer'a I 66"found Defendant s''i'ncome to be $9;32 per month. and Plaintiff s zero. Her'Order included appartionnient of unre, bursed medical expen'ses,..various credits' gitd tbAt :Defendant was 4aprovide medical. 'irisu'rance 'Icl..

;On August r6,"2016; Defendant filed -a-notice 'of demai id for hearing de novo through, his c ounsel s -Frank urso;_Esquire. Domestic Relatibos:IDocket Histi ry Report at 24.

On Febru " __ 17. 2917; HonoraEile bomenic Pileggi issued'a"Fina1' Support; .Order, utter taking this matter under advise ncht on December 12, 2 0. 16. Exlubit'P=15j ^[1] 10 ound the t'ollowirig:::

a:, .11e: mputec an earning capacity 'forMother d 14;900 forua net .monthly tParti'es•aree• that F 1•794AZ•Id>;at r g : ather's employment, at that tithe; ;yielded a net monthly income of $8,395.75 The parties also stipulated'that Father worked in'sales for"Smart'Sand, Inc Id. atI,110 c„ Pursuant to child support-guidelines ifs , effect at the" time, Judge Pileggi found-that:basic child support for one chiIdwith, a net monthly household incorrie of $10,189:77 is $°1,410.0,0'.per month: Father's share-4the.net.morithly household income vas 82% while Mother's. was 18% As a result,.,Bather's basic,monthly child support obligation was $1,1.56. 20.',-Id,, at 7, ¶211. 'fudge Pil eg ga fiirther analyzed Niother's.request for an upward custody deviation and found n ,her'favor in light of Father's failure

to avail himself of court-ordered "parents ' g tithe.. He awarded a 10

uI'w ar `dcustody deviatioh'in the amount of, Sl:l 5.62. Id ," at - 8, x(29'. e. ;Next; JudgePileggi tackled daycare expenses as =required when imputing, income. l=le' found that Mother's yearly imputed cost of - dayeare at $250 perweek would' 82% be`$13,000 annually or`$1,083.33 per month. As Father's-share is., his responsibility would be $888.33.permonth. Id: at 1:0- 11,130.

f judge Pileggi then. found . that Father's health -insurance cosfs'were 268,66 per month. Mother's share was 4 $0/u, :or $48;36, which

Judge Pileggi subtracted :from Father's support obligation: ld at 1`l, '•31,.

g.. He'thtt `calculated Mothe6 alimony pen denfe i* away"d as 1$1 , ,.346 - .9 8_ Id: at l, ,! ;:

li. He awarded Mother an upward mortgage devtati6n;,Based on the parties' monthly mortgage, of . $2,011 ZT; ;in the arnount.of I& ;at 1'1 12,'" 33 , Basedon.the above findings, `he concluded that Father' s:monthly, alimony pendente, lite and; child support obligations towardsM - other were $3,845':06 plus 10% on arrears, $3:84.00' per month; fora total of $14;229:06. Icl, at 14-T6,`¶ 36;.

a: Last he ordered Wther`be responsible for the first WO of unreimbursed,medical`expenses for Mother, and.tninor child, the, excess to be split 5,0/50;: He failed'to`meution`.any , award of extra- curricular expenses. ld..at. 14-15; !n 37-38.

Upan'consideratian Of Defendant's'•Amended ! Petition`for Reconsideration; g May 12 201.7, Judge Pile9V Plaintiff's AAnswer thereto and a hearin on `modified his 1*ebruary 17, XV (Order in part: LLExhibit Y-7:: He tourid the, following

a;. He,'affiraied his'prior decisian'to award an,upward ' us to''y deviation of TON: Id. at 3;1, .2.j. b; : He affirtiied his decision. to. award Mother reasonable 'mpufed;

childcare costs,;atthe previous amount awarded. Id. at 4, ^[1] 3, e e , He modifed the March 3.1,'2020 decision to reflectMather's entitlement to a cliild.and`tax dependent care credit in the ariiount of$900 Id.,;

d.: °He affirmed Father•'s:agreed het monthly income as . $8,395 75. Id, 'at 4,115.

e.. ;Fie found that 'Mother's gross imputed yearly income at the same, ainount,.$24,960' but deducted childcare taX credit, Medicare'and Pennsylyania income tax and Social Security taxes to yield an annual net income of '$23,284.29a with a monthly net of $ 1,940:36:

He found that Mosher had norfederal'tax liability: Id at 5-6,' 5;

°f Based on. hismodified;calculations`for Mother's income , he'found 'that.net m6nt ' hly 'total household income was $ 10;336`l ),, resulting .ih.a monthly aw'ard.of$ l°,423.00 in child.:support.'fof,bne'child, Father was. apportioned 81%0 of the net household income while. Mather, "19 °,•o Idat6 ¶ 9:.

g. He found.tlie upward custody devr'afiori to be.$LI 00•per n6htfi. Id. at 1; .¶ 10,

b Mother's childcare,.expenses were hot iiaodif ed_ but-Judge P,ildggi, subtracted the $300 childcare fax credit, resulting in $ 1-2,10Q from $13,000 as stated in the,.Fe>aruary Order, Id. at 8;'x,11 .The net. monthly'.ch tdcare, was modified to be $1,083.33"per month. When. multiplied,; y'81 %, Faiher's.sliare is 01: 4 net per month..Id at= ¶'ll.

Based on ilie Court's 6odification:af Mother'0heome;-the Court- adjusted ' the health insurance accordingly; Her new,contribution`Was $ 5.1.05, to be subtracted froin lather's support and APL obligatinn..Id at 8-4,"' .

Similarly ; based on the.Court 's modifcation'of'Motlrer's income ; ihe; Court' adjusted Mother's alimony pehdente lite award, resulting: in Father's monthly alimony pendente lite obligation to be $1 326:62. Id at 9i 10 `j 11

iG. Again, based.on the Courtsmodification of Mother's"income,"the Court ch'anged,thelnortgage deviation,ta I COculating,the child support and alimony: pendente life awards with"custody and imortgage'deviations' childcare expenses and' health :insurance as stated" above,. the Court concluded that Father's total"monthly otiligati6, li usive ofeh'ild supportannd,alimony, pendente "lite r was'$3,740'.29 plus- 10 in,arrears or $374-Q0, xd., ,Order at 1241,14;,

.'pi Unreimbuised'medical - expensesforbothMother and child remained the. same: Mother was responsible for :the first $250, wish-, parties splitting'inreimursed medical expenses. Id, O"rdcr at 12- Mother filed a Petition to.Moi dify Support on or abotit : August 6, 201 8. Cast Note Report at 39 Tte matter was heard before Hearing'Officer Bonner who'. 'took this matter;under"advisement, on. September 12; 2018. Domestic Relations , `Docket at,15.

01J September 12, 2018,•at a proceedirig'on contempt before Honorable Ann Osborne, the `Court asked - that- Domestic" Relations reAist the,,mattei• to review medical documents submitted - "that marriiing. She Held'the.contemptproceeding in' abeyance. Domestic Relations_ Docket at M.

,On Cetober l2, 2018," Hearing Officer Bonnet dismissed Mother''s-Petitfod% . finding credible Father's testimony , that " M- other , 'had failed'`to present any substantial change jw6reumstances, Domestic Relations Docket History Report at 15.

'On.0 i,6ber 23 `201 & 'Mother filed a Demand for, Hearing rye no o; Domestic; Relations - Docket History Report a'14.

The current°Custody Order liras ent' ' don Decemberll, 2018' Based -on<a heanng pfficer's reco hftiendation. Mother `was awarded primary physical custody''subject.to Father,"'s supervised custodial, visrtwith child every thxeej months on a Saturday for'eight hours with at least seven days' notice,.to Mother in Writing, Both'parents were awarded joint,legal`custody 7)25/22 hearing, Exhibit P-19:.

13; O i April 8, 2019," Domestic Relations received a,copy of.the parties'"-Divorce;, Decree;entered on,or about-A0rit,2,'2019. The equitable'distribution order issued by Honorable bomenic..Pileggi based. on an agreement entered on the record on January 24, 2 01"9_ after both.parties "were subjected tia, a full cplloquyI -Wps issued on Febmary' 28 i2019" E.O.Order; Case NotC:Report°at - 14.. On August 7; 2019, Domestic Relatiioti's recWeti a copy 0 . parties' "P AVIV stating that Mother rwas.to.receive `.`rehabilitative alimony effecta o February- 1'9; 2019 fo July 202% eighteen consecutive months. .Id: at 29.

15 ;After several-continuances, Judge Pileggi heard' other's de novoVpeal one July'9, 2019. Upon request, on'July 11, 2019, Judge Pileggi ordered Motherts., Motion to Compel and her de hoy6 appeal be hei in abeyance: He fuithet ,ordered that the matter could be re'listed upon request. Domestic Relations 'Docket _History.at 16.

M, 'Subsequently, Father filed•a Petittar , for Mo' dification'in 2019. ^[3] ,On September 23 , ,, - 2020, Hearing Officer Bonnet dismissed his Petition for Modification because Mcither's. de novo Appeal atld Motion W Compel.heard on` July 201,9 ^[1] were still pending. Docket History Report.at 29.

J7; On.October -29,'2020, Domestic Relations received.a request to. e'list the Demand for Hearing De Noua held in abeyance by Judge Pileggi from July .: 2019: The:matter Was listed'before this Court on Uecember,.3,: 2020 laomesde ;Rela'tions ,Case Note Report at 23,

On December'3, 2020, this Court , held tbe,de novo'appeal. n abeyance and ordered thaf Defendant's..child support obligation'be offset:against his $ 3;000 'c,redit: The matter Was rescheduled for March 4' '202.1:.Docket History'Report at , 0 _ .

l9: On Mardh 4, - 20211 this Court. entered a `comprehenSi've-graduated interim order, ordering the de, novo:appeal.to be held'in abeyance and'thatthis : matteir be; specially.listed. The interim order provided: a. On an interim basis; effectNe.rahuary , 1,: 2020; the C6 <sup>[11]</sup> ordered. child'support awarded for one'child at$1 , 239 per month plus $ 123 ,in arrears. In addition, the ,Court ordered - that responsibility far ,unreimbursed medical expenses were to be split in the, fol lowing way: `Father, 86%, Mother, 1'4 %: The, Court based this-f nding on ;Mother's net monthly income as $ 1,358.68 and:Father's as.$8,511 ft same, income from. Judge Pileggi's 2017 decisaons: : After reviewing the record ,'th'e_Court noted that the Divorce Decree,and February 28, 2019 equitable distribution.Order wcrcnot made part of the record,in this , de:novo..appeal. The,Divorce.Decree was. ,docketed on April ,1019. The attached, final support Order shall order - re-opening of the. record and submitting thcsc.documcnts which'are,part of the court:docket at the Delaware County Court:of Common, Pleas'- to bc' inc"orporated'a's part ofthe Do'mes'tic. Relations docket:.As,the.Court wilkezplain aboyc,;this 'Orderas not only crucial to calculate Mother's alimonypendentelite'and-her alimony award,- the Ord' eris, also ' crucial".to`address'parties'`arguments_about,the_iinclusion or.:excItision.of.various - settlements and the.

proceeds of 'a life.insurance'policy..

Qn February 2R; 2019,,the Court, pert-ileggi, issued an Ordcr based on the equitable distribution acxtens•nt by boothY of all partieds .throe counsel, placed on'the record on - January 24, 2019 after an p _• Y Bh qu " As a result;., the Court had. entered-an agreed order' s notapproved:a. 'Property settlement agrcement or. PSA. The Domestic Relations, notation`therefore`appears in error.

s Domestic R.elations.Doc6t History,:fa is to indicate the filing date 4f his Pehtton for Modi# cation. S`ee pocket History Report at. l-1•,

'h. .Effective 1(.T/ 19' - 17 31119, the Court ordered $,1;587 in,childsuppott' and $2,734 in APL, fora otal of $4,32.1 per month. with $4321n' amars.. The Court further found, that Plaintiff s net monthly income was $ 1 X 3.6.8; and Defendant 's net monthly income was $12,579; unrc mbursed.medical expenses , to be shared . at. Defendant 90 %; 'Plaintiff 10%.

l;"ffective 12!]`119=1219•T%]•9, base support .for.one,child was $1,586 ; and alimony` " $ 1;000, for total supp6it,of $ 2,587 with ,$258 yin arrears . The . Court further found Mother 's net month income to. be.S ,368:68;and Fat'her's to be $'12 579,50. Unreimbursed medical expenses were to be split Father 90°fo,_ Mother 10%: The Court ordered'Office of'Support Enforcerrient ("OSE") or th'e Domestic Relations`Office. ("DRO') to provide Mother's receipts t o . Defendant for unreimiursed medical expenses -and extra=curricular activities for the years .that she had fled: <sup>[2]</sup> 01'8,'201,9, and 2020 Defendant was to provide documentation of the $22,000 :be received from the. NM-for hockey cards. Docket,History°Report.at,6-8, On:April ,23; 1024 , this. Court denied'-Plaintiff's Motion for, Reconsideration.of , , its Interim Orderwithout prejudice and scheduled'a'hearing for Thursda y ,,. May 13 2021 at` 1:30 p:m! Itfurther marked the hearing "Must: be Tried:" Docket I Iistory-°Rleport, at 4,

,21 On April 23, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff s'Pefition.for Production of Documents, and denied Plaintiff's Motion fox Modification, of Child°Support as an I `appeal was pending.

22.• The ,May. , : 13,,2021 hearing was continued until July. 21,,:2021:; In addition, on June 28,,;2021, upon. consideration of Plairitiffs.Amended EmergencyPetition far Speeial'.Relief, the Court ordered that it beheard with the continued hearing for Plainfifl's Request for. Discyvery and ' her'1Zeyuest for De, •'Vavo 'Hearing:

bn July22,'2021 the Court entered another interim order pending parties' tul mission of additional d&umentAiofi ,- To account for receipt of his workers' compensation award, the Court ordered Defendant to escrow $50,000 for future child support by August 22, 2021.

24:, On ;October 25 ,20 ­ 2 1, 'the Court ordered Defendant to produce a copy' ofhit , 1040 income tax returns; and all accompanying . chedules and attachinents, -for- tax years 2016 and 201 7 no later thanNovember 2, 202<1-. On.October, 29, 202 1, the Court issued a pre-heannk conference order.

25i On November A,°2021 , the Court issued another pre hearing order summarizing the current posture of the, case and',outlining. the;outstanding legal issues The''Court ordered that;pactie-s provide custody orders i effect between March 2016 and the present_and proposed support guideline calculations .for calendar ;years 2076 through the present' with two, calculations for20L9, before and'af3er the- Divorce Decree,.utilizing figures I from. Defendant 's income tax returns.

26; The Court also insfrticfed Mother to,: pibvide guidelines detailing the discrepancy between incomefigures previously provided to the Court and`the: guidelines she believes are correct based on-the tax. retums..Documentswere to be exchanged no later than Novetber'] 7, 2021,'with.:a Microsoft Teams' conference to, be held on November 23, 2021.

27,.; However; ihe'Court was unable to schedule the'hearing, as Court Administration had not yef:releakd the coil t schedule for January to June 2022.

18: On, January 26,1022, , the Court issued a second pre-hearing conference order outlining matters discussed-at: thepre hearing conference on-January"! 2 2022.. This.order required,further exchange of documents; most'notably a,copy of. 4he"1040, tax.reWms with''signatures'or electronic.si g natures'and 2021 W-2s and .1099s. , The'Court also ,ordered'that parties submit metnoranda'with points'and

29: authorities on - various points of law, including,whether the,.workers' compensation award and concussion settlement- maybe, con. sidered income if they were:part".of tfieequitabte distribution property settlement agreement whether Mother may seek,retroactive child,support"and alimony pendente lite , from the date: of her 2016 :petitioiis if the Court. finds misrepresentation,by Defendant, even if parties had stipulated to his, income; and•whether the :Court may, stillconsider Mother's submissions for extra=curricular'and unreimbursed medical. expenses from 2016 to present. The Court ordered parties to submit. ..evidence and argumentr'egarding any custody deviatk tis at the, upcoming ,hearing and:ordered-Mother:to°submit a list of her efforts to find ernployznent -within the past six months no later than thirty days before the next hearing. Last, the Court,order`ed that any efforts to escrow Defendant's workers' 'compensation' be held in abeyance until' further order of court.

30. Qn February- 9, 2022, theCourt issued'an Order to Appear for the fmA14e, •novo support hearing - on. April 28,'2022.

31.. On February ',l Q, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Reconsideration. After reviewing responses from counsel, the'Courvissued an Interim Order on March 8,'2022,. -lJpon consideration of Plaintiffs outstanding, discovery_°requests, Defendant's objections,, Plaintiffs Emergency Motion , for Rec,onsideration,W4 her Emergency Motion for Contempt, the Court ordered;, It:denied Plaintiffs Emergency,Petition:for Contempt- :b:; It notedparties' submissions of points and authorities and also noted' that it will entertain,arguments,,as well-as testimony;- and, 'introduction of evidenceat the, support bearing, on April 28; 2022:. c: The Court granted in part'and denied inpart Plaintiff's request for, reconsideration, The Court required"Father'to;sign authorizations for his tax-returns for tax years 2016-2020; along with.schedules and 'documents attached,:i.e:, W=2's and 1Q99's..Defendant-was;.also requiredto:provide the same for his=2021 tax_return. Plaintiff was directed to 'file a;.motion to'=compel; 32. On'March 1.8, 2022; parties On , feeO into a stipulation in whichaheyagreed that"the _March '4, 202.1 , Interim Urder inadvertentlyexcluded"Defendant's. alimony obligation of $"1,000 per.month, °to be"pai"d from January 2020 through July 202d,;consistent With the paities "February 28, 2019'equitable distribution order."They agreed'thatthe amount due in 2020 shallbe increased-' by $ 7,000 to account for this inadvertent , erioz: :33. On April 28,,2'022 the Court convened the hearing de novo and was:unableto complete the hearing after almosta full trial day 'as the`Court.had anot}ier end of the day." Since Defendant-was in themdst:of .matter scheduled at testifying`in:Plaintiff's case "`as on-,cross,," the Court issued an'`Order holding -the record open to complete the,hearing and to submit updated :guidelines to be-introduced- as D4. and P-14. Last ; the Court ordered that`Fathe'r was `prohibited from, cominunicatingwith counsel, about`his testimony until completion of his testimony "as oncr`oss,.

34. On.May:16, 2022, the Court issued a"third pre-hearing 'order. ,The matter`vvas. scheduled for August 5" at 9:304m , and.allotted:five hours-for the be The lengthy' continuance was given:to allow Plaintiff's counsel to obtain copies of Defendant's' tax returns from, the IRS, `arid" to accommodate,parties'?' and.counsels' schedules. The"-Court closed discovery as"of April 28,2022, except , for"the abovemen i.oned tax returns, and issued further" pre- hearing instructions.

:35 On June 16 2022, due to the unavailability of one bf the counsel or paitie's, the Court rescheduled,the support`heahh' for July"25, 2022.

36. At the'conclusion of an additional'sMbours of hearing on July 25 ,,2022- the Court issued a,post- hearing order, granting fhe parties the opportunity to submit proposed Findings of Fact and C on c lusi o n of La w in lieu of closing: arguments. Iri addition, the Court heldthe record open,onlyfor, Mother to° submit copies of Father's fed e r a l income tax returns and accompanying .'schedules;, if any,. that°she had requested from the Internal Revenue Service ;months before.

37" 'These Findings of-Fact and'•Conclusions of Law were due ohb before' September 12, 2022: However, via email to, chambers, parties'_requested an additional week, and the Court.granted their request.' Parties-filed their Findings -of Factand Conclusions of LA* with Domesfic; 3'8 Relations on September 19,`2022": In addition, Mother fled copies of Father's'. executed 2016,-2021 federal tax'#*rns received from the internal Rexenue Service;

Januar.Y`43,, 2023 Decision : at:1=1.3

ppon consideration of the parties'" "submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions: of Law and all the evidence"P resented at.the de itova hearings on April'2:0,-2022 and Tiny 25; 2022, the trial "couit:issue&its ]an uAry" 412023 Decision..

'S

Subsequently, on February 10, 2023 ► the court granted Plainfi's 1Vfotion for Reconsideration and scheduled a hearing on Marcli: l6, 2023 td1bar - legal argument on her MotioWibk Reconsideration and Defendant's response.

On'February 24 2023, Defendant's counsel, Aaron Weems, Esquire, and his firm, Fox Rothschild, LLP, were granted leave:to withdraw as counsel. Defendant entered his appearance Pro se. To date, no other counsel has entered their appearance for Defendant.

Plaintiff appeared on March 16 . 2023 at the appointed time with her counsel, Rebecca Kolsky, Esquire. Defendanxfailed to appear. In addition, the Court noted Defendant's residence iti Texasand that he had failed to file a motion to obtain tfie.court's permission to participate

motel- - by telephone..

After waiting a few minutes for Defendant to call or appear, the trial court asked that the Domestic Relations clerk telephone Defendant. After reaching Defendant on the telephone and placing him under oath, Defendant testified that he had received no notice of the hearing. Over strenuous objection from Plaintiff s counsel, the trial!court continued the hearing until April 10, 2023 and'granted Defendant perniission, to participate via telephone.

OWMazch 17,2023. the Trial court issued an Order summarizing the.1VXar•b 16; 2023 proceedirigs;'ordering both parties to appear on-April 1:0,.2.023 .60 00 a.m. . )EDT - ST and ordering both'Mmestic Relations and the court's chambers to send notices to both parties. The trial courtalso ordered that retention of new counsel and their unavailability shall not constitute a basis for continuance and that continuances would be granted only in case of emergency. The :aourt:alsopermitted Defendant to appear remotely. Last, the court granted Defendant the opportunity to write a response to Plaintiff's Motion.

The hearing occurred on April 10, 2023. Plaintiff appeared in person with her counsel and Defendant participated pro se via telephone. After hearing argument from both parties, the court took-the matter.under advisement.

On -Apri126, - 2023, the trial court`issued an-eleven page Older Granting Plaintiff's Motion Ja Part' and `Denying I* Motion - in Part ("Reconsideration Order'):

:On May 17,;:2023;,.Plaintiff-fled an,additi' 1 Mation.to Reconsider the court's decision of Aprih' 6, 2023. The court:issued an Order ("Second Reconsideration Order' on M y.:25,..

2023, granting her Motion, further modifying its previous`Ordcrs and January 1: 2023-Docisiion.

Defendant filed threeNotices of Appeal that correlate withbetrial-court's three decisions; 1562 EDA 2023; 1563 EDA 2023 and 161.6EDA`2623 • '.'The 1562 EDA 2023 and .563.-EDA 2023.appeals were filed on May 26;.2023; and the I616 EDA 2023.90p iivaa:fil'ed: ;on.lune. 21' 2023: Moreover, Plaintiff filed four.Nptiees of Appeal on or about May 26;.2023: 1574`EDA 2023,.1575.EI3A;2023; '1576 EDA 2023 and 1°577 EDA 2023.

Ori June 2:3;.;2023; th e court issued an Order requ iring.that Plaintiff filq a..Cpncise Statement ofErrors Complained"of on Appeat-'pur`suant td-pi R.App:P. 1925(b)•vwithiatwenty- one_ (21) days of the date of the Order ibeffie. - following-appeals 1574-1rDA.;2023 y L573'EDA 2023 1.576 190A.2023,, and 1577 EDA 2023. Also, .on June 23,_2023,.the .couit issued'-an• 4r•ier raqui"ring tliat Defend;* file..Rule Pa:R.App.P.::1925 (b) Statetnent.vt►ithin twenty one (21)-days of the date. Of the- Order for the-following appeals:.`1562:EDA.'2023:and 1563 EDA 2023. Finally;; on July-S, 2023, the court issued an Order requiring Defendant'to flea Rule Pa:R.App:P :: 1.025(b); Statement within twenty-one (2 1) days of the en try°:of tKe Order ili. appeal T6'I6 EDA 2023:,

:r: On July 5, 2023 l 'Plaintii s.tievir eounsel a Virgin%'Hinriehs McMichael, Esquire, filed an Application: for Extension of Time to File Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement. of Errors, - alleging 'that she was just hiied, had not been previously';kvolved, in-'these matters and required additional time to review the voluminous record in this matter. On July 14 ; 2023, the court granted her 'request andAtetidW le_deadline in which to.. file plaintiff's Concise Statement of Errors until July--_,76 ; 2023.

Defendant's Concise Statements for 1562: EDA .2023 and 1563 EDA. 2023 were due July 14, 2023. His Concise Statement for 1616 EDA 2023 was due on July.25,-,2023. To; date, Defendant failed Wffile his Concise. S.tatement of Errors in any of his appeals. OmJuly. 25 2023 ; Pl.aintiff.filed °her Rule'1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors.

The Superior Court docket shows that currently. only one appeal is active Tlaintiff's'157T EDA 2023 appeal: The 1574 EDA 2023, 1575 EDA 2023 and 1576 EDA 2023 :appeals weie discontinued on July'28, 2023:

.On August 10 ; '2023 ; -the Superior-Couit quashed Defendait's`ISGZ .EDA 2023;appeal because 'of Defendant's failure to respond to the SuperibuCourt's, Ofde : to, Show Cause issued:on: July 18 ; 2023;:Similatly, on August l 1, 2023,;'the. Superior: Court. quashed.Defendant's 1563_ EDA 2023 appeal because of Defendant's failure to'.respond-to the; Superior Court's Order to Show Cause issued oii 7uly'24;:.2023. On ; August 24, 2023; the Superior Court dismissed Defendant's 1611&EDA 2.023.appeal bebause•of Deiendant's failure to respond to the Superior Court's Drdcr to Show Cause'issued..on August$,. 2023 . Thus :all,of Defendant's appeals to Superior Court have been dismissed.

Plaintiff's 1577 EDA 2023 Oppeal islthe only outstanding appeal,in-tlii ,.matters lhe: trial court will address the issues;=raised' in'Mintiff's Rule 1925.(b):Concise.Statemedbe1pW:

.14 ^[4] ,

i

III. DISCUSSION A. Standard ,of review, it i'sAxiumatie that the appellate:courts will uph6ld a support Girder: absent an abuse.of .discretion. Cvionna R_661NMO,;, 581 Pa .1,:855 A :2'd 648; 64,1 (Pa. 20104)• (citing Bafl v:. Minnick, 53S Pa. 441, 648 A:2d 1192 (Pa. 1994)). Abuse of discretion has been defihed as "nnt merelyan 'drror of judgment s but if reaching a conclusion the laWis overridden or misapplied; outhe judgiri nt exe> cisedis manifestly unreasonable; A.r ibo result of partiality, pxejudice a bias 'o•r i11- will,- as shown by the evideoceaf record::..," Blrie v Blue, 53• Pa.,Sl, 616 A:2d 628, 63.1 .(Pa;19/ )..(citation;o,nittcd). Accdrd'i'I'.D : u: w E D , 2015 Pa.. Super. 10K.A 14 A:.3&987 889'

This• court respectfully e oritends that it'-failed to abuse its di'scre b .0p-.6rred a a matte , of law. , In addition; it espectfulIy contends that its.eXP s . of judgment was-reasonabie and devoid gfpartiality; prejuciicebas'or'illvll: For•the.ceasons stated below and the reasons stated in:its three decisions; isicorporated. in this 1925(a) 0 inion, this court respectfully requests That its decisions'be affirmed >;or•"tlie reasons takd'below.

B. Plaintiffs Statement of:Errors Comolained of On Avveal .- Mother's: invocation of the doctrine:ofunclean hands and its , citation as'an error ,

or abuse of discretion is inapposite'to the caseat hand `and therefore should. not Abe dismissed by the avpellate court:

Mo'ther's first claiirried error states:- Ttie trial .court erred as matter of laur °of'ibused its`discretion iri failing to., apply, the 0.0 trine °o f.unclean hands after finding that Defendant Michel Petit'("Father")

intentionally misled the.court'by i?aaking multiple fal`se,statemenis under oath regarding

I his income, assets and the settlement of two lawsuits; a (sic) NHL Concussion lawsuit and a Worker's Compensation lawsui L The record reveals that, before the hearing the: NHL Concussion lawsuit had also settled and the proceeds p a id t o F at he r; t h e Worker ' s Compensation lawsuit had also settled and a compromise and release had been executed.

But Father, testifying underpath, denied the existence ofboth lawsuits and his receipt of settlement funds.

Mother's reliance on this error is mistaken.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that "[a] court may deprive a party

of equitable relief where, to the detriment of the other party,. the party applying for such relief is..

guilty of bad. conduct relating to the matter at issue." Terrirciano v. Com., Dept. of

Transporlation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 753 A.2d 233, 237 (Pa. 2000) (quoting Shapiro v, Shapiro, 204 A.2d 266, 268 (Pa. 1964)). Further, Terraciano holds that "[t]he doctrine of -unclean hands requires that one seeking equity act fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue. Id. at 238 (citing Jacobs v. Halloran, 551 Pa. 350, 710 A.2d 1098, 1103 (1998)). Thus, the unclean hands doctrine is invoked to deny.a party equitable relief upon a showing of fraud or deceit:in the transaction at issue. This argument is inapposite to this matter on several grounds.

.First, Plaintiff sought no relief in equity. The case at hand is a child support and APL appeal based solely on the statutory scheme established in 23 Pa.C.S. § 4301 et seq., the child and spousal: support statutes, and 23 Pa.C.S.§ 3702, the APL statute. In this matter, Appellant was neither entitled to equitable relief nor did she seek it. Therefore, the trial court contends that this doctrine is inapplicable to the instant case.

Second, Appellant's statement of error is vague and difficult to understand. She fails to state what error the trial court had committed and what relief the court failed to award ,her. On the contrary, the trial court grantedAlother's requested relief in fading that Father had misrepresented his income to the court and had failed to report changes in his income as required

by statues, rules of procedure and caselaw. This finding resulted in arrears in excess. : of $100,000. See January 13,'2023 Decision at 17-18: Mother's:assessmentof error fails to clearly state what equitable relief she sought that the trial court had failed to grant.

A Concise Statement must. 'specify the error to be addressed on appeal." Cornmonwealih v: Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super, 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (201.1) (citation omitted). The appellate court may find a waiver: of an appellate issue or issues where the filed concise statement is too vague. See Commonweaf[h v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 686 (Pa. Super. 2001,); see also Lineberg v. Wyeth, 849, A.2d 141, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2006) (a trial court should not be required to guess what:issues appellant is raising on appeal)..

Because the doctrine of unclean hands is inapplicableand the issue. as framed by Mother is too.vague; the Superior Court should "deny Mother relief on this ground or decline to address this issue.

2. Mother Failed to Establish the Existence of Anv Assets or Their Value for the

Trial Court to Order a Lump Sum Pavment.

.Mother's second issue states:

The trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in refusing to require Father to pay arrearages,for child support, APL, alimony, and attorney's fees _in .a lump sum rather than in monthly payments, where, among other things, Fath er h as substantial resources; Fathcr intentionally misstated and underreported his inc o me f or man y years and lied under oath about his finances; Father violated court orders by refusing to produce documents verifying his- income; the minor child is entitled to many more years of child support; and Father is.59-years -old and in ill health.

Mother's statcment of this issue is rambling and is anything but concise. However as the trial court understatids this issue, Mother contends .that it erred in failing to order Father to pay a

luirip sum to satisfv his arrearages for child support, APL and attorney's fees. ° However, as the trial court explained in its April 26, 2023 Reconsideration Order, Mother failed to identify any assets from which Father could tender a lump sum payment in excess of $ 100,000..

Reconsideration Order at 3 -5,1MI 2.g-s.

Mother correctly asserts that the trial court found.that'Father liedabout his income, This ultimately led to his arrearages assessed as a result of the calculations.contaiined.in'the:Finaf Support Order issued on.January 13, 2023.

Moreover, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3703(2) : permits after hearing, the "taking and seizure of goods. and. chattel" to pay arrearages. See also 23._Pa G.S'. § 4352(d.1) ("overdue support obligsiod s may constitute a lien against real property).

However, in the absence of any admissible evidence to establish the-value of Father's assets, the:courf lacked any basis to order Father to pay a lump sum towards his arrears. The sole information that the trial court and Domestic Relations currently possess demonstrates that Father has a W-2 job for which his wages are attached and through which the monthly support order has been satisfied plus a 30% payments towards arrears, as provided in the court's Reconsideration Order at 5-6.

Indeed;. the trial court'rioted. in its Reconsideration .Order, that as the matter has already been designated complex,:Mother may .file a motion or petition requesting the court to order Father to produce verif catiaii of the-walue of his assets. Reconsideration Order, 4/26/23 at Counsel mistakenly asserts that Father has arrearages for alimony. Judge Pileggi ordered that Father pay Mother "rehabilitative alimony" for eight een m on th s co mmenc i ng F e b ruary 20 19. Find i ngs of Facts at ¶ l4 at 5, Father's wages have always been attached and he has never been in default of his court-ordered child support, alimony and APL payments until the implementation of this trial court's January 13, 2023 Decision and accompanying Final Support Order. See Domestic Relations Lase Financial Summary. This reflects that Father paid the monthly support order on time every month via a wage attachment. Therefore, the Domestic Relations record reflects no delinquency of monthly child support or any arrearages. On the contrary, Father had a credit which often totaled in the thousands,

1q. Once tbe;value of these assets, iS.9scertained ; Mother may take fuurtther enforcement action.

through Domestic Relations to satisfy the arrearages,

Therefdre;,Mother's 'as§. tion of error is misguided and the trial court respectfully` requests that its decisions be affirmed.,

1 The Trial 'Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Declined to Escrow

Father's Funds Because He Was Current on~All Child"Support Pavrneats In lier,ta0 iGi ` Statement. gother asserts in her third issue:

Tkie Trial courf erred as a matter of law or- abused itsdiseretion when it refused to order Father to escrow-funds; including-,but not limited to.his workers' compensation award and Aension, for the payment'of child support and -other.arrearages

Mother's reliance on ibis issue is'miisplaced Thb." Case=financial: Summary from-at least December 16,`2020 uaitilJaiivary 13; 2023; when the trial court.issued its : .ord'er which resulted in ,Father's=arrearages had'reflected a cbi:Wsteiit credit in- c]i ild .,s upport pport and APL ; not any arrearage:

Simrlarl'y, the,Ca -, .F inancYal in Pather, paid, the monthly.support or: er an.tiine.every,mgntlS via wage:attachment. Therefore,..th e D omes ti c Relations:record re e 0 no: delinquency of monthly° chi ld°support' or any arrearages at the time Mother sought to gsexow F4 er' : s workers'' compensation award. On the contraty,.Father had`inaimained'a credit which often16t'aled in the ihoUsands. Father only;'aceiued .arrearages for back child support; aticl.

AI'L_after•:#he' trial court.i'ssued.its January 13; 2023 Decision.

23 Pa. S § 4305(b!Q-' (ii),.authoriies'Dotnestic Relations agencies to-"[i]ssue orders where there.is a support. arrearagc to- sectire.as's tb satisfy.aurrent supporf' obligatipn and the arrearage.Uj%:.. Interceptmg:pr seiz.. g ludgmenfs.oi s tflements.

Accolzlin 1 _", RRO'Fathe r maiiita ped a eredit in hss e} ild.suppor(and APL, Domestic. Relations I edger liad i o„arrearages, and he-:timely p a id ;his„monthly child support order' eveiy= n tk Dbmd fc Relations lacked the authority io seize Father's workd comperisat on

1:6°

a payments in 2021 until Father accrued arrearages when this court's January 13, 2023 Decision and Final Support Order were implemented by Domestic Relations. 23, Pa C.S. § 410(b)(1.0). At the time Mother sought that his award be. - escrowed,. discovery was outstanding and the final support appeal hearings ha ' not occurred. in 2022. As a result, Father's account reflected no arrearages and Father owed Mother no money other than his monthly child support and APL order which was paid in full every month via wage attachment. Therefore, Domestic Relations And this court lacked any authority to order that Father's workers' compensation award be seized and escrowed.

Moreover, Mother asserts that the court abused its discretion in failing to order that Father's "pension" be escrowed.. Indeed, throughout this litigation, the evidence of record failed to. show Father's receipt. of a lump. sum from any pension or the existence of a pension.

Therefore, Mother's as"sigiiinentof'errof thould not be considered by the appellate court. ` Pa.

R:App.P. 302(a) (Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). See Commonwealth y: Deible, _ A.3d 2023, W.L. 4715187 (2023 -Pa.

Super. 129 (7/25/23) cifirrg Commonwealth v. Thorne,,_ PA. 276 A.3d 1192, 1.196 (2022).

Absent an abuse. of discretion, a support order shall be upheld. Colonna, 855 A.2d at 641. The trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed an error of law and its decisions should be upheld. See Blue, 616 A,2d at 631.

For these reasons, the trial court requests that the Superior Court affirm its decisions.

4. The Court Granted Mother's Motion for Reconsideration and Ordered that

Father Pay 30% of His SumortOrder Toward His Arrears.

[5] In her first Motion for Reconsideration, Mother co n tends that Father h as a residence worth $800,000. and a pension withn Life Financial worth over $500;000. Motion for Reconsideration at 2. As st at ed i n i t s Rec on sid er a t i on Order and this Opinion at 14- '1'6 . and.at 28, the record is devoid existence of these assets of any documentation of the .Su

ortheir worth..Upon producing this e v ide nce , M ot h er ma y see k re li e f from th i s court to satisfy Father's arrearages.

Mother's fourth issue reads;

The trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion when. it required Father to pay only 30% of his monthly Order towards his total arrears, which currently equal $1.18,340.79, because with an additional payment of only $454.03 per. month.($5,448.36 per year), it will take approximately twenty-two y ears f or F at h er to pay off the arrearages that -have accrued to date, 'at which time Father w ill b e 81 y ears old .

Consequently, the -funds will not be available when needed to support the minor child..

Mother's reliance on this issue is misplaced.

Mother correctly asserts that in its January 13, 2023 Decision and Final Support Order, the trial court ordered .Father to pay 10% of his Final Support Order toward arrears. Final Support Order; J %13/23 at 5-9.

In Mother's first Motion for Reconsideration filed with Domestic Relations on February 3., 2023, 'she argued that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding only an additional 10% payment towards the. arrears exceeding $ 100,000. Motion for Reconsideration .at 2, 4.b.6 Mother further argued that the trial court should have awarded thirty percent (30%) additional payment towards the arrears, rather- than 10%.

In its April 26, 2023 Reconsideration Order, the trial court granted,Mother's request and ordered that arrears be collected at 30% of the child support order. Reconsideration Order at S-6.

.Having granted Mother's Motion that payment towards arrears be increased from 10%' to 30%, Mother now assents "as.error that the trial court should have increased it`even more. This argument is frivolous and should not be.considered.

In.granting .Mother' s Motion for Reconsideration on April 26, 2023, the trial .court considered Mother's arguments raised in her Motion and both Mother's and Father's arguments during the oral argument on her Motion for Reconsideration. It considered the amount of the ^[6] 'Mother'sNotion for Reconsideration is unpaginated but the trial.c.0 references the'second page of he r Motio n .

arreaf - -dnd the it', pact-.' Mother and_,child and,Father's rnonthfy net income Asia result; the f. i41,06urt determined Mother's argument meritorious and gran teri her'Motion in rfull'regarding this , issue;

The trial court coiiteiids that it granted Mother's Ivlotion.for Reconsideration in full rcgardingthis, is. pe,and therefdre this"is sue.should not he'conside r ed. Eiir the reasons described :'a "ave - the trial court requests that the Superior.Court affmt its decisions;

5. Case'law Clearly Pro••ides that Father's Workers' Compensation Award, NHL,.

Concussion Settlement and SunLife Insurance PoRev Cash-Out Was Marital Property Pursuant to Parties' Equitable Distribution Order and Cannot. Be. Considered as, Income for Child `Support - Purposes: InIg. Aft: issue„I40iher asserts:

The. trial court; erred'`as a matter o law -or abused its - discretion in excluding Father's Workers ' Conipensadon - wa`rd } Narional Hockey League ('NHL) Coneitssion Settlement; : and Life Insurance Cash-Out in the Courti's support and APL:caleulations.

Asvith herpreviousJ4#i this .040•tacks inerit.

The t061- court addicssed..t .is issue at.,length in.its fanuary 1.3, 2'423 Decision. See Jarivao 13, 2'023 DeoW6fi4f 1.7=1.5 aizd 37-42.'To summarize, the parties,_`represented.bycouh§e-1, entered into. an.agreed,,propertytsettlemerit agreement ,on the record before the Hon. Domenic Pileggx nn'JanuaryN 2019. In.eiitering'into this agreed p'top-ertysatlexnent; . Mother and Father Mete subjected tc .an, "extensive: colloquy" on the record 7court: Court Rtbibif 1, E.D;C}rder af;, l Januar}F ;13; 2b23 Decision at 39 : This agreed order on the record *6s' redueed 'to writing by Judge Pileggi and issued,as an order on February. ebrua y.#., 2019:

The E:D; Order,, Ptovided, ig:.Pertinent part as the trial court explained:in>,its :Findings Fact:

Plaintiff received `.the marital home and thereafter.,vvas responsible for the mo rt gage; taxes;, utilities,and `other expenses,

2:- Plaintiff would buy out Defendant's , interest `in the marital .home by`ter;dering $ 50;000

within ten days of the Order:, 3, `, Plaintiff would .receive the; contents .of the house, subject to`Defendant's return to the` home on January 25,2019 to remove items previquslyagreed: . were his_.

••Bot>a parties kept their own bank accounts. 5; Defendarit waived any right to anal - ed distributions that might;have been:

previously taken by Plaintiff;

6;Eachparty:keptvehrclesin,their possession.

7: Husband was,awarded the Sun Afe`Whole insurance. policy but was responsible

for the loan balance 11d. at ¶3.k 8.Husband was awarded "all right, title and interest in a worker's- compensation

claim currently pending in the State of California for pre-marital injuries received by .Husband and Wife hereby waives any'and all iight,; title and interest which she m ay ,have to that claim ." E.D. Order at ¶3L Husband was awarded "all right, title and interest w hich he m ay have.to any settlement yerdict, judgment or other' disposition of funds=awarded to, b" in a. pending lawsuit filed by the NHL Players Association as a result (if injuries. sustained by players during -their •playing career." Mat ¶3.m..

'IQ,, Husband'wa•s `awarded his, NHL pension ashis sole and exclusive property to,

the exclusion ofwife whwhereby waives any andall right,,title'and interest therein except as,specifled herein below."Id. at ¶3:n.

11. Wife was awarded "25% of the increase- in value of Husband's pre-marital NHL.

pension :with the - date of marriage specified as..June '29, 2001,, until, the 'date' of separation specified as :December 24,'2015...' Id. afi¶3.n(i), January 13 -2023 Decision ot.39-40JEmphasis'added); Court'EXliibitj.

The trial court cotitinueil in .its:analysis;of'the E D. tOrder: Parties - further waived'the right to seek further equitable 'distribution, agreed to be responsible for their own debts Qd- at t1o) and agreed, that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $1,0 o per month alimony commencing February l 2019 for - eighteen ( 1.8) months. Id, it 14. Last, each. pai ty.agreed to Beat th6irown counsel fees: Id. at ¶$: Further, the;trial - citart determined';

=Review,of the ` languageiwihis,agreed Order-.demonstrates that=there must have . been considerable negotiation between the parties to resolve the parties" equitable distribution claims: Of partkc lar,note is`the language of the Order which'incorporated:the parties' agreement:,

Hust and`is awarded at] right, title and interest in a workmen's. compensation`clairn currently,pending in the State bf Califforn a for pry marital injuries received by Husband °ancl Wife hereby waives,any and all. right; title and interest which she.riay have to;the clan; :Husband is awarded all right, title..and interest which he may have to. any. ;settlement; verdicts judgment or'oiher'°disposition offunds awarded tobim in a pending lawsuit filed by the NHL Players' Associ a tio n as a resu lt o f injuries sustained by players during their playing career.

January 13, 2023 Decision, quoting Id. at 4, ¶¶ m and n.

The trial court further determined that "while the-language pertaining to Father's workmen's compensation claim: references pre-martial injuries, in no way does the language in the agreed E.D. order stipulate that any, funds received from this claim are entirely pre-marital pursuant to 23 Pa C.S.A. § 3501(a)(1) and thus excludible from the marital estate." January 13; 2023 Decision at 40.

Rather, the language agreed to by the parties provides that,although the injuries were incurred prioi : to the parties' 'marriage, Mother has some claim to these monies. Therefore, Mother or "Wife;" as she is referred to in: the E.D. Order, agreed to "hereby waive any and all right; title And interest which she may have to the. [workmen's compensation] claim.." Id E.D.

Order at 114m.

This interpretation is bolstered by Ms. Petif s receipt of other property and funds pursuant to the Eb,, showing that parties had engaged in negotiations regarding- the martial estate and that she bad received consideration in returti for waiving her right to Mr. Petit's worker's

compensation award. Indeed, Ms- Petit received the martial home valued at $619 000, eighteen months of iehabilitative alimony as well as other consideration, E.D. Order, Court Exhibit 1 at ¶113a. and 4 at 2 and 5.

The trial court applied the same analysis to Father's concussion and Sun Life Insurance policy, deeming it part of the martial estate which the parties had agreed to distribute. See .January 13, 2023 Decision at 41; E.D. Order at Jf n, ¶3.k:

As the trial,codit discussed in its January 13, 2023: Decipn, l i jjer. ;y, , . !flitter, A.783 A Zd' 832 (Pa.,_$Olicr. 2001,)`...', 0 related '04W§ gavem th%s situation, Tanuary .13, 2'023 Deci"sion.aflt- 39;.'S' dfiaM; it determlUed:

In ]!Miller, Wife filed for modification'of the child support'order to: seek recalculation of Husband's child support obligation as a result,of , proceeds.he received: from equitable distribution: In sowguing, Wife cited the definition of "income" contained in 23 Pa. "C;S.A. §4302 and contended that th es e p ro c ee ds fall within that expansive definition:.

In considering Wife's argument; the Miller oibi-t first noted that the proceeds' , received from equitable distribution were intended, to "effectuate economic-justice ,between parties who are divorc e d : ., and insure a fair and just determination and scttlementof their property rights," 23 Pa: C.S.A ; §;3102;:7.83 A.2d':af835. (Other , ,citations <omitted).

In. is analysis, the Court found thatit1's Seal&lam" * ihat income used to calculatechild support_ cannot be considered.a,mantalasse't'for equitable distribution :Purposes3 Having drawn'that conclusion,, the court held the opposite, is also true:'inon , c , received "from the sale of a' asset. awarded in equitable distribution cannot be includedas income to calculate child 'support payments. The sole,caveat' the court added, any gain in.

Ibe sale of an asset must be included ,in support. I 783 A.2d at $35. See,also .C`6nner. v -Conner, 217A.3d ; 304317 (Pa,, Super: 2Q19).

Jatiiiary'I3 1023 Decisidn : $t38-39' ;

Accoidingly; the triaC.courf concluded:

-Like the litigant's- in yiller, in the, Agreed Order,'Plaintiff waived' any claim to Defendant'"s concussion and workmen "s compensatiori settlements or awards in return QT .

other kinds, of.consideration: a.marital portion of D"efendant"s NHL pension, the marital home and eighteen months of alimony„ just to namea ""few. The negotiations - reflecied in; the - Order, particularly award of F,ather's workmen's compensation and concussion settlement to him and award of the marital home and alimony`to-Mother, are -not °`windfalls'" to ,either party - they reflect; as the Miller court',held, effectuation of economic justice between divorced parties' and 'a: "fair and just deteriniriationand settlementof their property rights. Miller 783 A. 2d at 835, citing 23 Pa: C:S A. §3 02(a)' (Other citation otiutted), Inclusion of these settlements in any.child support calculation would constitute "double dipping" and therefore is notperrriissible under Culler and its: progeny JarivarYJ3,;2023 Decisa4n at 42:

Ac,cordingty, these assets, "already: dividedbetweeh:the parties to effectuate;ed nomic justice under the Divorce Code; should'riot be considered " income" pursiiantto"23-Pi C.S:

22; §;4302. The ,trial court correctly excluded them from any child support and alimony pendente lite calculat Qns, Thusjts decisions ;failed to constitute an abuse of discretion and should be affirmed.

6. The Record is Devoid of Any'Oither Accountable Source of Father's $49,000

Sum of CashWhich , Led the Trial Court to Determine That it Was a , Cash-out of the Sun Life - Insurance Policy.

other's `siicth issue statest

The

supp t ort cal u ation d he s $49,0_00 6f available 1 ble,cash where Father failed to sustain his burde n of Proving that the funds derived from him cashing out of tii5 life insurance.,

Despite:IVlotliei%s: ensive.discovpry in this case, several hearings and a d nova 'hearing : lasting abdut:twdlve hours, MotherAiled to produce any evidence - that any other life insurance.

,Poky bmjsted in this matter other than the $.un Life,Insurance policy referenced .in the ED.

Order;,whicli Fatherreeeived pursuant to the Agreed Order. E. 0. Order,.'•3.Ic

`. wsuant to.- iller, discussed at length above, itllssue 5 and in''the trial court's January 13, 2023. dcGision;..as'• he Sun:Life'Insurance.policy i•va§iawari3ed to Father in the Ea. , C)rder, it i not includible. iai :support and alimony Pend I ' te lite calculations. 7d

C Superior.Cottrtiwiil_not interfere with the, broad discretion afforded their i'al court absent an abuse of [] discretioti:or insufficient:'evidence to sustain the support order," Arbelsv, k'604,190.A 2d 34,, 39 (P'a.,Super: 20Q4):(citing Laws-v: ,:Lmvs,758 A.2d 1.226 t22'8 (Pa, Super; X000, ('ciiatioris c•mifted).

Therefore; Mother's d3a m that the .tr al.courterred iw1a ing.tci` incluiie the valve of. Fathcr's:life.i_nsurancein :the support and API:, calculations has no merit: The trial court's decision fails to constitute,an abuse4diseretion and'therefore should'b°e affirmed..

7. Mother Failed to Establish that - Father's Smart Sand Oiitions M ad Any Value,

Therefore the Trial Court .Excluded Them from Its Support and APL Calculations.

In her. Concise Statement, Mothetf's.seventhJsssue alleges-'e the trial court erred a's a matter of law'Or abused its discretion in refusing'to include the value of, Father's SmartSand Stock as ` ncome'in the child support and , APL calculations .

where the record revealed that Father's compensation -from his, employer :includes shares of stock:

:Mother'_s reliance Oxn'N 'isstte-is; , sguiddd because.she faiaed,toiesiahlish that Father received aiiy.ipcol . be frpm I . & SmartSarl i stock, or captions as explainedbelow.

'C7hild.supporC and AP>•pbliptims are calculated by.*termining ibe:parties' monthly net, incomes, Pa:k.C:P.10,10-16.2 ::Mother , correctlyasseris that the record establishes that.Father , received stock options , as. compensat on,from his employment. Slie never established the value of Chese stocl options: Father rieve-reported areceijifi bf.the stock optioin"s:'as ucome ou his4ax Oti . 101 . Mother failed to f6llow•:up'and'establi`sh;anyvalue.ofthe§e optiotIs: She could have:.

e4ablisbed t1ii` valbe through discovery, at ozie of the, hearings through testimony or by retention :.6f'n expert: She t9p . none of these actions,: Indeed' Father's Schedule C fornns, appended to his, - tax returns, demonstrate'a net loss from hisstocks for tax years 2016-2020.;See Exhibit'R20.

Absent. any admissible evidence to stow the value of the stock:options, and any stock ; the trial, court remained Gloss to include them as income_to,calculate child , support, and APL.

Indeed, plucking a figure out of the void - and - assessingthe, value sua spoirte^would constitutean abuse of. discretion. See kue, : X16 A.2d at 63.1 a:court.conimits an error.of 1aw,if when reaching As conclusion "tlie lawis:ov'erridden or misappli•d,.'or the judgment,exercised, s manifestly unreasonable :oi the result tifpartiality,,prejudice,=bias,or ill,-w.iil, as shown by the evidence,of 'T

e reeds, s° *result' the trtatco itt requests that=rfs decisions be-a rmed, 8: The Trial Cour't's'Denial of-Ezfra-Currlcular Activities "Was A Proper Exercise,

of its Discretion and Should Be Affirmed.

Mother's , eighth issue states:

The` trial court _erred as.a rdatter oflaw*'abused its; discretion in refusing to award Mother reimbursement for'extracumcular expenses on the.,grourids„'that Mother-failed to eonsult with lather before, signing;thc child up for-activities,.where tbe.record "revealed.

that Mother has 100°f physical custody, Fatherrhas ha&n6contact_vwith ihe, , child-since.

September 20'18, and father'bas never exercised his joint legal custodyor expressed any desire to participate in. °decisions involving the child._

1n response ; the trial iourt r "eIies on`its discus ­11 sign.iti its January. 3'; X023, Decision:

Mother=also claims that Father, has failed , to reimburse her for child's extra .curricular activities: The Court notes that the parties' Custody Order of,' 20 2018; provides thatparties share legal custody: Exhibit P=19 .

Legal custody is'defined in'23 Pa. C.S'§5322 as , "[t]he righ'tfo make major.decis ons on.behal'f ofthe child, including; but not limited to; medical ; religious "arid 'educational decisions:"Judge'Pileggi noted that Father rarely availed himself of his partial custody in,his,February and May 2017 Orders'. February.17,'2017 Support Order, Exhibit P- at 8, ¶29; May 12, '2017 Support Order; Exhibit; P-7, at, 8, 1129: Moreover, Father acknowledged that he has not`seen or spoken to his so since 2018 N.T. 7/25/22. 9I at ,, Notwithst a nding, parties' failure to communicate .and Father's' failurc'to'vis'it or speak with°child ; Father still retainslegal.custody Since parties continue to share legal custody, Mother has been obliged to notify Father of her intent to eriroll'child in extra- curricular activities t o seek his consent: Mother failed to, present any :evidence of, her' efforts to consult with:Fatherpraoraa enrolling child in extra-curricular activities since, 2016. The record reflects that•Mother. and Fatherhave not communicated for year§N& Mother had'other`options to seek Father's consent for extra- curricular activities, like sending her proposals for,extra-curricular'aetivities to Father eitherwia-text;',emai . l or even U.S:_rnail.with a, deadline to respond and a caution that she woutdconstrue his failure to respond as consent: Motherfailed_;to exert this rninimal effort to consult. .Father:

January 13,E 2023 Decision of-46:

The trial court also notes that these extra-cuniccular.activities have been.expeiisive' Bidiibit P-28 outtines monies .for extra-curricular actiAfkq expended l y Mother, In 2018 she

spent $1.773 for which she sought $1595.57,- for 2019 she spent:$2008.80 for which she sought '$1647.2.16, activities appeared to have been suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic, and in 2021., she spent $2337.06 for which she sought $2103.35 from Father..As these costs were not .modest, the court deemed it unfair to ask Father to bear 90% or more of these costs without any warning.

The trial court continued in its January 13, 2023. Decision, The Court appreciates .how Mother believes that child should be engaged in physical activity and, that child has benefitted from these activities. However, given Father's joint legal custody and Mother's failure to consult him about child's extra- curricular activities prior to enrollment the :Court declines to require Father to reimburse Mother for these extra-curricular activities, as Mother made absolutely no effort to include Father in any decision to enroll child or advise Father of child's prospective extra-curricular activities prior to his enrollment.

January 1.3, 2023 Decision at 46.

Forthese reasons, the trial court declined to award Mother extra-curricular expenses. The trial court respectfully contends that its decisions failed to constitute an abuse of discretion and its decisions should be affirmed.

9_ The Trial Court Proverly Ordered That Father Must Satisfy the Child Support:

and APL Arrearaees Before Mother's Attorney's Fees and Costs-Are Paid.

In her ninth issue., Mother states: The trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in refusing to require Father to promptly pay 100% of Mother's attorney's fees and costs . from the inception of this case as a sanction for Father's dilatory and obdurate behavior, unclean hands, and blatant contempt of court orders.

The trial court :considered this issue raised in Mother's Motion for Reconsideration filed Ftbruary 3, 2023. Motion for Reconsideration at 5-6. ^[7] The trial court's January 13, 2023 as well as its. subsequent orders on Mother's two Motions for Reconsiderations make it clear that it ^[7] Mother's Motion for Reconsideration is unpaginated

disapproved of Father's conduct during the course of this litigation. In this decision, the trial court concluded:

Given the large disparity between Father's reported:wages to Mother and Domestic Relations over more than two years,. 2016 to 2018, the Court must conclude that Father's failure to timely and accurate report his wages and to correct his stipulated wages with Mother were not advertent but willful.

January 13, 2023 Decision at : 1 -

Moreover, the trial court concluded -that- Father had mispresented his income to Domestic Relations, to Mother and to the court.on multiple occasions. Id. at 36. Brazenly,, Father then sought to hold Mother responsible for this multiple misrepresentations to the court. The trial court dismissed' this attempt, noting that: "[it] defies logic for this Court to:hold Mother responsible for Father's dissimulation§ and for this Court to. permit Father to profit from his misrepresentations." Id. at 37. The court further noted "Father's bald-faced misrepresentation to the Court on March 4, 2021, where he denied.anyknowledge of the workers' compensation settlement he had entered. into several weeks before. (Citations omitted). Id. at 27, ¶ 131.

However, as stated in the trial court's prior reconsideration decision, 23 Pa.C.S. § 4351 requires that "[p]ayment of support owed to the obligee shall have priority over [attorney's] fees, costs and.expenses.". (Emphasis added). The use of the word "shall" eliminates the trial court's discretion regarding any child support arrearages. Therefore, the court. simply lacks the authority to order that attorney's fees be paid before Father satisfies his child support arrearages; a total 'amount of $30 248.13. If it did so, it would constitute reversible error as an error of law.

The trial court also exercised. reasonable discretion in this matter, requiring that Father pay Mother's APL arrearages before remitting her attorney's fees and costs.

Further, it also observed that during this litigation, hrough a lengthy discovery process; the trial court admitted into evidence extensive information about Father's yearly income.

However, Mother failed to submit any evidence regarding additional assets available to satisfy these arrears, other than those mentioned above, the workers' compensation award, the concussion settlement and the Sun Life Policy which the trial court deemed unavailable to Mother for child support and APL. See above at 18-22; January 13, 2023 Decision at 37-42.

Even though the trial court ordered APL and child support be paid first before attorney's Fees and costs, it understood the importance of Father fulfilling his long overdue obligations to Mother and to her attorney. It referenced Mother's ability to seek discovery of any assets which may satisfy Father's arrearages and his financial obligations towards Mother's attorney. After A1 ^[3] L and child support were satisfied, the trial court then stated that: "[w]ith over $ 100,000 in child support and APL owed to Plaintiff, the Court's information gleaned from these proceedings confirmed.Defendant's net yearly income available to satisfy APL and child support. It failed to provide any information about additional assets that might be available to satisfy the arrears as well as attorney's fees and costs." Reconsideration Order fit „10, ¶VIII.b.

In declining to enter an order to require Father to immediately remit $40,000 in attorney's fees plus $4040.50 in costs to Mother's counsel, Rebecca Kolsky, Esquire, the court properly exercised its discretion. It placed payment of child support as a priority as required by law.

Fuitlier, it reasonably exercised its discretion in requiring that Mother be paid her APL arrears after the child support arrears have been satisfied. Finally, in its Reconsideration Decision, it suggested* hat Mother still retained remedies toSecure further payments through the discovery process by ascertaining the existence of additional assets through Domestic Relations.'Without such information, the trial court deemed ordering Father to pay such a large sum immediately a doomed enterprise that may jeopardize Father's current child support. payments as well as payments towards the child:suppgrt and APL arrearages.

; 84 For these reasons the trial cour ;properly "exercised its discretion,and its decisions should be of mied.

CONCLUSION For the'foregong reasons a the trial court respectfully requests that its January lay 2023 Findings of.Fact and Conclusions of Law; April 26,,1023 ' Order Granting Reconsideration in Part and .Denying in tart and. May 25 2023 Order Granting Motion for :Reconsideration be affirmed

BY THE COURT; r - STEPHANIE H. KLVN, J.

Case Details

Case Name: Petit, N. v. Petit, M.

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Aug 21, 2024

Docket Number: 1577 EDA 2023

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.