Snyder v. Snyder

1

RACHEL SNYDER v. GLENN SNYDER Appellant GLENN SNYDER Appellant v. RACHEL SNYDER

Nos. 2870 EDA 2022, 2871 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 24, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered October 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at No(s) 2021-00890, 2021-01459, PACSES: 263300958, PACSES: 349301144

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

COLINS, J.

Glenn Snyder ("Father") appeals from an October 18, 2022 order directing him to pay his wife, Rachel Snyder ("Mother"), child support in the amount of $509.53 per month, plus arrears, and an October 20, 2022 order denying his request for alimony pendente lite ("APL"). We affirm.

Father and Mother were married in 2016, and they have two children together, who were born in 2015 and 2018 ("Children"). Both Children have severe medical issues, with the younger child suffering from a rare genetic disorder that requires around-the-clock nursing care while the older child has psychiatric and coronary conditions. N.T., 9/12/22, at 22-25, 39. Mother filed a divorce complaint in November 2020. Id. at 5. Mother has physical custody of Children with Father having limited visitation and few, if any, overnight visits with Children. N.T., 10/18/22, at 29-30, 139-44.

Mother is employed as a social worker at a hospital, with a salary slightly in excess of $100,000 per year. N.T., 9/12/22, at 21; N.T., 10/18/22, at 13-14, 167-68, 170. Father works as a part-time laborer working on construction and home remodeling jobs, earning $10 per hour, paid in cash. N.T., 9/12/22, at 31-32; N.T., 10/18/22, at 129, 134-36. Father suffers from migraines, bulging discs, arthritis, and bone spurs, which he claims prevent him from working more hours. N.T., 10/18/22, at 135-36. Father has also previously earned royalties through a gas lease on property he owns in the Poconos in the past, although it was disputed whether he was still receiving payments on the lease as of the date of the hearing. N.T., 10/18/22, at 130-31, 146-47, 158, 165. Father lives in his mother's home and claims he cannot afford to find his own apartment. N.T., 10/18/22, at 137, 147-48, 155.

Mother filed a complaint seeking child support on July 12, 2021, and Father filed a complaint for APL on October 29, 2021. A child support order was entered initially as to the younger child on October 20, 2021, as Father was contesting paternity of the older child, who was born prior to the marriage. After Father acknowledged his paternity of the older child and Mother filed a petition to modify child support, a hearing was held before a hearing officer on April 25, 2022, addressing both child support and APL. The child support and APL orders were entered on that date, and Mother filed de novo appeals from these orders.

Hearings were held before the trial court on September 22 and October 18, 2022. On October 18, 2022, the trial court issued an order directing Father to pay child support in the amount of $509.53 per month, consisting of $352 in base support and additional amounts for daycare, camp, medical insurance, and school fees. Order, No. 2021-01459, at 2. Father was also ordered to pay $50.95 per month in arrearages from the date of filing of the custody complaint. Id. The child support award was based upon net monthly income of $6,409.86 for Mother and $1,464.13 for Father. Id. The trial court refused Mother's request to impute additional income to Father based upon her claim that he was in fact earning $45, rather than $10, per hour, in part on the basis that Mother acquiesced to Father reporting no income on their jointly filed tax returns during the marriage. N.T., 9/12/22, at 31-32; N.T., 10/18/22, at 190-91. On October 20, 2022, the trial court issued an order that denied Father's request for APL. Order, No. 2021-00890, at 1; see also N.T., 10/18/22, at 186-89.

Father filed appeals from both of these orders, which were consolidated sua sponte by this Court.^[1]

Father raises three issues before this Court, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider evidence presented at the February 22, 2022 hearing, (2) improperly denying his claim for APL, and (3) miscalculating his child support obligation.^[2]

We first address the question of whether Father's issues are preserved for our review, as the trial court found that all of his claims of error were waived as not being adequately raised in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, No. 2021-01459, at 3-6; Trial Court Opinion, No. 2021-00890, at 3-6. "It is well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate review." Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Bartlett v. Demich, 307 A.3d 736, 740 (Pa. Super. 2023). "An appellant's concise statement must identify the errors with sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify and address the issues the appellant wishes to raise on appeal." Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1150 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii); Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 1106.

We agree with the trial court that Father waived his first claim that the court failed to consider evidence presented at a February 22, 2022 hearing; Father simply alleged that the court "disregard[ed] essential evidence" from this hearing, see Rule 1925(b) Statement, No. 2021-01459, ¶3(a); Rule 1925(b) Statement, No. 2021-00890, ¶3(a), without stating what this evidence was.^[3] We also agree with the trial court that errors in Father's Rule 1925(b) statements corresponding to his second and third issues on appeal lack specificity as he merely cites various provisions of the support guidelines, without precisely identifying how they were improperly applied in this case. See Rule 1925(b) Statement, No. 2021-01459, ¶3(b); Rule 1925(b) Statement, No. 2021-00890, ¶3(b). Nevertheless, we do not find that Father has waived his general challenges to the lower court's decision to deny him APL and the miscalculation of child support, claims the lower court addressed in its Rule 1925(a) opinions. We therefore proceed to address the merits of those issues.

Our review of support orders is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether there is competent evidence to support the order. M.E.W. v. W.L.W., 240 A.3d 626, 634 (Pa. Super. 2020); Ileiwat v. Labadi, 233 A.3d 853, 859-60 (Pa. Super. 2020). "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." M.E.W., 240 A.3d at 634 (citation omitted). Our role as an appellate court "does not include making independent factual determinations," and "with 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." Id. (citation omitted).

The Divorce Code provides that, "[i]n proper cases, upon petition, the court may allow a spouse reasonable" APL, which is defined as "[a]n order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce or annulment proceeding." 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 3103, 3702(a). "APL is based on the need of one party to have equal financial resources to pursue a divorce proceeding when, in theory, the other party has major assets which are the financial sinews of domestic warfare." Ileiwat, 233 A.3d at 860 (citation omitted); see also Cook v. Cook, 186 A.3d 1015, 1023 (Pa. Super. 2018).

When ruling on the claim for APL, the trial court shall consider the duration of the marriage as well as following factors: "the ability of the other party to pay; the separate estate and income of the petitioning party; and the character, situation, and surroundings of the parties." Ileiwat, 233 A.3d at 860 (quoting Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448, 463 (Pa. Super. 2011)); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-1(c)(2).

While APL is a temporary award dependent on a spouse's need for maintenance and professional services in divorce litigation, "[t]he principal goal in child support matters is to serve the best interests of the children through the provision of reasonable expenses." S.M.C. v. C.A.W., 221 A.3d 1214, 1217 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Ileiwat, 233 A.3d at 860 n.5. A parent's duty to financially support his or her child is absolute even if doing so requires hardship or sacrifice. Yerkes v. Yerkes, 824 A.2d 1169, 1171 (Pa. 2003); E.R.L. v. C.K.L., 126 A.3d 1004, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2015). To that end, "child support awards are calculated in accordance with specific statutory guidelines, using a complex system that accounts for the obligor's capacity to pay and the reasonable needs of the particular children." Sichelstiel v. Sichelstiel, 272 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 4322(a); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-1 to 1910.16-7. "In each child support matter, the support contribution indicated by the guidelines is entitled to a strong presumption of correctness." Yerkes, 824 A.2d at 1171; see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 4322(b).

Father's arguments concerning the denial of his request for APL and the award of child support to Mother are inter-related. He contends that due to the net differential in income between Mother and Father, as well as limitations on Father's ability to work for health reasons, he should have been awarded APL in the amount of $1,483.72. Father's Brief at 16. Based upon the post-APL income of the...