Galaj, N. v. Hamilton, D. ( 2015 )

J-S60018-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NICOLE P. GALAJ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID HAMILTON
Appellant No. 927 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 199862425
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 06, 2015
David Hamilton (“Father”) appeals from the order entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Berks County denying his petition to decrease his
support obligation for his sixteen-year-old child, his motion for contempt,
and his request for counsel fees. Because Father has waived his claims on
appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order.
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court found that Father’s
Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal was “too vague to
allow this [c]ourt to identify the issues raised on appeal.” Trial Court
Opinion, 6/19/15, at 2. The trial court, therefore, concluded that Father had
waived his claims on appeal.
Father raised the following claim in his Rule 1925(b) Statement: “The
ruling of March 2, 2015 involves an abuse of discretion. The Pennsylvania
J-S60018-15
Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 23 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
were disregarded and/or misapplied.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement
of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 4/6/15.
It is well established that “Appellant's concise statement must properly
specify the error to be addressed on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Hansley,
24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011). A Rule 1925(b) statement must
“concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to
challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge.”
Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)(4)(ii). “[A] [Rule 1925(b) statement] which is too vague to
allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional
equivalent of no [Rule 1925(b) statement] at all.” Lineberger v. Wyeth,
894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 2006). See also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii)
(“Issues . . . not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph
(b)(4) are waived.”).
Where, as here, a court “has to guess what issues an appellant is
appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.” Commonwealth v.
Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted). See In
re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013). The claims Father raises in his Rule
1925(b) Statement lacked the requisite specificity required by our rules of
court. Father does not identify how the court abused its discretion in the
ruling, or, for that matter, which ruling or rulings were an abuse of
discretion. Further, Father does not indicate how the Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Domestic Relations Code were misapplied. We therefore
-2-
J-S60018-15
agree with the trial court that Father waived appellate review. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/6/2015
-3-