Comeau, N. v. Burger, W. ( 2016 )

J. S57014/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NADINE L. COMEAU : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
WILLIAM J. BURGER, : No. 1617 WDA 2015
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered September 21, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Domestic Relations Division at No. NS 200002722,
PACSES Case No. 854102781
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2016
William J. Burger (“Father”) appeals pro se from the September 21,
2015 order denying his motion to recuse. We affirm.
The record reflects that Father and Nadine L. Comeau (“Mother”) are
the parents of one minor child. Father’s child support obligation was
originally established in 2002. Since that time, Mother and Father have
petitioned the trial court to modify Father’s support obligation numerous
times.
The record further reflects that on September 17, 2015, Father filed a
motion to recuse “built upon the premise that [the trial court’s] rulings in
this case have all been false. . . .” (Motion to recuse, 9/17/15 at 1, ¶ 2.)
On September 21, 2015, the trial court denied the motion. Father then filed
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S57014/16
a timely notice of appeal. The trial court ordered Father to file a concise
statement of errors complained on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Father complied. The trial court then filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial judge err in not removing herself
from a case where she has falsified a Court
Order and admitted it on the record in 2013;
and then falsified two more Orders in May
2015, establishing a behavioral pattern, and
impeaching her entire record?
2. Did the trial judge err in not removing herself
from a case where she has been caught
1) rigging the Erie County judicial selection
process, 2) frustrating the [Father’s]
Constitutional Right to bring matters before an
impartial Court, 3) involving herself in Support
Cases at intake, and 4) keeping “special” cases
flagged for only her courtroom?
3. Did the trial judge err in not recusing from a
case where she personally attempted to
defraud the [Father] of a $40 filing fee in May
2015, and delivered a falsified final Order in
place of an Order for Conference, on
Defendant’s 5/6/15 petition?
Father’s brief at viii.
In his brief, Father admits that he previously filed a motion for recusal
that the trial court denied and that this court quashed on appeal. (Father’s
brief at 2.) Our review of the record reveals that on May 28, 2014, this
court quashed as untimely Father’s appeal of the September 18, 2013 order
denying Father’s motion for recusal at No. 1704 WDA 2013 (consolidated
-2-
J. S57014/16
with No. 1677 WDA 2013). Comeau v. Burger, 104 A.3d 63 (Pa.Super.
2013) (unpublished memorandum).
The record further reflects that on May 10, 2016, this court quashed as
untimely Father’s appeal of the May 22, 2015 order making an interim order
a final order for child support at No. 994 WDA 2015 (consolidated with
No. 1021 WDA 2015). Comeau v. Burger, 2016 Pa.Super. Unpub. LEXIS
1585 (May 10, 2016). Of the eight issues Father raised in that appeal, one
raised trial court error for failure to recuse.
Additionally, although Father now appeals from the September 21,
2015 order denying his motion to recuse, Father fails to provide any
authority to support his position that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his recusal motion. Therefore, on that basis alone, Father waives
his issues on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (an appellate brief must contain
“discussion and citation of authorities” to each issued raised); see also
Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000) (“When issues are not
properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are wholly inadequate to
present specific issues for review, [this] court will not consider the merits
thereof.” (citations omitted)).
Moreover, Father’s brief reveals that what he really seeks on appeal is
a modification of support. As Father states,
Since the lower Court has never ruled on Father’s
petition for Modification since 2013, because he
cannot appear in Judge Kelly’s courtroom for a pre-
fixed sham of a hearing; he has been forced to
-3-
J. S57014/16
employ his right to bring the unheard matter before
the Court again, and again, and again . . . .
Father’s brief at 6. Because the argument Father presents in his brief bears
no relation to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his recusal motion, we decline Father’s invitation to consider it.
That being said, after reviewing the record, we agree with the learned
trial court that:
Father’s allegations of error are an attempt to
relitigate previously decided issues by making
accusations of bias against the Court regarding prior
rulings -- rulings which have been fully litigated and
consistently upheld. See, for example, Superior
Court Dockets 522 WDA 2008, 443 WDA 2012, 705
WDA 2012, 1172 WDA 2012 and 1883 WDA
2012. . . .
Trial court opinion, 11/3/15 at 1.
We find no abuse of discretion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/2016
-4-