Ciferni, J. v. Ciferni, C. ( 2018 )

J-A22004-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN CIFERNI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
CAROLYN CIFERNI,
Appellee No. 574 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered January 12, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 2007-01131
PACSES No. 711109200
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2018
John Ciferni (Father) appeals from the January 12, 2018 order that
reduced the child support arrearages to zero dollars owed by Carolyn Ciferni
(Mother) to Father for the period between May 20, 2007 to May 21, 2009,
when Mother was incarcerated.1 Following our review, we affirm.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
1. Was it error on the part of the [t]rial [c]ourt to fail to take into
consideration that [Mother], at the time of the [h]earing, had
income and assets awarded in the parties’
[d]ivorce/[e]quitable [d]istribution [h]earing which were more
than sufficient to pay a child support obligation while [Mother]
was incarcerated[?]
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Mother has not filed a responsive brief.
J-A22004-18
2. Was it an abuse of discretion on the part of the [t]rial [c]ourt
in determining that marital assets, that were in the custody of
the [d]ivorce [c]ourt while [Mother] was incarcerated, were not
foreseeable assets in spite of the fact that the parties in [c]ourt
had held the issue of incarceration arrears in abeyance until
the divorce action was concluded[?]
Father’s brief at 5.
Initially, we note that our standard of review over the
modification of a child support award is well settled. A trial court’s
decision regarding the modification of a child support award will
not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion, namely, an
unreasonable exercise of judgment or a misapplication of the law.
See Schoenfeld v. Marsh, 418 Pa. Super. 469, 614 A.2d 733,
736 (Pa. Super. 1992). An award of support, once in effect, may
be modified via petition at any time, provided that the petitioning
party demonstrates a material and substantial change in their
circumstances warranting a modification. See 23 Pa.C.S.[] §
4352(a); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.19. The burden of
demonstrating a “material and substantial change” rests with the
moving party, and the determination of whether such change has
occurred in the circumstances of the moving party rests within the
trial court’s discretion. See Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609, 807
A.2d 830 (2002).
Plunkard v. McConnell, 962 A.2d 1227, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008).
We have reviewed the certified record, Father’s brief, the applicable law,
and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Dominic F. Pileggi of the
Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, dated April 25, 2018. We
conclude that Judge Pileggi’s extensive, well-reasoned opinion correctly
disposes of the issues that have been raised by Father. Accordingly, we adopt
Judge Pileggi’s opinion as our own and affirm the order on appeal on that
basis.2
____________________________________________
2We direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event
of further proceedings.
-2-
J-A22004-18
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/12/18
-3-
Circulated 11/19/2018 02:51 PM