Knaak, G. v. Terpin, S. ( 2020 )

J-A26039-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
GEOFFREY KNAAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA TERPIN :
:
Appellant : No. 10 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered February 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at
No(s): No. 2016-006259
GEOFFREY KNAAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA TERPIN :
:
Appellant : No. 11 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered April 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at
No(s): No. 2016-006259
GEOFFREY KNAAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA TERPIN :
:
Appellant : No. 12 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered April 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at
No(s): No. 2016-006259
GEOFFREY KNAAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-A26039-20
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA TERPIN :
:
Appellant : No. 14 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered November 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at
No(s): No. 2016-006259
GEOFFREY KNAAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA TERPIN :
:
Appellant : No. 25 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at
No(s): No. 2016-006259
GEOFFREY KNAAK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA TERPIN :
:
Appellant : No. 26 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered February 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at
No(s): No. 2016-006259
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-A26039-20
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 06, 2020
In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Sheila Terpin (“Wife”) appeals
from the November 26, 2019 decree entered by the Court of Common Pleas
of Delaware County that finalized Wife’s divorce from Appellee Geoffrey Knaak
(“Husband”). Wife also purports to appeal five interlocutory rulings that were
entered on the same trial court docket between January 2018 and April 2019.1
We quash the five interlocutory appeals filed at 10-12 EDA 2020 and 25-26
EDA 2020 and affirm the November 26, 2019 divorce decree which Wife
appealed at docket 14 EDA 2020.
Husband and Wife married on June 30, 2006, and after ten years of
marriage, the parties separated in 2016. No children were born of the
marriage. On July 20, 2016, Husband filed a Complaint in Divorce, and on
July 25, 2017, Wife filed an Answer and Counterclaim. On January 25, 2018,
the trial court entered an order noting that discovery was complete and
directing the parties to submit their economic claims to a divorce master.
After a hearing, the divorce master filed a report and recommendation on
August 6, 2018.
____________________________________________
1In addition to the six notices of appeal filed at the instant trial court docket
(No. 2016-006259), Wife filed a seventh notice of appeal to challenge the
order entered by the Honorable William C. Mackrides awarding Wife Alimony
Pendente Lite (APL) to assist her during the pendency of the divorce litigation.
We have resolved the appeal of the support order (entered at trial court docket
2015-01676, PACSES No. 985115468) in a separate memorandum at docket
number 13 EDA 2020.
-3-
J-A26039-20
Wife filed an appeal and a demand for a de novo hearing. On January
23, 2019, Wife filed a Motion in Limine for Sanctions. However, before the
equitable distribution hearing, the parties reached an agreement resolving all
their economic issues. The trial judge, the Honorable Linda Cartisano,
summarized the subsequent procedural background as follows:
The equitable distribution trial in this matter was scheduled [for]
January 24, 2019. Upon agreement of the parties placed upon
the record in open court, at which time both parties were
represented by counsel (Andrew Bongiovanni, Esquire, for
[Husband], and Scott A. Lisgar, Esquire, for [Wife,]) both parties
agreed to the terms of the equitable distribution settlement
agreement. After extensive colloquies of the parties, an
agreement was placed upon the record dispositive of all
outstanding claims before the Court in their equitable distribution
proceeding. The Court approved the agreement put on the record
on January 24, 2019 and accepted the parties’ colloquy on the
record.
The parties agreed that Wife shall receive sixty percent (60%) of
the marital estate. It was also agreed that alimony is to be paid
to Wife at the rate of $3,000.00 per month for a period of 30
months. Once all of the terms of the agreement were placed upon
the record, counsel asked [Wife]: “Q: Ms. Terpin, do you agree to
those terms? Yes or no? A. I do agree, yes. Q. Fair enough. A.
I do agree.
Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 2/20/20, at 1.
Thereafter, on February 21, 2019, Wife filed a Motion for Recusal and
an Emergency Petition for Special Relief. On February 26, 2019, Husband filed
an Answer to these motions. On February 26, 2019, the trial court denied
Wife’s Motion for Recusal and her Emergency Petition for Special Relief.
On April 29, 2019, the trial court entered an equitable distribution order
after the parties failed to submit a signed Property Settlement Agreement that
-4-
J-A26039-20
reflected the terms of the January 24, 2019 agreement. The trial court also
entered an order denying Wife’s Motion in Limine for Sanctions as moot based
on the fact that the parties had reached an agreement.
On May 10, 2019, Wife filed a Motion to Modify the Court Order. On
May 29, 2019, the Court amended its original equitable distribution order to
note that a particular bank account was Wife’s non-marital property. On June
25, 2019, Wife filed another Motion to Modify the Court Order. On July 10,
2019, the trial court entered an order granting the Motion to Modify. On
October 29, 2019, the trial court issued a second amended equitable
distribution order, clarifying how certain stocks were to be distributed. On
November 26, 2019, the trial court entered the divorce decree.
On December 19, 2019, Wife filed seven notices of appeal. With respect
to the instant trial court docket, Wife appealed the divorce decree but also
purported to appeal from five prior related rulings entered by the Honorable
Linda Cartisano. Wife’s seventh notice of appeal challenged the support award
of Alimony Pendente Lite (APL) to Wife entered by the Honorable William C.
Mackrides on a separate support docket; this Court has resolved the appeal
of the support order in a separate memorandum at docket number 13 EDA
2020.
On December 31, 2019, the trial court issued an order specifically
directing Wife to file a “Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)” at docket
2016-006259. Order, 12/31/19, at 1. Wife filed six separate Rule 1925(b)
-5-
J-A26039-20
statements that raised a total of forty-five issues for review on her six appeals
of the case at one single docket. On February 7, 2020, this Court consolidated
the appeals sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513.
On February 22, 2020, the trial court filed a responsive opinion pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), emphasizing that Wife had not filed a concise statement
of errors on appeal but had raised forty-five issues, most of which were
“redundant, frivolous, and not set forth in an appropriately concise manner.”
T.C.O. at 7. As such, the trial court indicated that Wife “deliberately
circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b)” and hampered the
trial court’s ability to review Wife’s claims of error. Id. (quoting Kanter v.
Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 400-401 (Pa.Super. 2004)). Nevertheless, the trial
court attempted to address Wife’s forty-five allegations in a fifty-six page
opinion.
As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Wife’s six appeals
filed on the same docket are properly before this Court. It is well-established
that “an appeal of a final order subsumes challenges to previous interlocutory
decisions.” Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 615 Pa. 504, 547, 44 A.3d 27, 54
(2012). See also Pa.R.A.P. 341, note (providing that “[a] party needs to file
only a single notice of appeal to secure review of prior non-final orders that
are made final by the entry of a final order”). This Court has held “[o]rders
of property distribution are not appealable until entry of a final divorce
Decree[.]” Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa.Super. 2005).
-6-
J-A26039-20
Wife specifically appeals from the November 26, 2019 divorce decree,
but also sought to file separate appeals from the five orders entered prior to
the divorce decree, including the trial court’s January 25, 2018 order indicating
that discovery was complete, the February 26, 2019 order denying Wife’s
motion for recusal, the February 26, 2019 order denying Wife’s Emergency
Petition for Special Relief, the April 29, 2019 equitable distribution order, and
the April 29, 2019 order denying Wife’s Motion in Limine for Sanctions. As
such, we quash Wife’s five interlocutory appeals docketed at 10-12 EDA 2020
and 25-26 EDA 2020. However, we may review Wife’s various claims in
addressing the remaining appeal before this Court.
We next address the trial court’s finding that Wife failed to comply with
its directive to file a concise statement of errors on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The text of Rule 1925(b)(4) expressly provides that: “(i)
[t]he Statement shall set forth only those errors that the appellant intends to
assert [and] (ii) [t]he Statement shall concisely identify each error that the
appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be
raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i)-(ii).
In a similar case, in Kanter, this Court found the appellants failed to
comply with the trial court’s direction to file a concise statement of errors
complained of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) when they each
submitted a fifteen-page statement, raising fifty-four and forty-nine issues,
respectively, for a total of 104 issues. This Court provided that:
-7-
J-A26039-20
In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998),
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically held that “from this
date forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate
review, Appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders
them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
Lord, 719 A.2d at 309. “Any issues not raised in a 1925(b)
statement will be deemed waived.” Id. This Court explained in
Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 813 (Pa.Super. 2001), that Rule
1925 is a crucial component of the appellate process because it
allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the
parties plan to raise on appeal. This Court has further explained
that “a Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court
to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent
to no Concise Statement at all.” Commonwealth v. Dowling,
778 A.2d 683, 686-87 (Pa.Super. 2001). “Even if the trial court
correctly guesses the issues Appellants raise on appeal and writes
an opinion pursuant to that supposition[,] the issues are still
waived. Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908, 911
(Pa.Super. 2002).
***
The Defendants’ failure to set forth the issues that they sought to
raise on appeal in a concise manner impeded the trial court’s
ability to prepare an opinion addressing the issues that the
Defendants sought to raise before this Court, thereby frustrating
this Court’s ability to engage in a meaningful and effective
appellate review process. See Commonwealth v. Steadley,
748 A.2d 707, 709 (Pa.Super. 2000); see also Commonwealth
v. Kimble, 756 A.2d 78, 80 (Pa.Super. 2000). By raising an
outrageous number of issues, the Defendants have deliberately
circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and have
thereby effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they
now seek to raise.
Kanter, 866 A.2d at 401 (footnote and brackets omitted; emphasis in
original). As such, the Kanter court found that the defendants had failed to
preserve their issues for review on appeal. Further, the Kanter Court
concluded that the defendants had engaged in misconduct by raising a
-8-
J-A26039-20
multitude of issues that they did not intend to or could not raise on appeal in
an attempt to overwhelm the Court. Id. at 402.
Likewise, in this case, Wife raised forty-five issues in her Rule 1925(b)
statements, which she listed in her eight-page Statement of Questions
Presented in her appellate brief. As noted in Kanter, Wife raised more issues
in her 1925(b) statements than she could possibly develop on appeal. This
voluminous number of issues caused the trial court to guess which issues Wife
would ultimately choose to raise on appeal. This Court has held “[w]hen a
court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough
for meaningful review.” Id. at 401 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCree,
857 A.2d 188, 192 (Pa.Super. 2004)).
We also find that Wife engaged in misconduct by including the forty-five
issues in her concise statements when she ultimately only raised three vague
assertions of error in her analysis section of her brief. Like the defendants in
Kanter, Wife breached her duty of good faith and fair dealing with the court.
As we noted in Kanter:
[w]e can only conclude that the motive underlying such conduct
is to overwhelm the court system to such an extent that the courts
are forced to throw up their proverbial hands in frustration. While
such tactics may prove successful in other situations, we are
unwilling to succumb to such chicanery and will not reward such
misconduct.
Kanter, 866 A.2d at 402-403. Accordingly, we conclude Wife has failed to
preserve her issues for review on appeal.
-9-
J-A26039-20
Appeals at 10-12 EDA 2020 and 25-26 EDA 2020 quashed. Divorce
Decree appealed at 14 EDA 2020 affirmed.
P.J.E. Bender joins the memorandum.
Judge Lazarus Concurs in the Result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/6/20
- 10 -