J-S11019-24 

 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 

LAURA J. WITKOWSKI DENITHORNE 

 v. 

DAVID W. DENITHORNE 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 1956 EDA 2023 

Appeal from the Order Entered June 23, 2023 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Civil Division at No(s): 

20-1588 

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JULY 16, 2024

 David W. Denithorne appeals from the order extending an existing 

three-year protection from abuse (“PFA”) order. He argues the court erred in 

granting Laura J. Witkowski Denithorne exclusive possession of the parties’ 

home located on Airport Road in Lehighton, Pennsylvania (the “Lehighton 

Residence”) and the court erred in denying a continuance. We affirm. 

 In July 2020, the trial court granted a final three-year PFA order against 

Denithorne and in favor of Witkowski Denithorne. The parties were not 

married but had two children, one of whom was a minor at the time of the 

2020 PFA order. The order granted Witkowski Denithorne exclusive possession 

of the Lehighton Residence and temporary custody of the parties’ minor child. 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S11019-24 

- 2 - 

Denithorne repeatedly violated the PFA Order by threatening, intimidating, 

and harassing Witkowski Denithorne. 

 At a December 2022 hearing, the parties agreed that the home was in 

Denithorne’s name only but both testified that there was an agreement 

between the parties regarding the property. However, neither party put the 

terms of the agreement before the court.1

 In June 2023, Witkowski Denithorne filed a motion to extend the PFA 

order for an additional three years. The court scheduled a hearing on the 

extension for June 16, 2023, the same date as a contempt hearing had been 

scheduled. At the June 16 hearing, both parties were present and the 

contempt hearing proceeded. However, Witkowski Denithorne requested a 

continuance of the extension hearing so she could have counsel present.2 The 

court rescheduled the extension hearing for June 23, 2023. 

 At the June 23 hearing, Witkowski Denithorne testified that she was 

living at the Lehighton Residence and had lived there continuously since July 

2020.3 She stated Denithorne had violated the PFA order “[a]lmost daily up 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The transcript of the December 2022 criminal contempt hearing is not in the 

certified record. However, the transcript is in the reproduced record and no 

one disputes the accuracy of the reproduced record. We will therefore rely on 

the transcript in the reproduced record. See Commonwealth v. Barnett, 

121 A.3d 534, 545 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2015) (relying on transcript in reproduced 

record where no one disputed its accuracy). 

2

 The transcript of the June 16 hearing is not in the certified record. Denithorne 

does not dispute the court’s description of what occurred at that hearing. 

3

 The child was no longer a minor in June 2023. 
J-S11019-24 

- 3 - 

until January of 2023,” and then again starting in February 2023. N.T., June 

23, 2023, at 12. She testified that at the June 16, 2023 hearing Denithorne 

was found guilty on three separate PFA violations and was incarcerated based 

on those violations. Id. at 13. She testified she feared him and was concerned 

he would harm her. Id. at 13-14. 

 Witkowski Denithorne stated she was requesting that the court extend 

the PFA order for three years and that she be allowed to stay at the Lehighton 

Residence. Id. at 14. The court noted that there had been a dispute about 

whether Witkowski Denithorne had an interest in the Lehighton Residence. Id.

at 6-7. 

 During Witkowski Denithorne’s testimony, after her counsel asked 

questions, Denithorne requested a continuance so that he could obtain 

counsel. He alleged he had not known the hearing had been scheduled. Id. at 

18. The court denied the request. 

 Following the hearing, the court extended the PFA order for another 

three years. It issued an order evicting and excluding Denithorne from the 

Lehighton Residence and granting Witkowski Denithorne exclusive possession. 

The order further stated that “[t]he entry of this Order shall not bar 

[Denithorne] from commencing and/or filing any appropriate legal 

proceedings questioning and/or challenging any property interest in the 

[Lehighton Residence], claimed by [Witkowski Denithorne] and which 

[Denithorne] disputes, or permitting [Denithorne] by way of partition or 

otherwise disposing of his interest in the property.” Order, filed June 23, 2023. 
J-S11019-24 

- 4 - 

 Denithorne sought reconsideration, which the trial court denied. In 

doing so, the court stated that it was unclear whether Witkowski Denithorne 

had an interest in the property and that Denithorne was free to challenge any 

such interest in separate proceedings: 

Although the court understands that [Witkowski 

Denithorne] and [Denithorne] have never been married, it 

is also the court’s understanding from testimony given by 

[Denithorne] at the hearing held on June 23, 2023, that 

[Witkowski Denithorne] holds some form of interest in the 

[Lehighton Residence], which [Denithorne] claims was 

improperly or erroneously acquired. Because the exact 

nature of this interest and the circumstances of acquisition 

have never been presented to the undersigned, the June 23, 

2023 Order specifically contained a provision such that 

[Denithorne] is not barred “from commencing and/or filing 

any appropriate legal proceedings questioning and/or 

challenging any property interest in the [Lehighton 

Residence], claimed by [Witkowski Denithorne] and which 

[Denithorne] disputes, or permitting [Denithorne] by way of 

partition or otherwise disposition of his interest in the 

property.” Consequently, should it be determined through 

such a challenge that [Witkowski Denithorne] has no 

interest in this property and has no right to reside at the 

property . . . ., [Denithorne] may be entitled at some future 

date to have that portion of Paragraph 2 of the June 23, 

2023 PFA Order evicting and excluding [Denithorne] from 

the [Lehighton Residence] deleted. 

Order, filed July 21, 2023, at n.1. 

As to Denithorne’s claim that the court should have granted him a 

continuance because he did not have notice of the June 23 hearing, the court 

stated that Denithorne was present at the June 16 hearing at which Witkowski 

Denithorne obtained a continuance to June 23. Id. Denithorne timely 

appealed. 
J-S11019-24 

- 5 - 

 Denithorne raises the following issue: 

1. Whether the court erred in issuing an extended three (3) 

year Final Protection From Abuse (PFA) Order against 

[Denithorne]. 

2. Whether the court erred in evicting and excluding 

[Denithorne] from his residence at 635 Airport Road, 

Lehighton, Pennsylvania 18235, during the duration of the 

Final PFA Order. 

3. Whether the court erred in conducting the hearing when 

[Denithorne] did not receive timely notice of the PFA 

hearing. 

4. Whether the court erred in [d]enying [Denithorne] a 

hearing continuance that was orally requested on June 23, 

2023. 

5. Whether the court erred by concluding that [Witkowski 

Denithorne] resides at 635 Airport Road, Lehighton, 

Pennsylvania 18235. 

Denithorne’s Br. at 6-7 (suggested answers omitted). 

 Although Denithorne’s brief lists five issues in the statement of questions 

involved, the argument section discusses only two – whether the court erred 

when it granted Witkowski Denithorne exclusive possession of the Lehighton 

Residence, and whether it erred in not granting Denithorne’s continuance 

request. Denithorne has waived the issues not argued in his brief. See 

Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1089 (Pa. 2014). We will address the 

two issues for which Denithorne presents argument. 

 Denithorne maintains the court had no authority to evict and exclude 

him from the Lehighton Residence.4 Denithorne claims the original temporary 

____________________________________________ 

4

 Denithorne “acknowledges that grounds exist for the court to extend the PFA 

order” to protect Witkowski Denithorne. Denithorne’s Br. at 11. 
J-S11019-24 

- 6 - 

PFA listed Witkowski Denithorne’s address as being on Franklin Avenue in 

Palmerton, Pennsylvania. He argues that because he is the sole person on the 

deed to the Lehighton Residence, and the parties’ children are both over 18 

years of age, the court erred in granting Witkowski Denithorne exclusive 

possession. 

 The PFA Act provides that a PFA order may exclude a defendant from a 

residence under certain conditions, including if the residence is “jointly owned 

or leased by the parties”: 

(a) General rule.--Subject to subsection (a.1), the court 

may grant any protection order or approve any consent 

agreement to bring about a cessation of abuse of the 

plaintiff or minor children. The order or agreement may 

include: 

. . . 

(2) Granting possession to the plaintiff of the residence 

or household to the exclusion of the defendant by 

evicting the defendant or restoring possession to the 

plaintiff if the residence or household is jointly owned or 

leased by the parties, is owned or leased by the entireties 

or is owned or leased solely by the plaintiff. 

(3) If the defendant has a duty to support the plaintiff or 

minor children living in the residence or household and 

the defendant is the sole owner or lessee, granting 

possession to the plaintiff of the residence or household 

to the exclusion of the defendant by evicting the 

defendant or restoring possession to the plaintiff or, with 

the consent of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to 

provide suitable alternate housing. 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108(a). 

The trial court found that it was unclear whether Witkowski Denithorne 

had an interest in the property, but noted that Denithorne had testified as to 
J-S11019-24 

- 7 - 

an agreement between the parties and pointed out that Denithorne could 

challenge Witkowski Denithorne’s interest in the property in a separate action: 

[A]ccepting that [Witkowski] Denithorne resides at the 

[Lehighton Residence] and that [Denithorne] has made 

repeated threats of killing her, whether explicit or veiled, 

excluding [Denithorne] from this residence is an appropriate 

form of relief rationally related to protecting [Witkowski] 

Denithorne from [Denithorne]. 

To the extent [Denithorne] claims [Witkowski] Denithorne 

has no interest in the Property or right to live there, the 

record does not support this claim. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6108(a)(2) (authorizing the granting of possession of the 

residence or household to a plaintiff to the exclusion of the 

defendant by evicting the defendant if the residence or 

household is, inter alia, jointly owned or leased by the 

parties). [Denithorne] has at various times acknowledged 

[Witkowski] Denithorne has an interest in the Property 

although the precise nature and extent of this interest has 

never been fully delineated. At the hearing on June 23, 

2023, the court briefly touched on this subject. [Denithorne] 

also testified vaguely about a housing agreement between 

himself and [Witkowski] Denithorne giving [Witkowski] 

Denithorne an interest in the home, the details of which 

were never made clear.3 

3. Similarly, at the hearing on December 23, 2022, 

[Witkowski] Denithorne testified to property 

settlement agreements entered between her and 

[Denithorne] in 2016 and 2018 regarding the 

[Lehighton Residence]. According to [Witkowski] 

Denithorne, under these property settlement 

agreements, she received the home and [Denithorne] 

received a business. At the hearing held on December 

30, 2022, [Witkowski] Denithorne testified that 

pursuant to her agreements with [Denithorne], she 

was given exclusive possession of the Property, but 

that [Denithorne] did not honor his Commitments. 

Moreover, not only does the Protection From Abuse Act 

prohibit the court from entering an order “in any manner 

affect[ing] title to any real property,” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 
J-S11019-24 

- 8 - 

6108(h), the court on several occasions explained to 

[Denithorne] that the granting of a protective order to 

[Witkowski] Denithorne would not prejudice his right to 

question the issue of title in a separate proceeding. To this 

point, the order issued on June 23, 2023, explicitly provided 

that the entry of the order would “not bar [Denithorne] from 

commencing and/or filing any appropriate legal proceedings 

questioning and/or challenging any property interest in the 

home at [the Lehighton Residence], claimed by [Witkowski 

Denithorne] and which [Denithorne] disputes, or permitting 

[Denithorne] by way of partition or otherwise disposing of 

his interest in the Property.” Additionally, we note that were 

such a challenge to be made and be successful in 

establishing no legitimate interest in the Property held by 

[Witkowski] Denithorne entitling her to reside at this 

location, Section 6108(d) of the Act, provides that “[t]he 

court may amend its order . . . at any time upon subsequent 

petition filed by either party.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §6108(d) 

(Duration and amendment of order or agreement). 

Trial Court Opinion, filed Sept. 15, 2023, at 8-10 (citations to record and some 

footnotes omitted). 

 Here, it was unclear whether Witkowski Denithorne had an interest in 

the Lehighton Residence. The court did not err in ordering that Denithorne 

was “evicted and excluded” from the home, or in informing Denithorne that 

he was free to file separate litigation to determine whether Witkowski 

Denithorne had a property interest in the home. This claim lacks merit. 

 Denithorne further argues that the court erred in denying his request 

for a continuance. He claims he had not been served with a copy of the petition 

to extend the PFA and therefore it was error for the court not to grant the 

continuance. 

 Here, after Witkowski Denithorne’s direct examination at the June 23, 

2023 hearing, Denithorne requested a continuance, claiming he did not have 
J-S11019-24 

- 9 - 

notice. The court originally scheduled a hearing on Witkowski Denithorne’s 

motion for an extension of the PFA for June 16, 2023, along with other matters 

involving the party. On June 16, Witkowski Denithorne requested a 

continuance so her counsel could be present. Denithorne was at both the June 

16 and June 23 hearings. The court did not err in denying the motion for a 

continuance, where Denithorne knew of the hearing and did not request a 

continuance until halfway through the hearing. 

 Order affirmed. 

Date: 7/16/2024