J-A11024-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JENNA MARIE BELL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RAYMOND DENNIS IGNOSH, JR..

Appellant No. 2377 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered October 27, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Domestic Relations at No.: DR-20-00215; PACSES 668117923

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2022

Appellant Raymond Dennis Ignosh, Jr. (“Father”) appeals from the 

October 27, 2021 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh

County (“trial court”), denying his exceptions to a hearing officer’s report and 

recommendation. Upon review, we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings. 

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. Briefly, 

Appellee Jenna Marie Bell (“Mother”) petitioned for modification of an existing 

support order. Mother sought from Father an increase in support payments 

for their two minor children. On June 9, 2020, the trial court ordered the 

parties to appear before a hearing officer on July 20, 2020 and to bring along, 

among other things, certain documents in support of their respective incomes. 
J-A11024-22

- 2 -

Following the hearing, the hearing officer prepared a report and 

recommendation, wherein the officer observed in pertinent part:

The only documentation provided by [Father] with regard to 

expenditures offsetting gross receipts were exhibits D-2 through 

D-8. These exhibits represent payments made to the owners of 

insurance firms that had been acquired by [Father’s] business in 

calendar year 2018. Ordinarily, a copy of the cancelled check 

would be required. However, since exhibits D-2 through D-8 

clearly set forth specific payments, and the reason for the 

payments, and the fact that these exhibits are consistent with the 

testimony offered by the accountant, the undersigned hearing 

officer will offset [Father’s] gross receipts based upon the 

expenditures set forth in D-2 through D-8. The payments 

represented on D-2 total $14,000.00. The payments made on D3 total $50,000.00. The payments made on D-4 total 

$413,333.32. The payments on D-5 total $750.00. The payments 

on D-6 total $70,000.00. The payments on D-7 total $25,000.00. 

The payments on D-8 total $22,500.00. These figures constitute 

the only expenses which were documented by [Father]. As a 

result, these are the only expenses that can be utilized to offset 

[Father’s] gross receipts.

Summary Report, 8/13/20, at 4-5. On August 14, 2020, the trial court 

entered an order, largely adopting the hearing officer’s recommendations. 

The August 14 order determined that Father had a net monthly income of 

$73,347.70 and owed $6,976.39 in monthly support obligations. On 

September 1, 2020, Father filed exceptions to the trial court’s August 14, 2020 

order. Specifically, Father claimed that the hearing officer erred in failing to 

allow the record to remain open following the July 20 hearing so that Father 

could submit copies of receipts for all expenses that were used to offset the 

gross income of Father’s business. In support, Father argued that, because 
J-A11024-22

- 3 -

of closures caused by COVID-19, Father’s counsel missed an order directing 

Father to produce certain financial documents. 

On November 2, 2020, the trial court granted Father’s exceptions 

relating solely to the hearing officer’s refusal to hold open the record and 

vacated its August 14 order. The court dismissed as moot Father’s remaining 

exceptions and remanded the matter to the hearing officer. 

On May 3, 2021, the officer conducted another hearing, following which 

the officer determined on May 26, 2021 that Father had a net monthly income 

of $21,858.71 and owed $2,218.27 in child support obligations. On June 3, 

2021, the trial court entered an order, adopting the hearing officer’s May 26 

recommendations. 

On June 24, 2021, Father filed exceptions to the trial court’s June 3 

order. Specifically, Father argued that the hearing officer erred in failing to 

consider exhibits D-2 through D-8, relating to business expenses, which were 

introduced and admitted previously at the July 20, 2020 hearing. Father 

further argued that the hearing officer erred in failing to treat the May 3, 2021

hearing, which the trial court ordered to allow Father to introduce additional 

documents, as a continuation of the July 20, 2020 hearing. Thus, Father 

requested that the trial court remand the matter to the hearing officer for 

purposes of recalculating Father’s income based on previously admitted

exhibits D-2 through D-8. On October 27, 2021, the trial court denied Father’s 

exceptions. Father timely appealed. The trial court did not direct him to file 

a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. 
J-A11024-22

- 4 -

On appeal,1 Father essentially argues that the trial court erred in 

denying his exceptions to the June 3, 2021 order and failing to remand this 

matter to the hearing officer with instruction to consider previously admitted 

exhibits D-2 through D-8 in calculating his income and support obligations.

2

 

In support of its decision, the trial court reasoned:

On remand, [Father] presented business expense evidence but 

did not present other relevant evidence that [Father] states he 

had previously presented. The hearing officer held that he could 

only make a decision based on the evidence and record currently 

before him and, accordingly, entered his decision. This [c]ourt 

agreed that in a hearing, the [c]ourt can only make decisions 

based on the evidence presented at that hearing and of record in 

the case. Therefore, the [c]ourt did not find that the hearing 

officer committed an error of law or abuse of discretion in his 

decision and denied [Father’s] exceptions.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/14/21, at 1-2 (emphasis added). 

Here, based upon our review of the entire record, we are constrained to 

agree with Father. The May 3, 2021 hearing was made necessary only 

____________________________________________

1 Our standard of review of child support orders is well settled:

When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the 

trial court’s determination where the order cannot be sustained on 

any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion 

afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the discretion or 

insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of 

discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a 

conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the 

judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly 

unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, 

discretion has been abused.

Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786, 788 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2 Mother did not file an appellate brief. 
J-A11024-22

- 5 -

because the trial court expressly granted Father’s exceptions to the August 

14, 2020 order. In particular, the trial court agreed with Father’s contention 

that the hearing officer erred at the July 20, 2020 hearing when the officer

failed to allow the record to remain open for the limited purpose of 

permitting Father to produce additional documents. Thus, the trial court 

vacated its August 14 order and remanded the case to the hearing officer to 

allow Father an opportunity to submit copies of receipts for all expenses that 

were used to offset the gross income of Father’s business. 

Contrary to the hearing officer’s suggestion, the trial court did not order 

a de novo hearing. Indeed, the May 3, 2021 hearing was simply a 

continuation of the July 20, 2020 hearing. It was limited in scope and ordered 

to allow Father an opportunity to submit additional documents. As a result, 

we cannot accept the trial court’s and the hearing officer’s contention that 

evidence previously introduced and admitted at the initial hearing had to be 

re-introduced and re-admitted at the May 3, 2021 hearing. Not only can we 

not find any basis in law to support this contention, but to embrace it would 

be tantamount to sanctioning a waste of judicial resources and economy. We 

are not prepared to do so. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter 

to the trial court with direction to order the hearing officer to consider all 

previously introduced and admitted evidence from both the July 20, 2020 and 

May 3, 2021 hearings in calculating Father’s income and support obligations. 

Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J-A11024-22

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/29/2022