J-S10002-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

DEBORAH GEARY

v.

MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1229 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at 

No(s): FD 20-008902-005

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: April 30, 2024

Appellant, Michael B. Greenstein (“Husband”), appeals from the 

September 13, 2023 order granting the petition for special relief filed by his 

former spouse, Deborah Geary (“Wife”), during post-divorce decree 

proceedings. We affirm. 

Husband and Wife were married on April 21, 2012. On October 26, 

2020, Wife filed a complaint in divorce, alleging that the marriage was 

irretrievably broken. Thereafter, both parties executed affidavits under 

Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code consenting to the entrance of a divorce 

decree. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(d). Neither party raised any ancillary claims

in their respective filings. A divorce decree was issued on November 19, 2020. 

On August 25, 2023, Wife filed the instant petition for special relief. In 

her petition, Wife 
J-S10002-24

- 2 -

aver[red] that[,] since the parties’ divorce in 2020, the car, a 

2014 Subaru Forester, has continued to be owned by and titled 

to both parties, but was in the sole control and possession of 

Husband. Wife attached eight pages of public records showing 

unpaid parking tickets and tolls associated with the vehicle, the 

most recent issued by the Edgewood Bor[ough] Police 

Department on August 22, 2023, just two days before the date 

of Wife’s petition for special relief. Wife requested that the court 

order Husband to transfer ownership of the vehicle into his sole 

name within [30] days. 

Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/23, at 2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

The trial court convened a hearing on Wife’s petition on September 7, 

2023. Husband did not attend the hearing.1 Ultimately, the trial court granted 

Wife’s petition, ordering Husband “to transfer into his name the title and 

registration of [the Subaru Forester] purchased during the parties’ marriage.” 

Id. at 3. This timely appeal followed. 

Husband raises the following issue on appeal: 

Whether the trial court erred and/or exceeded its authority by 

entertaining and subsequently granting [Wife’s] petition for 

special relief absent any jurisdiction to do so?

Husband’s Brief at 1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

____________________________________________

1

In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court noted that the Family Court’s Client 

Service Center (“CSC”) served Wife’s petition on Husband, which not only 

informed him of the date and time of the hearing, but also provided 

instructions for filing a response to Wife’s petition. The trial court further 

noted that, despite the CSC’s clear instructions, Husband “emailed his 

response directly to Wife on September 6, 2023, the day before the scheduled 

presentation of Wife’s petition.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/23, at 2-3. Finally, 

the trial court stated that, on the day of the scheduled hearing, it waited 30 

minutes for Husband, but he did not appear to oppose Wife’s petition. Id. at 

3. 
J-S10002-24

- 3 -

Herein, Husband contends that the trial court committed an error of law 

in granting Wife’s petition for special relief. More specifically, Husband points 

to the fact that the parties’ divorce decree was entered in 2020, three years 

prior to Wife filing the instant petition. In addition, Husband argues that 

neither party raised any claim ancillary to their former marriage, namely, 

economic claims, and, as such, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider 

Wife’s petition. We disagree. 

Husband’s claim on appeal raises a question of jurisdiction,

2 which 

presents a pure question of law. Thus, our standard of review is de novo, our 

scope of review is plenary. Johnson v. Johnson, 864 A.2d 1224, 1228 (Pa. 

Super. 2004).

A trial court may only “modify or rescind any order within 30 days after 

its entry.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. Otherwise, it loses jurisdiction. Id. The 

Divorce Code provides, in relevant part, that 

(a) [t]he courts shall have original jurisdiction in cases of 

divorce and for the annulment of void or voidable marriages and 

shall determine, in conjunction with any decree granting a 

divorce or annulment, the following matters, if raised in the 

pleadings, and issue appropriate decrees or orders with 

____________________________________________

2 As noted above, Husband did not file a proper response to Wife’s petition

and, as such, Husband failed to raise a claim challenging the trial court’s 

jurisdiction prior to the instant appeal. It is well-settled, however, that the 

issue of subject matter jurisdiction is “not waivable, even by consent, and may 

be raised by any party or by the court, sua sponte, at any stage of the 

proceeding.” Commonwealth v. Hemingway, 13 A.3d 491, 496 (Pa. Super. 

2011). Hence, Husband’s failure to previously raise this claim before the trial 

court is not detrimental to his current claim on appeal. 
J-S10002-24

- 4 -

reference thereto, and may retain continuing jurisdiction 

thereof:

(5) Any other matters pertaining to the marriage and 

divorce or annulment authorized by law and which fairly 

and expeditiously may be determined and disposed of in 

such action.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3104(a)(5). 

In addition, Rule 1920.43 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 

provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(a) At any time after the filing of the complaint, on petition 

setting forth facts entitling the party to relief, the court may, 

upon such terms and conditions as it deems just, including the 

filing of security,

***

(3) grant other appropriate relief.

Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43(a)(3). Importantly, this Court previously explained that 

“[t]he granting of appropriate relief under Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43 . . . . is an 

exercise of the [trial court's] equitable powers” and the filing of a petition for 

special relief is “not limited to the period when an action is pending[,]” since 

“[i]t is easily conceivable that, after the final disposition of all matters in the 

divorce action, a party may need the assistance of the court in enforcing some 

portion of its order.” Jawork v. Jawork, 548 A.2d 290, 292-293, n.6 (Pa. 

Super. 1988); see also Johnson, 864 A.2d at 1229; Romeo v. Romeo, 611 

A.2d 1325 (Pa. Super. 1992) (accord). 

Upon review, we conclude that Husband’s contention that the trial court 

lacked jurisdiction over Wife’s petition for special relief lacks merit. Pursuant 
J-S10002-24

- 5 -

to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43(a)(3) and Jawork, supra, the trial court was permitted 

to exercise jurisdiction over Wife’s petition at any time, even “after the final 

disposition of all matters in the divorce action.” Jawork, 548 A.2d at 292,

n.6; see also Reese v. Reese, 593 A.2d 1312, 1313 (Pa. Super. 1991) 

(holding that the appellant’s argument that appellee/wife’s motion for special 

relief “was effectively a request to consider a new issue not properly raised at 

trial” was “specious” because “a petition for special relief is not limited to the 

period when [a divorce] action is pending” and can be filed “at any time after 

the filing of the complaint”) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). This is 

true even though the divorce decree was entered in 2020 and neither party 

raised ancillary claims in their filings. See McNamara v. McNamara, 2018 

WL 2173522 *1, *2 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that the trial court had 

jurisdiction over the appellee/wife’s petition for special relief even though 

“neither party raised a claim for medical benefits in their filings” and the 

divorce decree was final) (non-precedential decision). Thus, Husband’s 

argument fails. 

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

DATE: 04/30/2024