J-S60018-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CORENA A. GLOSEK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KENNETH JOHN GLOSEK

Appellant No. 2218 MDA 2013

Appeal from the Order entered November 12, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County

Civil Division at No: CV-2005-1695

BEFORE: OTT, STABILE, and JENKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 29, 2014

Appellant, Kenneth John Glosek, appeals from the order entered 

November 12, 2013 holding him in contempt of court. We are constrained 

to dismiss this appeal, because Appellant’s counsel failed to request 

transcription of the contempt hearings.

The record of this interminable divorce and custody case is 

interspersed with multiple petitions and citations for contempt, including one 

citation against Appellant for lying under oath during a divorce master’s 

hearing. This specific appeal concerns two contempt petitions filed by 

Appellee, Corena A. Glosek, one counseled and one pro se. She claimed 

Appellant was in violation of a January 30, 2012 trial court order, which 

incorporated the reports of a special master regarding custody of the parties’ 

child and distribution of their marital property. After hearings on April 17 
J-S60018-14

- 2 -

and November 6, 2013, the trial court entered an order finding Appellant in 

contempt and sentencing him to 30 days in the county jail with purge 

conditions. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence of record fails to 

show that he intentionally violated the January 30, 2012 court order.1 

Appellant, however, did not request transcription of the April 17 and 

November 6, 2013 hearings when he filed his notice of appeal, or at any 

time before or after filing his appeal. Not surprisingly, no transcripts of 

those hearings appear in the certified record.

“For purposes of appellate review, what is not of record does not 

exist.” Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355, 359 (Pa. Super. 2000). It is an 

appellant’s burden to request transcription of relevant trial court proceedings 

when filing an appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 904(c), 1911, 1921; Weissberger v. 

Myers, 90 A.3d 730, 734 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting an appellant has the 

responsibility to “ensure that complete record is produced for appeal”). 

Generally, an appellant who fails to ensure that an adequate record exists 

waives appellate review. Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 623-34 (Pa. 

____________________________________________

1 Orders imposing coercive sanctions for civil contempt generally are final 

appealable orders. Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 487 (Pa. Super. 2006). 

Civil contempt requires proof that the contemnor intentionally, and with 

wrongful intent, violated a court order of which he had notice. Id. at 489. 

We review a finding of civil contempt for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 488-

89.
J-S60018-14

- 3 -

Super. 1993). Specifically, where an appellant fails to order relevant 

transcripts, an appellate court may dismiss the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1911(d); see also In the Interest of R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361, 363 (Pa. Super. 

2012) (dismissing appeal from decree terminating parental rights where lack 

of transcript precluded meaningful appellate review); Gorniak v. Gorniak, 

504 A.2d 1262, 1263-64 (Pa. Super. 1986) (dismissing an appeal because 

appellant failed to request transcription of divorce master’s hearing). 

Because Appellant failed to ensure that a sufficient record exists, 

appellate review is impossible.2 We cannot determine whether the trial court 

abused its discretion without the record on which it based the finding of 

contempt. Although dismissal is an extreme remedy, here we have no 

choice because Appellant’s counsel failed to follow clear, mandatory Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See Gorniak, 504 A.2d at 1264 (“Since the appellant 

has not complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and we have no 

record before us on which to conduct our review, we shall dismiss the 

appeal.”).

Appeal dismissed.

____________________________________________

2 We cannot consider the portions of parties’ briefs that recite what 

happened at the contempt hearings. “[A]n appellate brief may not be used 

to prove a fact missing from the certified record.” Sevin v. Kelshaw, 611 

A.2d 1232, 1239 n.3 (Pa. Super. 1992).
J-S60018-14

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/29/2014