J-S11028-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DIANE E. MACKIE 

Appellant

v.

THOMAS J. MACKIE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1195 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered July 15, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County 

Domestic Relations at No(s): 473 DR 2013, Pacses: 516114042

BEFORE: OLSON, J. RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY RANSOM, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2017

Appellant, Diane E. Mackie, appeals from the order entered July 15, 

2016, denying her petition for modification of spousal support. We quash 

the appeal as interlocutory.

In October 2013, Appellee filed a divorce action at Washington County 

Prothonotary Docket No. CP-63-CV-201306350. The proceedings are 

unresolved, as there is no final decree.

In April 2014, Appellant commenced a support action under docket 

number 00473DR2013. In March 2015, Appellant filed a Petition for 

Modification of Support. In May 2015, Appellant filed her second Petition for 

Modification of Support, and Appellee filed his first petition for modification.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S11028-17

- 2 -

In July 2015, the parties appeared for a mandatory support conference 

at which time Appellee requested a de novo support hearing. In January 

2016, a de novo hearing was held; the Support Hearing Officer subsequently 

submitted Findings and a Recommended Order. Both parties timely filed 

exceptions to the recommended order. In February 2016, the trial court 

held oral argument on the exceptions. Following oral argument, the parties 

agreed to have their case remanded to the hearing officer for further 

consideration. In May 2016, the hearing officer filed his Findings and 

Recommended Order. Again, both parties filed exceptions and oral 

argument was scheduled for June 2016. On July 15, 2016, the trial court 

entered an order that granted in part and denied in part the exceptions of 

the parties. Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/16 at 15.

Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement. The trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issues for review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in upholding the Master’s 

decision[,] which failed to consider Defendant’s substantial 

2015 income from Northrop Grumman when making his 

support calculation when the Modification Petition, which was 

the basis of this hearing, was filed in March 2015, and all 

income from 2015 was relevant to the calculation of 

Defendant’s support obligation.

2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider income 

discovered after the January 2016 hearing once Defendant 

produced his 2014 tax return and its attachments.

3. Whether the trial court erred by concluding that Plaintiff had 

failed to timely raise the issue of Husband under-reporting his 

2014 income at the December 2014 hearing, when said 
J-S11028-17

- 3 -

income was not known to the Plaintiff until Defendant finally 

submitted his 2014 tax return, and its attachments, to the 

court after the January 2016 hearing.

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

We must first examine the question of jurisdiction. Although this issue 

is not addressed by the parties, jurisdictional issues may be properly raised 

by the Court sua sponte. See Leister v. Leister, 684 A.2d 192, 193 (Pa. 

Super. 1996) (en banc) (citing Fried v. Fried, 501 A.2d 211 (1985). 

Spousal support orders, when entered during the pendency of a divorce 

action, are interlocutory and unappealable, even if entered pursuant to a 

separately filed complaint for support. Leister 684 A.2d at 193.

Although the trial court issued its opinion on the merits on October 11, 

2016, a review of the record indicates that a divorce action had been filed in 

October 18, 2013, prior to the July 15, 2016 spousal support order and 

Appellant’s August 10, 2016 notice of appeal. The Washington County 

docket specifically lists October 18, 2013, as the date upon which Appellee 

filed the divorce complaint. 

Given the foregoing facts and the holding of this Court in Leister, 

Appellant’s appeal is interlocutory. Appellee’s application to expedite is 

denied as moot.

Application to expedite denied as moot. Appeal quashed.
J-S11028-17

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/2017