J.A19036/14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1606 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 27, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1607 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 26, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Civil Division No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1608 WDA 2013 
J. A19036/14 

- 2 -

Appeal from the Order Entered September 26, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1609 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1610 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order September 16, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1611 WDA 2013 
J. A19036/14 

- 3 -

Appeal from the Order Dated September 13, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1612 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Civil Division No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1613 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 10, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

SANDRA L. KOZEL, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 : PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

 v. : 

 : 

ROBERT F. KOZEL, : 

 : 

 Appellant : No. 1614 WDA 2013 
J. A19036/14 

- 4 -

Appeal from the Order September 6, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court No(s).: FD 11-007838-016 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

 Appellant, Robert F. Kozel (“Husband”), appeals from nine orders 

dated September 6, 10, 13, 16, 26, and 27, 2013.1 Husband contends the 

trial court erred in ordering him to relinquish possession of marital property 

to Appellee, Sandra L. Kozel (“Wife”). We quash the appeal.2

 

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

1

 The appeals were consolidated by order of this Court. Order October 24, 

2013. 

2

 On October 23, 2013, this Court entered a per curiam rule to show cause 

order which stated: 

 These appeals, having been filed from orders dealing 

with property distribution prior to the entry of a final 

decree of divorce and equitable distribution, are 

interlocutory pursuant to Campbell v. Campbell, 516 

A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 1986). See also Fried v. Fried, [ ] 

501 A.2d 211 ([Pa.] 1985) (noting disapproval of collateral 

order doctrine in divorce cases). Further, Pa.R.A.P. 

311(a)(2) and (4), cited to on the docketing statement 

submitted to this Court, explicitly state that divorce 

matters are exempt from those sections of the Rule. 

Therefore, [Husband] shall show cause, in the form of a 

letter addressed to the Prothonotary of this court with a 

copy to opposing counsel and the trial judge, why these 

appeals should not be quashed. . . . 
J. A19036/14 

- 5 -

 The trial court summarized the procedural posture of this case as 

follows: 

 Husband and [Wife] were married on August 23, 1997. 

Three (3) children were born of the marriage . . . . Wife 

filed a Complaint in Divorce on September 1, 2011, 

wherein she raised claims for, inter alia, equitable 

distribution of marital property, child support, alimony 

pendente lite/spousal support, and counsel fees. On 

September 27, 2011 Wife praeciped for a 

conference/hearing to establish alimony pendente lite, 

spousal support, child support, and counsel fees and costs. 

On December 13, 2011 an Interim Order of Court was 

entered, which provided that Husband was to pay wife 

$116,224 per month for support of Wife and the Children. 

 On January 18, 2012 Husband presented to the [c]ourt 

a Motion to Compel Wife to file her Affidavit of Consent to 

the entry of a divorce decree. On February 3, 2012 the 

[c]ourt entered an Order that required Wife to file her 

Affidavit of Consent within five (5) days of the date of the 

Order. If Wife did not timely file this Affidavit, the Divorce 

Action would be dismissed and the December [13], 2011 

Order would be vacated immediately upon Husband’s filing 

of a Praecipe to Dismiss the Divorce Action with the 

Department of Court Records. Wife failed to file her 

Affidavit of Consent, and on February 13, 2012 Husband 

filed a Praecipe to Dismiss the Divorce Action with the 

Department of Court Records. As noted in the February 3, 

2012 Order, this action resulted in the immediate dismissal 

of the Complaint in Divorce. Wife file a Complaint for 

Spousal Support on February 15, 2012. An Interim Order 

of Court was entered on March 23, 2012, which provided 

that Husband was to pay Wife $40,005 per month in 

unallocated support beginning April 1, 2012. 

 On September 6, 2013 Wife presented to the [c]ourt an 

Oral Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief. Husband 

 

Order, 10/23/13. This Court received a response from Husband and 

deferred the issue to the merits panel. 
J. A19036/14 

- 6 -

presented an Oral Response to this Motion that same day. 

Wife stated that Husband entered the marital residence 

without permission, which he had vacated approximately 

two (2) years prior. Wife alleged that Husband took 

belongings from the home including privileged attorneyclient information. Wife also alleged that Husband burned 

unidentified papers in the fireplace. Husband did not deny 

that he took items from the home, but he denied removing 

any of Wife’s privileged attorney-client documents. 

Husband argued that the [c]ourt did not have jurisdiction 

to rule on this matter because the Complaint in Divorce 

was dismissed in 2012, and the issue before the [c]ourt 

concerned equitable distribution and exclusive possession 

of the marital residence. Wife argued that the [c]ourt did 

have jurisdiction to rule on this matter because of the 

ongoing child custody and support litigation, and Husband 

could be enjoined from disposing of assets and materials 

that could be used for the Children. 

 After hearing the arguments from both Husband and 

Wife, the [c]ourt entered it’s September 6, 2013 Order. 

The Order provided that, inter alia, Husband was to 

restore and return all tangible personal property that 

he and/or his agents removed, relocated, destroyed,

dissipated, and/or tampered with to the marital residence 

by September 7, 2013. Husband was also directed to

return any and all documents representing attorney-client 

communications and/or other privileged materials retained 

by Wife in the marital residence. 

 The Order further provided that Husband shall be 

deemed in contempt upon discovery that Husband did not 

restore the marital residence to the status quo that existed 

before his and his agents’ unauthorized entry on 

September 6, 2013. The Order directed that a hearing 

would be held before Husband could be found in 

contempt. Wife was awarded interim exclusive 

possession of the martial residence, and a hearing 

on exclusive possession was scheduled before the 

[c]ourt on December 13, 2013. The Order further 

authorized the Hampton Police Department, the 

Pennsylvania State Police and any other applicable law 

enforcement agency to enforce the provisions of the Order. 
J. A19036/14 

- 7 -

 On September 10, 2013 the [c]ourt entered an 

Order of Court to amend the September 6, 2013 

Order sua sponte. The September 10, 2013 Order 

required Wife to file a Complaint in Divorce raising an 

equitable distribution count or an exclusive possession 

count no later than September 16, 2013. If Wife failed to 

file the Complaint in Divorce, the Order cancelled the 

exclusive possession hearing. The Order also 

rescheduled the December 13, 2013 exclusive 

possession hearing for November 12, 2013. 

 On September 13, 2013, Husband presented in Motions 

Court an Emergency Motion to Vacate the [c]ourt’s 

September 6, 2013 Order of Court and the September 10, 

2013 Amended Order of Court. At the same time Wife

presented her Reply to Husband’s Emergency Motion and 

her Motion for Sanctions, as Husband had not complied 

with the September 6, 2013 Order to restore the marital 

residence to the status quo that existed before the

unauthorized entry. 

 The [c]ourt denied Husband’s Emergency Motion to 

Vacate via its first September 13, 2013 Order of Court. 

The [c]ourt also denied Husband’s request that the 

September 6, 2013 Order of Court and the September 10, 

2013 Amended Order of Court be stayed pending 

Husband’s appeal of these Orders to the Superior Court via 

its second September 13, 2013 Order of Court. On 

September 16, 2013 the [c]ourt entered the Order 

attached to Wife’s Motion for Sanctions. Under the

provisions of this Order Husband was to, inter alia, 

return any and all documents removed, inspected, 

reviewed, and/or tampered with to the marital 

residence by September 21, 2013. A compliance 

review hearing to determine Husband’s compliance 

with the relevant Orders of Court was scheduled for 

November 18, 2013. The Court also issued a Pretrial 

Statement Order on September 16, 2013 for the one 

(1) day compliance review hearing scheduled for 

November 18, 2013. 

 

 On September 17, 2013 Wife filed her Complaint 

in Divorce. The same day the [c]ourt entered an Order 

that cancelled the exclusive possession hearing scheduled 
J. A19036/14 

- 8 -

for November 12, 2013 because the [c]ourt concluded that 

Wife had failed to timely file her Complaint in Divorce 

raising either an equitable distribution count or an 

exclusive possession count in accordance with the 

September 10, 2013 Amended Order of Court. The 

September 17, 2013 Order also vacated Wife’s 

interim exclusive possession of the marital residence 

pending the filing of a divorce action and a formal 

request for exclusive possession by way of motion. 

On September 26, 2013 Husband presented a 

Petition for Stay in Motions Court. Husband sought for 

the [c]ourt to stay the September 6, 2013 Order of Court, 

the September 10, 2013 Order of Court, the two 

September 13, 2013 Orders of Court, and the two 

September 16, 2013 Orders of Court pending Husband’s 

appeal to the Superior Court. The [c]ourt denied 

Husband’s Petition on September 26, 2013.

 Wife presented a Motion to Vacate the September 17, 

2013 Order of Court in Motions Court on September 26, 

2013. Wife averred that she filed her Complaint in Divorce 

at approximately 4:53 P.M. on September 16, 2013, in 

compliance with the September 10, 2013 Amended Order 

of Court. Wife stated that she learned that her Complaint 

could not be accepted on September 16, 2013 because it 

contained a count for primary physical and shared legal 

custody of the Children. This count required a waiver from 

the Generations Department of the Family Division noting 

that the parties had already completed their Generations 

Education and Mediation sessions before the Complaint 

could be accepted. Wife re-filed the Complaint [in Divorce] 

on September 17, 2013 when she learned of the waiver 

requirement. 

The [c]ourt granted Wife’s Motion in part via 

another September 26, 2013 Order of Court. It did 

not vacate the September 17, 2013 Order of Court, 

but it did re-award Wife interim exclusive possession

of the marital residence pending the outcome of the

one (1) day exclusive possession hearing on 

November 12, 2013. 
J. A19036/14 

- 9 -

 On September 27, 2013 the [c]ourt entered an 

Order that continued generally the compliance 

review hearing scheduled for November 18, 2013 to 

allow counsel to conduct formal discovery. The 

Order also provided that either party could praecipe 

to reschedule the compliance review hearing on an 

expedited basis upon completion of discovery. 

On October 4, 2013 Husband filed nine (9) separate 

Appeals of the following Orders: the September 6, 2013 

Order of Court; the September 10, 2013 Order of Court; 

the two September 13, 2013 Orders of Court; the two

September 16, 2013 Orders of Court; the two September 

26, 2013 Orders of Court; and the September 27, 2013 

Order of Court. 

 

Trial Ct. Op., 12/2/13, at 1-6 (footnotes omitted and emphases added). 

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

statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court filed a 

responsive opinion. 

 On November 6, 2013, the trial court entered the following consent 

order:3

 

3

 The trial court entered the consent order, notwithstanding the filing of the 

instant appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1701 provides, in pertinent part: 

 (b) Authority of a trial court or agency after 

appeal. After an appeal is taken or review of a 

quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or other 

government unit may: 

 * * * 

(6) Proceed further in any matter in which a nonappealable interlocutory order has been entered, 

notwithstanding the filing of a notice of appeal or a 

petition for review of the order. 
J. A19036/14 

- 10 -

1. [Wife] is hereby awarded exclusive possession of 

the former marital residence . . . . 

2. [Husband] is hereby excluded from the premises of the 

former marital residence and adjoined from entering

and/or occupying the same; 

3. This Order of Court shall become effective immediately; 

and 

4. The one (1) day hearing scheduled to address [Wife’s] 

request for exclusive possession of the former marital 

residence, currently scheduled for Tuesday, November 12, 

2013 . . . is hereby cancelled. 

Consent Order, 11/6/13, at 1-2 (emphasis added).4 

 Appellant raises the following issues for our review: 

1. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law, and abuse its 

discretion, in ordering the relinquishment of possession of 

property by [Husband] without subject matter jurisdiction? 

2. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law, and abuse its 

discretion, in ordering the relinquishment of possession of 

property by [Husband] without proper notice, without a 

 

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(6). 

4

 On November 27, 2013, a second consent ordered was entered, stating: 

[Wife is] awarded an advance of equitable distribution in 

the amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) which 

amount is to be reduced by income tax attributable to 

[Wife], which would have been incurred if the parties 

Merrill Lynch Wealth Management Joint Investment 

Account would have had to sell $3,000,000.00 in assets in 

order to generate the aforementioned $3,000,000 cash 

advance. The amount of the tax that has been agreed 

upon by the parties is $60,000. . . . 

 

Order, 11/27/13. 
J. A19036/14 

- 11 -

written Motion, and without a hearing as required by due 

process? 

3. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law, and abuse its 

discretion, in ordering law enforcement officials to enforce 

the relinquishment of possession of property by [Husband] 

without proper notice, without a written Motion and

without a hearing as required by due process? 

4. Did the Trial Court err, as a matter of law, and abuse its 

discretion, in ordering law enforcement officials to enforce 

the relinquishment of possession of property by [Husband] 

without subject matter jurisdiction? 

Husband’s Brief at 18. 

 As a prefatory matter, we consider whether the issues concerning the 

distribution of marital property, viz., the marital residence, are moot based 

upon the November 6, 2013 consent order. This Court has stated: 

 Generally, an actual claim or controversy must be 

present at all stages of the judicial process for the case to 

be actionable or reviewable. . . . If events occur to 

eliminate the claim or controversy at any stage in 

the process, the case becomes moot. An issue can 

become moot during the pendency of an appeal due to an 

intervening change in the facts of the case or due to an 

intervening change in the applicable law. An issue before 

a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot 

enter an order that has any legal force or effect. 

 

Deutsche Bank Nat. Co. v. Butler, 868 A.2d 574, 577 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 In Motley Crew, LLC v. Bonner Chevrolet Co., Inc., 93 A.3d 474 

(Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2014), the appellants 

[d]iscontin[ed] their action immediately prior to filing their 

appeal in [the Supreme] Court, depriv[ing] this Court of 

jurisdiction to hear the issues complained of in their 
J. A19036/14 

- 12 -

appeal. Because no action [wa]s pending from which an 

appeal of an order c[ould] be heard, this Court [wa]s 

without jurisdiction to hear [the a]ppellants claims. [The 

a]ppellants rendered their action moot. Th[e] appeal, 

therefore, must be quashed. 

Id. at 476. 

 Instantly, Husband’s challenges to the court’s orders granting Wife 

interim exclusive possession of the marital residence are moot based upon 

the consent order granting Wife exclusive possession. See Deutsche Bank 

Nat. Co., 868 A.2d at 577. Because the consent order rendered the issue 

moot, Husband’s appeal as to that issue must be quashed. See Motley 

Crew, LLC, 93 A.3d at 476. 

We also consider whether the orders were interlocutory and 

unappealable. A final order is defined in part as “any order that . . . 

disposes of all claims and of all parties.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (emphasis 

added). The September 6, 2013 order directed Husband to return property 

to the marital home and awarded interim possession of the home to Wife. A 

hearing was set for December 13th. The September 10th order amended 

the September 6th order, directing Wife to file a complaint in divorce and 

scheduling a hearing on the issue of the exclusive possession of the marital 

residence. The two September 13th orders (1) denied a request to vacate 

the orders entered on September 6th and 10th and (2) denied a stay of the 

orders. The September 16th order set a date for a compliance review 

hearing and specified the information to be included in pre-trial statements. 
J. A19036/14 

- 13 -

The court entered another order on September 16th directing Husband to 

return documents and set a date for a compliance review hearing. The court 

entered an order on September 26th awarding Wife possession of the 

marital residence and scheduling a hearing on the issue of exclusive 

possession. The court entered another order on September 26th denying 

Husband’s petition for a stay pending his appeal to this Court. The 

September 27th order generally continued the compliance review hearing 

scheduled for November 18, 2013 so counsel could conduct formal 

discovery. 

 We find that the orders were not final orders because they did not 

dispose of all claims and anticipated further proceedings. See Pa.R.A.P. 

341(b)(1). Therefore, we are constrained to quash the appeal.

 Appeal quashed. 

President Judge Emeritus Bender joins the memorandum. 

Judge Olson concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 2/25/2015 
J. A19036/14 

- 14 -