J-A10023-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MICHAEL THOMAS VENTRONE 

Appellant

v.

ASHLEY HUNDT VENTRONE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1874 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered August 11, 2020

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

No(s): 2016-14439

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: MAY 3, 2021

Appellant, Michael Thomas Ventrone, appeals pro se from the order 

entered on August 11, 2020, which granted the amended petition for contempt 

filed by Ashley Hundt Ventrone (hereinafter “Petitioner”). We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

The divorced parties are subject to a Marital Settlement 

Agreement (“MSA”) dated December 22, 2016.[fn.1] In 

Paragraph 12(B) of the MSA, the parties agreed that in the 

event a sale of their marital residence did not satisfy a

$415,000.00 obligation to the Trust Under Will of Shelia W. 

Hundt (“Trust”),[fn.2] [Appellant] would be responsible for 

37.5 percent of the deficiency, with [Petitioner] responsible 

for the remainder. [Appellant] further obligated himself, in 

the event of a deficiency, to make monthly payments of not 

less than $1,225.00 to the Trust until his percentage of the 

repayment is satisfied. The MSA further provides in 

Paragraph 12(A) that [] either party utilizing the line of credit 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A10023-21

- 2 -

on the marital residence shall notify the other of the expense 

being paid.

[fn.1] The MSA was incorporated into the parties’ March 

1, 2017, divorce decree.

[fn.2] Petitioner is the beneficiary of the Trust.

Relevant to the instant matter, [Petitioner] filed a prior 

petition for contempt on September 9, 2019. In particular, 

[Petitioner] alleged that, following the sale of the marital 

residence, [Appellant] had an obligation under the MSA to 

repay the Trust $116,138.08, at the rate of $1,225.00 per 

month. She alleged, inter alia, he had not made the required 

monthly payments. The parties ultimately entered into an 

agreed order dated October 4, 2019. The agreed order 

states:

1. [Appellant] acknowledges that he is in contempt of the

order of June 18, 2018, in that he failed to make the

payments required by paragraph [12(B)] of the marital 

settlement agreement.

2. [Appellant] shall pay arrears in the amount of

$12,250.00 as of October 5, 2019, at the rate of $775.00 

per month on the 5th of each month commencing on 

November 5, 2019 until the above arrears are paid in full.

3. [Appellant] shall pay the regularly scheduled payments

as provided in the June 18, 2018 divorce decree order

incorporating the parties’ December 22, 2016 marital

settlement agreement in addition to the amounts 

specified in paragraph 2 above.

4. [Appellant] shall pay attorney’s fees in the amount of

$2,500.00 . . . at the rate of $500.00 a month 

commencing December 1, 2019 until the total amount is 

paid in full.

5. [Appellant] agrees to withdraw the Orphan’s Court

action filed in Chester County Orphan’s Court as it relates 

to the trust for the benefit of Ashley Hundt under the will 

of Shelia Hundt within 10 days of this Order.
J-A10023-21

- 3 -

[Trial Court Order, 10/4/19, at 1].

Petitioner filed the instant petition for contempt on March 2, 

2020, which she amended on April 16, 2020 (“amended 

petition”). The amended petition alleged in Count I that 

[Appellant] was in contempt of the MSA and prior court

orders by failing to make required payments to the Trust and 

to pay court ordered attorneys’ fees.[fn.3] Petitioner alleged in 

Count II that [Appellant] had violated the MSA by accessing 

$6,644.51 in funds from a home equity line of credit without 

giving her notice. She alleged in Count III that [Appellant] 

was in contempt of the Order of October 4, 2019, by filing a 

new Orphan’s Court action in Chester County.[fn.4] Count IV of 

the amended petition alleged a claim for abuse of process 

against [Appellant] and requested that he be ordered to pay 

$5,000.00, to be held in abeyance pending his compliance 

with his obligations. Lastly, [Petitioner] sought an increased 

award of attorneys’ fees.

[fn.3] In orders dated October 4, 2019, and October 21, 

2019, [Appellant] had been ordered to pay attorneys’ fees 

totaling $4,500.00

[fn.4] [Appellant] withdrew the prior Orphan’s Court 

action in accordance with the agreed order of October 4, 

2019.

The amended petition proceeded to a hearing before the [trial 

court] on August 11, 2020. At the conclusion of that hearing, 

[the trial] court issued an order finding [Appellant] in 

contempt of the order of October 4, 2019, and stating that 

he is responsible for repaying $113,913.28 to the Trust, 

payable according to the schedule provided for in the MSA. 

[The trial] court also found [Appellant] in contempt of the 

MSA by having withdrawn $6,644.51 from the parties’ home

equity line of credit, and ordered him to repay the Trust that 

amount through monthly installments. [The trial] court 

further ordered [Appellant] to pay the previously ordered 

attorneys’ fees of $4,500[.00] on or before December 1, 

2020, and to complete 120 hours of community service, 

commencing September 1, 2020, with proof of participation 

provided to the Domestic Relations Office (“DRO”) 

caseworker assigned to this matter. 
J-A10023-21

- 4 -

Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/20, at 1-4 (some capitalization and footnotes 

omitted).

As the trial court notes, “[Appellant] attempted to file a [timely] notice 

of appeal . . . by placing [the notice of appeal] in the prothonotary’s drop box 

on September 10, 2020.” Id. at 5 (some capitalization omitted); see also 

First Union Nat’l Bank v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 812 A.2d 719, 723 

(Pa. Super. 2002) (“an appeal will not be rendered automatically invalid by an 

Appellant's initial failure to comply with the financial obligations of Pa.R.A.P. 

905 and Pa.R.A.P. 2701. An appeal filed within the allowed time period 

without the requisite fee will still be considered valid”) (emphasis omitted).

Within Appellant’s notice of appeal, Appellant declared that he wished 

to raise the following claims on appeal:

[1.] During short list[,] I was refused the ability to have 

witnesses. Since this was regarding financial considerations 

of a previous agreement a financial expert was needed.

[2.] [A] calendar invitation to review guidelines with [the trial 

court] was sent as verbiage within an email, rather than an 

actual invitation. I did not see the date/time of this call until 

after the call itself. Rather than reschedule the call his 

secretary informed me that I should pay attention to my 

email for important information, which never arrived. This 

caused me to miss the date for the paperwork to be 

submitted to the judge for the hearing. I was also refused a 

continuance to gather pertinent information to the case, 

which I have enclosed for your review.

[3.] The order also includes community service, which 

domestic relations states they do not coordinate. I have a 

fiancée with underlying conditions (asthma, along with being 

hospitalized for pneumonia previously) of Covid-19, which 

would put her in [harms] way, making this excessive.
J-A10023-21

- 5 -

Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 9/10/20, at 12.

Within Appellant’s brief, Appellant raises the following claims:

Situs and jurisdiction for the “trust” is in Chester County. 

[The trial courts] in Montgomery County [did not have] the 

right to rule on a trust located in Chester Count[y]. Exhibit 

D, Title 20 – PA General Assembly 722 Venue of trust estates 

is provided, along with a ruling from Master Harris, Exhibit E, 

Page 30 Line 5, indicating that Family Court does not have 

jurisdiction and [Petitioner] and her council are directed to go 

to Orphans Court. In addition [Petitioner’s] council had no 

right to negotiate on behalf of this trust since authorization 

of both trustees was lacking.

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (some capitalization omitted).

Appellant did not raise any of the above claims in his statement of errors 

complained of on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s claims on appeal are waived. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues not included in the [concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal] . . . are waived”);

Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, (Pa. Super. 2008) (“[i]t is of no 

moment that appellant was not ordered to file a 1925(b) statement. Appellant 

filed his statement contemporaneously with his notice of appeal. Accordingly, 

there was no need for the trial court to order him to file a 1925(b) statement. 

If we were to find that because he was not ordered to file a 1925(b) statement, 

he has not waived the issues he neglected to raise in it, we would, in effect, 

be allowing appellant to circumvent the requirements of the Rule”). Further, 

Appellant failed to support his appellate argument with any relevant 

discussion, citation to the law, or legal argument. Thus, for this independent 

reason, Appellant's claims on appeal are waived. Commonwealth v. Miller, 
J-A10023-21

- 6 -

721 A.2d 1121, 1124 (“[w]e decline to become appellant's counsel. When 

issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are wholly 

inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the 

merits thereof”) (quotations and citations omitted).

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/3/21