J

- A15028

- 22

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MADELINE S. CRUZ

v.

JERMEY CRUZ

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 198 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered January 12, 2022 , i n the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County
, Civil Division at No(s): Docket No. 1874 of 2013

.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: September 2, 2022

Jeremy Cruz appeals from the order denying his petit i on to void his

divorce decree. Upon review, we affirm.

Cruz and Madeline S. Cruz ( now Morales ) were married on October 10,

2011, in Erie Pennsylvania. On April 5, 2013 , Morales filed for divorce. On

April 17, 2013, Cruz accepted service of the divorce complaint , which

designated the venue for the action as the Court of Common Pleas of Pot t er

County. Su b sequently, on July 19, 2013, the parties execute d an a ffida v it of

c onsent and w aiver of n otice of Morales ’ i nt ention to r equest e ntry of a d ivorce

d ecree , which was notarized. The partie s were divorce d on August 8, 2013.

More than eight years later, on October 8, 2021, Cruz filed a petition to

void the divorce decree. H e claimed that Morale s coerced him into signing the

divorce documents. According to Cruz, h e did not read the documents beforeJ

- A15028

- 22

- 2

-

he signed them and some of the information was false. Cruz further claimed

that he did not want to be divorced and did not realize he could have exe rcised

certain rights before the divorce was granted

. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Cruz’ s petition. Cruz filed this

timely appeal. Cruz and the trial cour t complied with Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925.

Cru z raises the fo llowing issues on appeal:

- The trial c ourt erred in denying Cruz’s petition because the divorce court improperly grant ed Morales’ request for a divorce decree without confirming her physical address and failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

- The t rial c ourt erred in denying Cruz's pet ition when it stated that Cruz requested the c ourt to open or vacate the decree based on Cruz's confusion of the process and that the fact that some of the allegations in the affidavit and waiver were not accurate.

- The t rial c ourt erred in denying Cruz's p etition by accepting the testimony of Morales that Cruz voluntarily participated with the divorce process with full knowledge of the ramifications.

- The t rial c ourt erred in denying Cruz's p etit ion because it violated Cruz’s constitutional right to have a fair trial of wh ich Cruz was deprived.

See Cruz’ Brief at 1.

Cruz challenges t he trial court’s denial of his request to vacate the

d ivorce decree on several grounds

. In reviewing this matter, we are mindful

of our standard of review. “A trial court's exercise or refusal to exercise its

authority to open, vacate, or strike a divorce decree is reviewable on appeal

for an abuse of d iscretion.” Bardine v. Bardine , 194 A.3d 150, 152 (Pa.J

- A15028

- 22

- 3

-

Super. 2018) (citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error

of judgment but is found where the law is overridden or misapplied, or the

judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,

prejudice, bias or ill will as shown by the evidence or the record.” Fischer v.

UPMC Northwest , 34 A.3d 115, 120 (Pa. Super. 2011).

A petition to open or vacate a divorce decree is governed by

23 Pa.C.S.A . § 3332 , which provides:

A motion to open a d ecree of divorce or annulment may be made only within the period limited by 42 Pa.C.S.A . § 5505 (relating to modification of orders) and not thereafter. The motion may lie where it is alleged that the decree was procured by intrinsic fraud or that there i s new evidence relating to the cause of action which will sustain the attack upon its validity. A motion to vacate a decree or strike a judgment alleged to be void because of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record must be made within five years after entry of the final decree. Intrinsic fraud relates to a matter adjudicated by the judgment, including perjury and false testimony, whereas extrinsic fraud relates to matters collater al to the judgment which have the consequence of precluding a fair hearing or presentation of one side of the case.

23 Pa.C.S.A . § 3332 (emphasis added)

. T his section sets forth clear and

definitive time constraints and evidentiary requirements regarding a court's

authority to open or vacate a divorce decree. Th e purpose of s ection 3332 is

“to codify the extraordinary circumstances which will outweigh the interests

of the parties and the court in finality, and to delimit the time periods which

within such circumstances must be established.” Bardine , 194 A.3d at 153

(citing Anderson v. Anderson , 544 A.2d 501, 505 ( Pa. Super. 1988)).J

- A15028

- 22

- 4

-

Here , the trial court denied Cruz ’ s petition. Although the trial court

considered the merits of Cruz’ s claims an d found them to be meritless, the

trial c ourt ultimately concluded that Cruz’ s claims were untimely. This basis ,
alone , was sufficient to deny Cruz’ s petition. Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/22 , at

3

- 5 . We agree.

Upon review, w e observe that Cruz sought to void the divorce decree.

We therefore construe this as a request to vacate the decree

. “For a motion

to vacate, the [motion] must be filed within five years of the divorce decree

where the attack is based on extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction over the

subject matter or a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the

record.” Bardine , 194 A.3d at 153 (citing Fenstermaker v. Fenstermaker , 502 A.2d 185, 188 ( Pa. Super. 1985)).

Indisputably, Cruz filed his petit i on more than eight years after the

divorce decree was entered , well beyond the five

- year time limit of section

3332 . Cruz ’s petition was clearly untimely. As such, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Cruz ’s petition , and we need not reach the

merits of Cruz’ s claims

.
Order affirmed.J

- A15028

- 22

- 5

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/2/2022