J-S71022-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

CATHERINE LE SCHACK, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

MARK LE SCHACK, 

 Appellant No. 558 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Order March 24, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court at No(s): FD 13-006800-009 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and OTT, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 22, 2016 

 Mark Le Schack (“Husband”), pro se,

1

 appeals from the March 24, 

2015 order affirming the Master’s Report and Recommendation and 

equitably distributing the marital property of Husband and Appellee 

Catherine Le Schack (“Wife”). We affirm. 

 The trial court summarized the relevant procedural history as follows: 

The parties . . . were married on July 22, 1978[,] and separated 

on July 2, 2012. On April 12, 2013, Wife filed a Complaint in 

Divorce raising claims for divorce and equitable distribution. On 

July 18, 2013, Husband filed an Answer to Wife’s Complaint 

raising a claim for Alimony Pendente Lite (APL). 

 On July 9, 2014, Husband presented a Petition for 

Bifurcation requesting this Court bifurcate the divorce proceeding 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Husband “is a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney who has practiced law for 

over twenty (20) years . . . .” Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/15, at 6. 
J-S71022-15 

- 2 - 

and economic claims as Husband wished to marry his girlfriend 

who lived in Brazil at the time. Following briefing and a full 

evidentiary hearing, this Court denied Husband’s request for 

bifurcation on November 25, 2014. 

 On January 8, 2015, a one-day hearing before Master 

Chester Beattie, III, (hereinafter the “Master”) was held to 

resolve all pending economic claims, including Wife’s claim for 

equitable distribution, counsel fees and expenses, and Husband’s 

Petition for Modification of APL. On January 26, 2015, the 

Master issued a Report and Recommendation (hereinafter the 

“Master's Report”). Neither party filed timely exceptions to 

the Master’s report. 

 On February 19, 2015, having failed to file his exceptions 

on time, Husband sought leave of court to file exceptions nunc 

pro tunc. This Court denied Husband’s request and further 

denied his additional motion which essentially were exceptions to 

the Master’s Report. 

 On March 24, 2015, this Court adopted the Master’s Report 

as a Final Order and, on March 26, 2015, a divorce decree was 

entered. On April 6, 2015, Husband filed a Notice of Appeal to 

said Order. 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/15, at 2–3 (emphasis in original).2

 Husband raises the following issues on appeal: 

I. IS THE APPELLANT ENTITLED TO A MARITAL DIVISION OF 

TRUST ASSETS AND INCOME OR RECEIVE MONETARY 

COMPENSATION WHEN APPELLANT OFFERED CREDIBLE 

EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS THE INTENDED BENEFICIARY 

AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE SUPPORT FROM THE 

TRUST INCOME AND ASSETS? 

II. IS THE APPELLANT ENTITLED TO ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE 

ON APPEAL AND IS APPELLANT ENTITLED TO 

MODIFICATION INCREASE RETROACTIVELY? 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Both Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 
J-S71022-15 

- 3 - 

III. DOES THE SUPERIOR COURT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS 

CASE AS A RESULT OF THE COURT DENYING THE RIGHT 

TO FILE EXCEPTIONS. 

IV. WAS THE APPELLEE ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS AGAINST 

APPELLANT? 

Husband’s Brief at 3 (verbatim). 

 A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of 

equitable distribution. Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275, 1280 (Pa. 

Super. 2007). Our standard of review is whether the trial court abused its 

discretion. Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15, 19 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation 

omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a 

showing of clear and convincing evidence.” Yuhas v. Yuhas, 79 A.3d 700, 

704 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). 

 Initially, we must determine whether Husband has preserved the 

issues he now advances on appeal; thus, we first address Husband’s issue 

III. The time limits to be followed when filing exceptions to a master’s 

report are set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55-2, which provides, in pertinent 

part, as follows: 

Rule 1920.55-2. Master’s Report. Notice. Exceptions. Final 

Decree 

* * * 

(b) Within twenty days of the date of receipt or the date of 

mailing of the master’s report and recommendation, whichever 

occurs first, any party may file exceptions to the report or any 

part thereof, to rulings on objections to evidence, to statements 

or findings of fact, to conclusions of law, or to any other matters 

occurring during the hearing. Each exception shall set forth a 
J-S71022-15 

- 4 - 

separate objection precisely and without discussion. Matters 

not covered by exceptions are deemed waived unless, 

prior to entry of the final decree, leave is granted to file 

exceptions raising those matters.

Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55-2(b) (emphasis added). 

 The record reveals that the Master’s Report and Recommendation was 

filed and mailed to the parties on January 26, 2015. Docket entries 52 and 

53. Thus, any exceptions to the Master’s Report had to have been filed by 

February 17, 2015.3

 The record further reveals that Husband filed exceptions to the 

Master’s Report on February 18, 2015. Docket Entry 57. On February 20, 

2015, Husband filed a Motion for Delayed Filing of Exceptions4 asserting that 

he attempted to file exceptions electronically on February 13, 2015. He 

attached an email sent February 13, 2015, at 5:57 p.m. from the Allegheny 

County webmaster acknowledging receipt of the exceptions and listing their 

status as “pending,” with the following proviso: “Be advised this case is not 

officially filed until it is approved by Allegheny County Civil/Family Division. 

If approved, you will be notified via an electronic receipt and the official date 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Because the twentieth day fell on Sunday, February 15, 2015, and 

Monday, February 16, 2015, was President’s Day, a national holiday, the 

exceptions were due by February 17, 2015. See 1 Pa.C.S. 1908 (stating 

that when the last day of any period referred to in any statute falls on 

Saturday or Sunday or on any legal Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or 

United States holiday, such day “shall be omitted from the computation.”). 

4

 The trial court has termed this filing as leave to file exceptions nunc pro 

tunc. 
J-S71022-15 

- 5 - 

and time of filing will be the date and time listed above.” Motion for Delayed 

Filing of Exceptions, 2/20/15, attachment. Also attached is an email sent 

February 17, 2015, at 10:25 a.m. from the webmaster which states: “Please 

be advised that the following cases have NOT been accepted as a filing by 

the Allegheny County Civil/Family Division because: Exceptions cannot be 

electronically filed. They must be filed in the office. You must resubmit the 

notice of intention.” Id. The trial court denied Husband’s Motion for 

Delayed Filing of Exceptions on February 19, 2015. 

 Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 239 through 239.9 establish the 

framework by which individual courts of common pleas of this 

Commonwealth may promulgate local rules of civil procedure. Specifically, 

Pa.R.C.P. 239.9 provides as follows: 

Rule 239.9. Electronic Filing. Local Rule 205.4 

(a) If a court permits or requires the electronic filing of legal 

papers with the prothonotary, the court must promulgate a local 

rule designated Local Rule 205.4 which sets forth in detail the 

practice and procedure to file a legal paper electronically and 

includes the matters set forth in this rule. 

In compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 239.9, Allegheny County promulgated Local 

Rule 205.4, which designates, inter alia, the legal papers that can and 

cannot be filed electronically for matters within the Family Division. 

Allegheny County Local Rule 205.4(a)(1)(C). In addition, the local rule 

provides: 
J-S71022-15 

- 6 - 

(f)(1) When a legal paper has been successfully transmitted 

electronically, the DCR’s[5] electronic filing website shall generate 

a printable acknowledgement page and shall transmit to the filer 

an initial e-mail confirming the electronic receipt of the legal 

paper and the date and time thereof. Subsequently, after the 

DCR has processed the electronic filing, the DCR shall transmit, 

to the filer, an e-mail stating the date and time of acceptance of 

the filing or stating that the filing has not been accepted and the 

reasons for non-acceptance. A legal paper will not be considered 

filed if the DCR responds to the filing by notifying the filer that 

the filer has not (i) maintained with the DCR sufficient funds to 

pay the fees and costs of the filing or (ii) authorized payment by 

credit or debit card of such fees and costs. 

Allegheny County Local Rule 205.4(f)(1). 

 In refusing to permit Husband’s nunc pro tunc filing of exceptions, the 

trial court stated as follows: 

The standard of review in the denial of a request to file pleadings 

nunc pro tunc has been stated as follows: 

... the standard of review applicable to the denial of 

an appeal nunc pro tunc is “whether the trial court 

abused its discretion.” 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.” 

In re M.S.K., 936 A.2d 103, 104 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 

Freeman v. Bonner, 761 A.2d 1193, 1194-95 (Pa. Super. 

2000)). 

 Husband is a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney who has 

practiced law for over twenty (20) years, and should be fully 

aware of the importance of filing deadlines. Husband alleges 

____________________________________________ 

5

 DCR is defined as “the Allegheny County Department of Court Records 

Civil/Family Division.” Allegheny County Local Rule 205.4(a)(1). 
J-S71022-15 

- 7 - 

that he was unfamiliar with the local rules of Allegheny County. 

However, Husband admits that he was aware that Allegheny 

County had local rules in place but despite this he neglected to 

keep himself abreast of these rules. He now asks this [c]ourt to 

excuse his ignorance. This [c]ourt is not so inclined. 

When a party chooses to represent h(im)self, as here 

. . . he cannot impose on the necessarily impartial

court or master the responsibility to act as the 

party’s counsel and direct h(im) repeatedly how to 

proceed or to proceed for h(im). When a party 

decides to act on h(is) own behalf . . . he assumes

the risk of h(is) own lack of professional, legal 

training. . . . “Where a party’s action disrupts the fair 

and orderly process of the divorce action, the court 

acts appropriately in imposing even severe sanctions 

if necessary to take control of the situation.” “Abuse 

of the court system, whether by seasoned attorneys 

or by pro se parties, cannot be tolerated.” 

Savage v. Savage, 736 A.2d 633, 647-48 (Pa. Super. 1999) 

(Internal citations omitted). Moreover, Husband was advised by 

the Department of Court Records, within the 20 day time period, 

that exceptions are not permitted to be electronically filed. 

Husband thereafter waited two (2) days past the filing deadline, 

before filing exceptions in person. Accordingly, this Court found 

that Husband failed to make a good faith effort to timely file his 

exceptions. 

Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/15, at 6–7. 

 Here, Husband was not permitted to file exceptions electronically. 

While he proceeded pro se, Husband is a seasoned attorney who has 

practiced law for twenty years. The failure to file timely exceptions to a 

master’s report waives claims of error raised on appeal. Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55-

2(b); Metzgar v. Metzgar, 534 A.2d 1057, 1058 (Pa. Super. 1987); 

Sipowicz v. Sipowicz, 517 A.2d 960, 963 (Pa. Super. 1986). Moreover, 

despite Husband’s erroneous interpretation of the local rule or failure to 
J-S71022-15 

- 8 - 

consult the local rule regarding electronic filing of exceptions, Husband 

specifically was notified the morning of February 17, 2015, the day the 

appeal period expired, that electronic filing was not permitted. Thus, 

Husband still had the option to file the exceptions in a timely fashion but 

chose not to do so. It is this failure that compelled the trial court to deny 

Husband’s nunc pro tunc filing. We do not find that such a conclusion is an 

abuse of discretion by the trial court. The findings of the trial court are 

entitled to great deference by this Court, as it had the opportunity to 

observe the parties and assess their credibility. Palladino v. Palladino, 

713 A.2d 676, 678 (Pa. Super. 1998). Thus, we agree with the trial court 

that Husband’s issues on appeal are waived.6

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 1/22/2016 

____________________________________________ 

6

 If we addressed the issues on the merits, we would affirm on the basis of 

the trial court opinion filed June 2, 2015, and the Master’s Report and 

Recommendation filed January 26, 2015. 
J-S71022-15 

- 9 -