J-S03013-17

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ANN MARIE LEMMI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

KEVIN GEORGE LEMMI,

Appellee No. 709 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order of April 13, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County

Civil Division at No(s): 92-2677

BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 1, 2017

Appellant, Ann Marie Lemmi, appeals from the order entered on April 

13, 2016,1 denying her petition to enforce an agreement incorporated into 

the parties’ divorce decree. Upon careful consideration, we affirm.

The trial court briefly summarized the facts of this case as follows:

[Appellant] and Kevin George Lemmi (Husband) were 

married in [1981]. Their son, James, was born January 18, 

1982. During the marriage, [Husband] acquired a tract of 

land in Hanover Township. On April 30, 1992, [Appellant] 

filed a complaint in divorce[.] On May 25, 1994, the parties 

entered into a “stipulation,” paragraph 2 of which provides: 

“Husband does hereby agree to convey to the parties’ son, 

Jimmy, at age eighteen ten acres from [H]usband’s farm 

property located in Hanover Township, Washington, 

____________________________________________

1

 The order is dated April 16, 2016. However, the record reflects that the 

order and accompanying opinion were time-stamped and entered on April 

13, 2016. We have changed the caption accordingly.
J-S03013-17

- 2 -

County.” On May 27, 1994, the parties were divorced by 

decree of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. 

The decree contained the following language: “It is further 

ordered that: the ‘stipulation’ dated May 25, 1994, by and 

between the said parties be incorporated herein.” [The 

decree was signed by Judge] O’Dell Seneca[.]

James “Jimmy” Lemmi [(Son)] turned eighteen (18) on 

January 18, 2000. To date, [Husband] has conveyed none 

of his Hanover Township land to [S]on. There were 

demands that he do so, oral and written, but none of record 

until June 29, 2015, when [Appellant] filed a petition to ask 

the [trial] court to enforce the agreement. 

Trial Court Opinion, 4/13/2016, at 1-2 (superfluous capitalization omitted).

On July 15, 2015, counsel for Husband entered his appearance and 

filed an answer and new matter to the petition to enforce the marital 

settlement agreement. Appellant filed a response to Husband’s answer and 

new matter on July 27, 2015. The trial court scheduled a hearing for 

October 6, 2015. Upon consent of both parties, the hearing was rescheduled 

twice. On January 20, 2016, the trial court entered an order, agreed to by 

the parties that they were to prepare and file a stipulated set of facts by 

February 16, 2016, legal memoranda by March 10, 2016, and reply briefs by 

March 20, 2016. By order entered on April 13, 2016, the trial court denied 

Appellant relief, based upon the stipulated facts, finding the four-year 

statute of limitations for contracts barred Appellant’s petition to enforce the 

agreement. This timely appeal resulted.2

____________________________________________

2

 As previously noted, the trial court order and opinion is dated April 16, 

2016; however, the order was time-stamped and docketed on April 13, 

2016. The docket reflects that notice of the order’s entry was sent to the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03013-17

- 3 -

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

I. Even without tolling, based on pure arithmetic of the 

relevant dates with the application of disputed facts 

viewed most favorable to Appellant/Son because no 

evidentiary hearing was held, does the statute of 

limitations bar Son’s claims on the deed and mineral 

rights leases?

II. Is equitable tolling present in this case because 

Husband owed fiduciary duties to Son that included 

full disclosure, and Son, through [Appellant], brought 

the petition to enforce within four years of his 

discovery of the violation of those duties?

III. Under Crispo, Miller, and K.A.R.,

3

are Husband’s 

duties to Son continuing in nature?

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

parties on April 14, 2016. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), a notice of appeal 

“shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the 

appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). “Generally, the time for appeal 

commences following the entry of a final order.” Reeves v. Middletown 

Athletic Ass'n, 866 A.2d 1115, 1120 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted; 

emphasis in original). “For this purpose, an order is ‘entered’ when it has 

been docketed and notice of the docketing has been given to the parties.” 

Id. Here, while the trial court assigned the date, April 16, 2016, to the 

order challenged on appeal, the trial court opinion is time-stamped, and the 

docket reflects a filing date of April 13, 2016. The time-stamped trial court 

opinion and the docket further confirm that the parties were given notice of 

the entry of the order on April 14, 2016. Hence, Appellant had 30 days from 

April 14, 2016, to file a timely appeal. Because the 30th day fell on a 

Saturday, Appellant had two additional days to file her notice of appeal or 

until Monday, May 16, 2016. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Appellant filed her 

notice of appeal timely on May 16, 2016. The trial court issued an order 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directing Appellant to file a concise statement 

of errors and Appellant complied timely. The trial court relied on its earlier 

opinion, dated April 16, 2016, to support its decision to deny Appellant relief. 

3 Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006), Miller v. Miller, 983 

A.2d 736 (Pa. Super. 2009), and K.A.R. v. T.G.L., 107 A.3d 770 (Pa. Super. 

2014), respectively.
J-S03013-17

- 4 -

IV. Does Appellant [] have standing to bring this petition 

on behalf of [] Son?

V. Because the stipulation was merged into the [divorce] 

decree (the language of [the] decree says 

‘incorporated’ but lacks the phrase ‘not merged’), is 

the stipulation a court order to which the statute of 

limitations does not apply?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (complete capitalization and suggested answers 

omitted).

First, we must address Husband’s motion to quash the appeal filed 

with this Court on August 12, 2016. Here, we have reviewed the parties’ 

various trial court filings, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, her appellate 

brief, and the trial court’s opinion, and conclude that Appellant properly 

presented and preserved two appellate issues, issues III and V as presented 

above. Because, as discussed at length below, Appellant preserved two 

appellate issues, we deny Husband’s motion to quash. 

 We begin our analysis by examining the certified record and looking 

at the issues currently presented. Our review confirms that Appellant did 

not raise issues I, II, or IV before the trial court. This is a fatal impediment 

to appellate review and we find them waived. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), 

“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for 

the first time on appeal.” Moreover, once an issue has been decided by the 

trial court, an appellant may not present a new legal theory on appeal. See 

Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945, 949 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“for any 

claim that was required to be preserved, this Court cannot review a legal 
J-S03013-17

- 5 -

theory in support of that claim unless that particular legal theory was 

presented to the trial court”). Further, “[a]n appellant's failure to include an 

issue in [her] Rule 1925(b) statement waives that issue for purposes of 

appellate review.” Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 

2006). 

Upon review, issue I, wherein Appellant currently argues that Husband 

misled Son and fraudulently concealed gas leases on the property, was not 

presented to the trial court below and was not properly preserved. With 

regard to issue II, Appellant argues that the 1994 stipulation “created a de 

facto trust with fiduciary duties upon Husband owed to Son[.]” Appellant’s 

Brief at 10. Appellant did not argue before the trial court that the 

agreement created a trust or that Husband breached fiduciary duties and 

she cannot do so now. In issue IV, Appellant argues she has standing to 

bring this action on behalf of Son. Appellant’s Brief at 13. Appellant’s 

standing has never been in question. Appellant has waived these claims. 

Finally, we note that Appellant previously argued that the parties’ 

agreement was subject to the 20-year statute of limitations because it was 

under seal. Appellant’s Brief in Support of Enforcing Stipulation, 3/14/2016, 

at 5-7 (unpaginated). Appellant did not include this issue in her Rule 

1925(b) statement and, therefore, she waived it. Moreover, an appellant 

may abandon a claim on appeal by “fail[ing] to provide a single legal citation 

in support of [an] argument, or to otherwise develop [an] issue in any 

meaningful way.” Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, 118 A.3d 1111, 1117 n. 
J-S03013-17

- 6 -

3 (Pa. Super. 2015). Currently, Appellant does not argue that the 

agreement was under seal and, thus, she abandoned that claim on appeal. 

In issue III, Appellant maintains that Husband had continuing duties 

under Crispo, Miller, and K.A.R.. Appellant’s Brief at 12-13. In issue V, 

Appellant argues that the parties’ stipulation merged into the divorce decree 

and no statute of limitations applies to the enforcement of a court order. 

These issues were presented to the trial court, raised in Appellant’s Rule 

1925(b) statement, and are properly before this Court. Thus, we will confine 

our appellate review to Appellant’s third and fifth issues. 

Regarding issue III, Appellant argues, “the statute of limitations does 

not apply to the deed transfer under Crispo, Miller and K.A.R. due to 

Husband’s continuing duties to Son....” See Appellant’s Brief at 13.4 We note 

that aside from baldly citing Crispo, Miller and K.A.R., Appellant provides 

scant legal analysis. On this basis, we could find waiver. See

Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010), citing

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b) (citations to authorities must articulate the principles for 

which they are cited). Even though Appellant’s brief on this issue is 

____________________________________________

4 Appellant also interjects a new argument related to mineral rights, which is 

not properly before us. See Andrews v. Cross Atlantic Capital Partners, 

Inc., 2017 WL 1057492, at *4 (Pa. Super. 2017) (an argument on appeal 

that advances a different legal theory than that offered at trial and post-trial, 

is waived on appeal).
J-S03013-17

- 7 -

meagre, however, we conclude that issue III has been preserved and 

sufficiently presented for our review. 

This Court has previously determined:

The statute of limitations for contracts is four years. [T]he 

statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the right to 

institute and maintain a suit arises. However, [w]hen a 

contract is continuing, the statute of limitations will run 

either from the time the breach occurs or when the contract 

is terminated. The test of continuity, so as to take the case 

out of the operation of the statute of limitations, is to be 

determined by the answer to the question whether the 

services were performed under one continuous contract, 

whether express or implied, with no definite time fixed for 

payment, or were rendered under several separate 

contracts.

K.A.R., 107 A.3d at 775-776 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Here, the applicable provision of the stipulation created a one-time 

obligation to convey property to Son at a specific time, rather than the type 

of ongoing duty held to support the finding of a continuing contract in Miller

or Crispo. See Crispo, 909 A.2d at 313-314 (finding property settlement 

agreement was a continuing contract where one party was required to make 

the other’s credit card payments and to make installment payments on a 

business interest and no start or end dates for payments were specified); 

Miller, 983 A.2d at 742-743 (holding settlement agreement was a 

continuing contract where husband was required to make mortgage and tax 

payments on marital residence and agreement did not indicate specific 

amounts owed or a deadline for payment). Based upon the foregoing, the 

stipulation at issue in this case was not a continuing contract. See K.A.R., 
J-S03013-17

- 8 -

107 A.3d at 778 (determining that there was no continuing contract because 

the agreement at issue provided a specific date when the husband became 

obligated to make the payment of a specific amount to wife). 

Moreover, even if the stipulation between Appellant and Husband were 

considered to be a continuing contact, the statute of limitations still would 

bar Appellant’s claim made in 2015. The latest date any party possibly was 

required to pay anything under the stipulation was when Son reached 22 

years of age. See Stipulation, 5/25/1994, at ¶ 5 (providing that Husband 

list Son as sole beneficiary of any employer-provided insurance policy until 

Son turns 18 or graduates college, “until a maximum age of twenty-two 

years”). Thus, the contract was terminated, at the latest, on Son’s 22nd 

birthday in 2002. Accordingly, the four-year statute of limitations expired in 

2006, long before Appellant sought to enforce the stipulation. Accord GAI 

Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Borough, 120 A.3d 417, 426 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2015) (holding that the statute of limitations would not begin to run 

on breach of continuing tax increment financing agreement until the 

termination of the contractual relationship). Accordingly, Appellant is not 

entitled to relief on her third appellate claim. 

Next, the entire sum of Appellant’s fifth argument, as presented, is as 

follows:

The [s]tipulation is incorporated AND merged into the 

[d]ivorce [d]ecree. The [s]tipulation is therefore 

enforceable as part of the [d]ecree. No statute of 

limitations applies to a [c]ourt [o]rder, including a divorce 
J-S03013-17

- 9 -

decree. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(a). As a result, all of 

Husband’s time-bar defenses are inapplicable here.

Appellant’s Brief at 13-14 (record citation omitted).

When interpreting a marital settlement agreement,

the trial court is the sole determiner of facts and absent an 

abuse of discretion, we will not usurp the trial court's 

fact-finding function. On appeal from an order interpreting 

a marital settlement agreement, we must decide whether 

the trial court committed an error of law or abused its 

discretion. 

Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on 

facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing 

and due consideration. Such discretion is not absolute, but 

must constitute the exercise of sound discretion. This is 

especially so where, as here, there is law to apply. On 

appeal, a trial court's decision will generally not be reversed 

unless there appears to have been an abuse of discretion or 

a fundamental error in applying correct principles of law. An 

abuse of discretion or failure to exercise sound discretion is 

not merely an error of judgment. But if, in reaching a 

conclusion, law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment 

exercised is manifestly unreasonable or lacking in reason, 

discretion must be held to have been abused.

Because contract interpretation is a question of law, this 

Court is not bound by the trial court's interpretation. Our 

standard of review over questions of law is de novo and to 

the extent necessary, the scope of our review is plenary as 

the appellate court may review the entire record in making 

its decision. However, we are bound by the trial court's 

credibility determinations.

* * *

Marital settlement agreements are private undertakings 

between two parties, each having responded to the give and 

take of negotiations and bargained consideration. A marital 

support agreement incorporated but not merged into the 

divorce decree survives the decree and is enforceable at law 

or equity. A settlement agreement between spouses is 
J-S03013-17

- 10 -

governed by the law of contracts unless the agreement 

provides otherwise. The terms of a marital settlement 

agreement cannot be modified by a court in the absence of 

a specific provision in the agreement providing for judicial 

modification. 

Established Pennsylvania law states:

When interpreting the language of a contract, the 

intention of the parties is a paramount consideration. 

In determining the intent of the parties to a written 

agreement, the court looks to what they have clearly 

expressed, for the law does not assume that the 

language was chosen carelessly. When interpreting 

agreements containing clear and unambiguous 

terms, we need only examine the writing itself to 

give effect to the parties' intent.

In other words, the intent of the parties is generally the 

writing itself. In ascertaining the intent of the parties to a 

contract when unclear from the writing itself, the court 

considers the parties' outward and objective manifestations 

of assent, as opposed to their undisclosed and subjective 

intentions.

Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251, 1257–1258 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(internal citations, quotations, brackets and footnote omitted).

Moreover, this Court previously determined:

If a [marital] agreement survives as an enforceable 

contract, it is governed by the law of contracts. If a 

[marital] agreement merges into a divorce decree, however, 

the agreement takes on all of the attributes of support 

[o]rders for purposes of modification and enforcement. The 

key to analyzing questions of merger and modifiability is to 

ascertain whether or not a merger was intended by the 

parties. The starting point for determining the intent of the 

parties is the language and terms of the agreement itself. If 

the language is clear and unambiguous, this court need only 

examine the writing itself to give effect to the parties' 

understanding.
J-S03013-17

- 11 -

Jones v. Jones, 651 A.2d 157, 158–159 (Pa. Super. 1994) (internal 

citations, quotations, and original brackets omitted).

In this case, the divorce decree states, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 

THAT: the “STIPULATION” DATED MAY 24, 1994, by and between the parties 

be incorporated herein.” Decree, 5/31/1994. We previously determined: 

[A]ny agreement which speaks of incorporation but rejects 

merger was intended by the parties not to be brought 

[before the trial court] for the enforcement of separation 

agreements. Only by an [o]rder which does not reject 

merger, or required court enforcement of the agreement, 

does it become part of the decree and have the effect of an 

[o]rder. By renouncing merger and failing to have language 

in the decree requiring enforcement as a court [o]rder, the 

contract survives.

McMahon v. McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360, 13638 (Pa. Super. 1992). In this 

case, upon a plain reading review, the marital agreement was expressly 

incorporated, but not expressly merged, into the divorce decree. As the 

trial court properly concluded:

In this case, the parties agreed that [Husband] would take 

some action in the future. That promise was part of a 

contract which was separate and independent from the 

divorce decree and which must be enforced, if at all, 

according to the law of contracts.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/13/2016, at 3. We agree and discern no error of law 

or abuse of discretion. 

Moreover, even if the agreement was ambiguous regarding merger, 

the parties did not intend for the trial court to continue monitoring the 

agreement. As the trial court further noted, Husband “had to do a single 
J-S03013-17

- 12 -

thing at a single time, i.e., convey 10 acres to his son in the year 2000.” Id.

at 3-4. It was a simple contract between the parties, subject to the statute 

of limitations and not subject to court modification. Thus, the trial court 

correctly determined the agreement did not merge with the divorce decree. 

The agreement between the parties was a separate, stand-alone contract 

and the trial court correctly applied the applicable four-year statute of 

limitations and determined that Appellant’s claims were time-barred. 

Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief on her sole, preserved 

appellate issue.

Finally, on December 19, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to correct the 

record pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b)(1). Appellant contends that because 

“the lower court did not conduct [a] hearing[,] critical testimony of [Son] is 

absent from the record now before this Court.” Motion to Correct Record, 

12/19/2016, at ¶ 3. Attached to the motion to correct the record is an 

affidavit from James Lemmi. Rule 1926(b)(1) provides that “[i]f anything 

material to a party is omitted from the record by error, breakdown in 

processes of the court, or accident or is misstated therein, the omission or 

misstatement may be corrected[.]” Appellant does not aver that Son’s 

testimony was omitted by error, court breakdown, accident, or 

misstatement. Instead, Appellant is attempting to submit additional 

evidence to this Court that was not presented to the trial court. We 

conclude that Appellant cannot circumvent our procedural rules in this 

manner and that Rule 1926 is inapplicable. Hence, we deny Appellant relief. 
J-S03013-17

- 13 -

Order affirmed. Motion to Quash denied. Motion to Correct Record 

denied.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/1/2017