J-A11005-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CHRISTIAN ZIMMERMAN 

Appellant

v.

CHERYL ZIMMERMAN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1628 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered September 4, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2013-FC-001196-15

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED JUNE 18, 2020

Christian Zimmerman (“Husband”) appeals from the order entered in 

the York County Court of Common Pleas, modifying the amount of alimony 

owed to Cheryl Zimmerman (“Wife”). After careful review, we affirm. 

Husband and Wife were married in 1986. Then, in 2013, Husband filed 

for divorce from Wife. A Master was appointed to resolve all economic claims 

including alimony and equitable distribution. Shortly thereafter, the parties 

filed a stipulation regarding equitable distribution and agreed the Master would 

focus primarily on the issue of alimony. Ultimately, the Master awarded Wife 

$790.77 per month in alimony. 

Husband and Wife filed timely exceptions to the master’s report. After 

oral arguments, the trial court entered a divorce decree granting in part, and 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11005-20

- 2 -

dismissing in part, the parties’ exceptions. The court amended the alimony 

award to $1,833.80 per month. Husband appealed the trial court’s order. 

While the appeal was pending, the trial court requested this Court 

remand the matter because it erred in its calculation. The matter was 

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The court then issued 

supplemental findings of fact, and an amended order, which reduced 

Husband’s alimony payment to $1,800.00 per month, but affirmed all other 

aspects of its previous order.

This Court addressed Husband’s appeal. Upon review, the panel found 

that the trial court miscalculated the amount of alimony Husband owed wife, 

mainly due to an inaccuracy in Wife’s monthly net income. As such, the panel 

vacated the alimony award and remanded the matter to the trial court, but 

affirmed the divorce decree. See Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 450 MDA 

2018 (Pa. Super. filed July 16, 2019) (unpublished memorandum) 

(Zimmerman I).

On remand, the trial court recalculated the alimony award based on 

changes made in Wife’s net income and Husband’s ability to deduct alimony 

from his federal taxes. Accordingly, the court ordered the new alimony amount 

to be $1,609.00 per month if Husband is able to deduct the alimony from his 

personal tax return. Alternatively, the court stated that, if Husband is unable 

to do so, then the award is $1,287.00 per month. This timely appeal followed.
J-A11005-20

- 3 -

Husband raises two issues for our review.1 The first issue is whether the 

trial court erred by utilizing the support guideline calculation to recalculate the 

amount of alimony owed to Wife. See Appellant’s Brief, at 4. His second issue 

is whether the trial court erred by failing to deduct the $470.00 a month 

increase in Wife’s net income from the alimony award. See id.

As an initial matter, we note that Husband’s brief once again fails to 

conform to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. As in the previous appeal, his argument is not divided

into as many parts as there are issues to be argued. See Zimmerman I, at 

5 n.4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). We could find Husband’s issues waived 

based on his failure to properly raise and develop them. See Branch Banking 

and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006). However, 

as in Zimmerman I, we conclude Husband’s non-compliance does not 

substantially hamper our review of his first issue. We therefore proceed to 

consider that argument.

In reviewing an alimony order, we must determine whether there has 

been an error of law or an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Smith 

v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 2006). Absent an abuse of discretion 

____________________________________________

1

In his statement of matters complained of on appeal, Husband raised three 

issues for our review. However, he now claims one of his issues is no longer 

germane to this appeal because it was remedied by the trial court’s 1925 (a) 

opinion. Therefore, Husband now wishes this Court to consider only two of his 

three issues on appeal. See Appellant’s Brief, at 4. 
J-A11005-20

- 4 -

or insufficient evidence to sustain the award, this Court will not interfere with 

the trial court’s broad discretion. See id.

Husband first argues that the trial court on remand applied an incorrect 

standard in recalculating the amount of alimony. He claims that the court 

erred by utilizing the support guidelines to determine the appropriate amount 

of alimony that Husband owed Wife. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11. Husband 

asserts that the court was required to engage in a full-blown analysis under 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b). See id., at 14.

In addressing the new alimony award, the court stated that it relied 

exclusively on the Rules of Civil Procedure governing support actions. See 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/14/19, at 4. Having previously analyzed the factors in 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b), the court stated there was no need to reanalyze the 

factors again, as there was no objection to its original analysis. See id. As 

such, the court found that the guidelines for support actions was the 

appropriate standard for calculating the amount of alimony on remand. See 

id. 

Under these specific circumstances, we can discern no abuse of the 

court’s discretion. While the support guidelines do not explicitly apply to 

alimony determinations, neither are they explicitly excluded from 

consideration in setting alimony. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the court 

erred in considering them. See Zimmerman I, at 7-9 (concluding that the 

trial court’s use of the support guidelines alone was error, but use of the 
J-A11005-20

- 5 -

guidelines in the context of the seventeen required considerations under 

section 3701 was not an abuse of discretion).

Further, it is undisputed that the trial court, when it reviewed the 

entirety of the factors outlined in section 3701(b), concluded that a monthly 

payment of $1,800 from Husband to Wife effectuated economic justice 

between the parties. This Court found that the trial court had erred in 

calculating Wife’s monthly income and remanded to the trial court for 

recalculation. 

Admittedly, the trial court once again mechanically applied the support 

guidelines after properly calculating Wife’s monthly income. While this analysis 

is technically flawed for the same reason the court’s first calculation was 

flawed, we need not remand under the specific circumstances of this case. 

As noted, the trial court previously found a monthly payment of $1,800 

to Wife was appropriate under section 3701(b). After the Zimmerman I 

remand, the court recalculated the monthly payment to be $1,287.2

____________________________________________

2 The trial court provided a dual calculation depending on whether Husband 

would be allowed to deduct the alimony payments from his federal taxes. We 

do not conclusively rule on the federal tax issue as our analysis applies to 

either calculation, but note that under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 

(“TCJA”), alimony paid is no longer deductible if the divorce decree was (1) 

executed after December 31, 2018 or (2) executed on or before such date and 

modified thereafter. See Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, P.L. 115-97, Dec. 22, 

2017, § 11051. Any modification to alimony awards must expressly provide 

that this section applies to such modification. See id.
J-A11005-20

- 6 -

Under these specific circumstances, we conclude that Husband cannot 

establish that the trial court’s alimony award would have been different if it 

had engaged in a full analysis under section 3701(b) after remand. When the 

court previously performed a full 3701(b) analysis, it found an $1,800 per 

month payment did not unfairly burden Husband. We cannot conceive that the 

court would find the current $1,287 per month payment does unfairly burden 

Husband. As a result, we conclude Husband has not established a right to 

relief on appeal. See, e.g., Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny County, 218

A.3d 877, 888 (Pa. 2019).

In his second issue, Husband asserts that the trial court erred because 

it failed to deduct the $470 a month increase in Wife’s net income from the 

alimony award. Husband’s argument on this issue consists of a single 

paragraph commingled with his other argument. This paragraph contains no 

citation to authority and does not develop his contention that the alimony 

award, already reduced to $1287 (under the assumption that Husband cannot 

deduct the alimony from his federal taxes), should be further reduced by $470 

a month to $809 per month. 

____________________________________________

Here, the parties’ April 3, 2018 divorce decree does not fall into the TCJA’s 

first category. However, since the alimony award was modified on September 

4, 2019, the second category of the TCJA applies to the divorce decree. 

Therefore, it appears that Husband will be unable to deduct his alimony from 

his federal taxes. For readability, our memorandum will explicitly proceed 

under this assumption, even though it does not affect our analysis.
J-A11005-20

- 7 -

We cannot discern the legal basis for Husband’s argument from this 

paragraph. As a result, we conclude Husband has waived it.

Decree affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/18/2020