J-A08042-18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SANDRA L. SPIEL,

Appellee

v.

KEVIN J. SPIEL,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2062 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered May 30, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Family Division at No(s): 1987-63737 D

BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 13, 2018

Kevin J. Spiel (Husband) appeals from a May 30, 2017 order, which 

allocated a portion of his future retirement benefit to his ex-wife, Sandra L. 

Spiel (Wife). Upon review, we affirm.

Husband and Wife were married on September 20, 1980. They

separated in October 2003, and a complaint in divorce was filed thereafter.

1

On October 31, 2011, a divorce decree was entered, which incorporated a 

property settlement agreement. Relevant to this appeal, the parties agreed 

that 

____________________________________________

1 According to the trial court, the complaint was filed by Husband on March 3, 

2006. Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/2017, at 1. However, at the master’s hearing, 

the master stated that the divorce was filed on January 2, 2004. N.T., 

10/31/2004, at 5. In any event, it does not matter for the disposition of this 

appeal.
J-A08042-18

- 2 -

[W]ife will receive 62.5 percent of the marital portion of the 

[federal government retirement accounts], [H]usband will receive 

the balance of 37.5 percent of the marital portion, as well as the 

nonmarital portion.... The parties agree that if [H]usband has not 

yet retired by the time he is 67 and a half years old, he will pay 

to [W]ife an amount equal to [W]ife’s share [of the retirement 

account] as of the most recent statement.

N.T., 10/31/2011, at 5-6.

Approximately six months later, Wife filed a petition for contempt 

claiming that Husband refused to sign the documentation to effectuate the 

terms of this agreement. That petition was never litigated. Wife re-filed the

petition on December 15, 2016. The trial court scheduled a hearing for 

January 27, 2017. Neither Husband nor his attorney appeared. The trial court 

heard Wife’s testimony and argument from her attorney, and “instructed 

[Wife’s] counsel to prepare a proposed [o]rder granting the relief requested 

and [to] send it to the [trial court] for signature.” Trial Court Opinion, 

8/22/2017, at 3. Counsel followed these instructions. 

Subsequently, counsel for Husband contacted the trial court “and 

explained that his failure to appear was due to his supposed confusion with 

local Bucks County Court Rules and ... he had every intention to appear with 

[Husband] to defend against the [p]etition but had misunderstood that the 

hearing would actually be conducted as scheduled.” Id. at 4. The trial court 

advised counsel for Husband to file a motion for reconsideration. Counsel for 

Husband “apparently had a very difficult time filing the reconsideration 

paperwork.” Id. “After three failed attempts, the [t]rial [c]ourt ... instructed 
J-A08042-18

- 3 -

its [l]aw [c]lerk to provide [] counsel with some guidance as to how to correct 

the filing.” Id. The motion was filed correctly on April 11, 2017, and “out of 

an abundance of caution to protect Husband’s right for an opportunity to be 

heard,” the trial court granted reconsideration and scheduled a hearing for 

May 18, 2017. Id. at 4-5.

Husband did not appear at the May 18, 2017 hearing, but counsel for 

Husband did appear. The trial court attempted to have counsel “address the 

primary purpose of the hearing, i.e., what concerns did [Husband] have with 

[Wife’s] proposed [o]rder and how was the language of the proposed [o]rder 

in any way inconsistent with the language of the” agreement. Id. at 5. 

However, according to the trial court, “[a]fter repeated and increasingly 

frustrating exchanges with [Husband’s] counsel, it became apparent that 

[Husband’s] counsel was unable or unwilling to answer the fundamental 

question.” Id. Counsel again claimed to have “misunderstood ... the purpose 

of the hearing.” Id. at 6. Accordingly, the trial court granted Wife’s “request 

for her long delayed relief, and signed the proposed [o]rder. This absurd 

[a]ppeal has followed.”2 Id.

____________________________________________

2 The trial court directed Husband to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The four-page 

statement filed by Husband does not “concisely identify each ruling or error 

that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all 

pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(b)(4)(ii). In fact, it does 

not identify any errors at all; rather, as the trial court points out, Husband’s 

statement “is seemingly a recitation of his prior [m]otion for 
J-A08042-18

- 4 -

On appeal, Appellant appears to present one issue: “Did the trial court 

alter the parties’ contract?”3 Husband’s Brief at 3.

Our review of this issue has been substantially impeded by the failure 

of Husband to request and file a transcript of either the January 27 or the May 

18, 2017 hearings in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a) (“The appellant shall 

request any transcript required under this chapter in the manner and make 

any necessary payment or deposit therefor[.]”). 

[W]ell-settled Pennsylvania law makes clear an appellate court is 

limited to considering only the materials in the certified record 

when resolving an issue. Where the appellant has not made the 

transcript of the proceedings at issue a part of the certified record, 

we have said:

With regard to missing transcripts, the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure require an appellant to order and 

pay for any transcript necessary to permit resolution 

of the issues raised on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a).... 

When the appellant ... fails to conform to the 

requirements of Rule 1911, any claims that cannot be 

resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript or 

____________________________________________

[r]econsideration,” and “is essentially one long argument attempting to 

explain why the May 18, 2017 [o]rder entered by [the trial court] is potentially 

not consistent with the” settlement agreement. Trial Court Opinion, 

8/22/2017, at 6-7. Despite Husband’s non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b), the trial court filed an opinion.

3 Our rules provide that “[b]riefs and reproduced records shall conform in all 

material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the 

circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be 

suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the 

appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be ... 

dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Here, while Husband’s brief may be technically 

compliant with the rules, his rambling, 20-page argument section is simply 

incomprehensible. Nevertheless, due to other deficiencies in the appeal, we 

will not dismiss it on this basis. 
J-A08042-18

- 5 -

transcripts must be deemed waived for the purpose of 

appellate review.

Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443, 456 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal 

citations omitted).

Here, there is no indication that Husband requested the transcripts, and 

they are not part of the certified record. Yet, on appeal, Husband contends 

primarily that the trial court erred by enforcing the agreement. The basis for 

the trial court’s enforcement of the agreement was based on Wife’s testimony 

on January 17, 2017, and Husband’s opposition on May 18, 2017. Thus, we 

conclude that this claim cannot be reviewed without these transcripts. 

Accordingly, Husband has waived his issue on appeal for failure to ensure the 

inclusion of the transcripts in the certified record.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/13/18
J-A08042-18

- 6 -