J. A15008/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

M.O. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

v. :

:

F.W.M. :

:

: No. 1981 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Civil Division at No(s): 2007-61401

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2016

Appellant, M.O., (Father) appeals from the June 16, 2015 Order1

entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County granting the Motion 

for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Appellee, F.W.M., (Mother) 

and ordering Father to pay $8,140 in attorney’s fees and $5.25 in costs. We 

affirm.2

 

1 The Order is dated June 16, 2014 but a review of the certified record 

indicates that it was filed on June 16, 2015.

2 On April 21, 2016, Mother filed one document entitled “Application for 

Further Costs, Counsel Fees, and Damages for Delay Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

2744 and Pa.R.A.P. 2751 and Application of Appellee to Dismiss and/or 

Quash the Captioned Appeal.” We hereby deny Mother’s Application to 

Dismiss or Quash, and deny Mother’s Application for Further Costs, Counsel 

Fees, and Damages for Delay without prejudice to seek relief in the trial 

court.
J. A15008/16

- 2 -

Factual and Procedural History

The trial court composed the following accurate and detailed 

procedural and factual history of the case:

This custody dispute has a long and complicated history, as the 

dispute began in May of 2007. Accordingly, only the relevant 

factual history will be discussed.

Father and Mother have one child together, O.O. (hereinafter 

“Child”) from their relationship. Mother and Father were never 

married, and the custody dispute over Child began before Child 

was born. From May of 2007 through October of 2013, this 

custody case was actively litigated in Bucks County. [In addition 

to custody proceedings and contempt proceedings, Father has 

previously filed an appeal to the Superior Court after Father was 

ordered by the Honorable Diane E. Gibbons, another judge of 

this [c]ourt, to pay $60,856 in attorney's fees in 2011. This 

[c]ourt's award of attorney's fees was upheld on appeal. See 

M.O. v. F.W., 112 EDA 2012. Father was a pro se appellant in 

that case. Additionally, in June of 2011, Father, again a pro se 

litigant, filed a civil lawsuit against Judge Gibbons, in which 

Father requested damages in the amount of one billion dollars. 

This lawsuit was dismissed. Finally, Father appealed Judge 

Gibbons’ custody decision in 2012, and the Superior Court 

affirmed this Court's custody determination in that case as well. 

See M.O. v F.W., 42 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2012).] On October 

11, 2013, Father filed a Petition to Modify Custody in 

Montgomery County. Montgomery County refused to assume 

jurisdiction in this matter, stating that "this court cannot imagine 

any reason to assume jurisdiction or venue of this action from 

Bucks County, unless Bucks County relinquishes jurisdiction." 

See id. at ¶ 17. This [c]ourt did not relinquish jurisdiction 

despite Father's attempt to file a "Praecipe to Mark the 

Captioned Matter, Settled, Discontinued and Ended" with our 

Prothonotary. On January 23, 2014, Father filed a Petition to 

Close, Dispose, and Transfer the Above Matter to Montgomery 

County, PA. This Court held a hearing on that Petition on 

February 24, 2015, and we denied the Petition, as we believe 

that it is appropriate for Bucks County to maintain jurisdiction in 

this matter, as Father still resides in Bucks County and Father, 

Mother, and Child have significant contacts in Bucks County. 

Additionally, the Bucks County court system is intimately familiar 
J. A15008/16

- 3 -

with this case, having held at least sixteen hearings on this 

matter, including a seven-day custody proceeding in April and 

May of 2011. See M.O. v. F.W., 42 A.3d at 1070.

Mother filed her [Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs] 

on March 7, 2014, in which Mother asked this Court to award 

attorney's fees and costs due to the unnecessary litigation 

pursued by Father in Montgomery County. Specifically, Mother 

asserted that Father continued to pursue litigation in 

Montgomery County after Father was advised by the Honorable 

Rhonda L. Daniele, of the Montgomery County Court of Common 

Pleas, that Montgomery County would not assume jurisdiction 

unless Bucks County relinquished jurisdiction. See March 7, 

2014 Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees at 2. Mother asserted 

that she “was required to litigate in two venues, simultaneously, 

in order to enforce this Court's custody order. Mother incurred 

unnecessary legal expenses and costs due to Father's willful 

ignorance of basic and fundamental procedural and substantive 

laws regarding the transfer of venue and jurisdiction in a child 

custody matter under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 

Enforcement Act." See id. at 2-3. We scheduled a hearing for 

June 16, 2015 for Mother's [Motion] and for Father's attorney's 

Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff's Counsel. At this hearing, this 

[c]ourt was presented with testimony and argument regarding 

Father's litigious behavior, and we agreed that Mother was 

subjected to unnecessary litigation in both Montgomery County 

and Bucks County. Therefore, this Court granted Mother's 

Petition and awarded Mother $8,140 in legal fees and $5.25 in 

costs.

Trial Court Opinion, dated 7/21/15, at 1-3.

Father timely appealed, but failed to file an accompanying Rule 

1925(b) Statement. See Pa.R.A.P 905(a)(2); see also Pa.R.A.P 1925(b). 

On July 21, 2015, the trial court filed an Opinion concluding that this Court 

should dismiss Father’s appeal for failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement. 

On July 27, 2015, Mother filed an Application of Appellee F.W.M. to Quash 

Appeal of M.O. and Award Attorney Fees Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2744. On 
J. A15008/16

- 4 -

September 3, 2014, this Court entered an Order denying the Application to 

Quash without prejudice, requiring Father to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement 

within ten days, and directing the trial court to file a supplemental opinion. 

Both Father and the trial court complied. 

Issues Raised on Appeal

Father raises the following ten issues for our review, reordered for 

ease of disposition:

1. Did Appellee unlawfully relocate the minor child from Bucks 

County to Montgomery County?

2. Did Appellee’s unlawful relocation of the minor Child to 

Montgomery County and subsequent requirement that all 

contact, visits, and the Child’s activities be in Montgomery 

County for over two (2) years create a basis for filing for relief 

in Montgomery County and constitute having “unclean 

hands[?”]

3. Did Appellant improperly file his Petition to Modify Custody in 

the wrong jurisdiction?

4. Was filing the Praecipe to Mark Settled Discontinued and 

Ended procedurally improper?

5. Do any potential procedural errors in Appellant’s appeal to 

Superior Court warrant its dismissal?

6. Are Appellant’s Petition to Modify Custody and/or Praecipe to 

Mark Settled Discontinued and Ended vexatious, arbitrary, or 

filed in bad faith to warrant the assessment of attorney’s 

fees?

7. Did Appellee meet the burden of proof of the definitions of 

[“arbitrary,” “bad faith,” or “vexatious,”] as defined in 

Thunberg v. Strause, 545 Pa. 607 (1996), 682 A.2d 295 and 

were those definitions, along with the Rule on Counsel Fees in 
J. A15008/16

- 5 -

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, properly applied by the 

[t]rial [c]ourt?

8. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt display bias against Appellant by 

continually overruling Appellant’s objections without hearing 

what they were yet sustaining all of Appellee’s objections 

without hearing what they were and by denying Appellant the 

opportunity to make a proper record?

9. Did the [t]rial [c]court subject Appellant to inadequate 

counsel by forcing his counsel to remain, forcing Appellant to 

act as co-counsel while being aware of gross inadequacies 

and ethical violations by current counsel and then later 

admonishing Appellant’s counsel for his inadequate 

lawyering?

10. Did the [trial court] improperly accept and act on 

Appellee’s deficient and improperly filed Motions, Petitions, 

and Pleadings that did not meet the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 

1024(c) whereby they were all improperly verified?

See Father’s Brief at 8-9.

Legal Analysis

The order from which Father appeals provides:

And now, this 16th day of June, 2014 upon consideration of 

the Motion of Defendant, [F.W.], for Award of Fees and Costs, 

and Plaintiff’s reply thereto, it is hereby,

ORDERED and DECREED that Defendant’s Motion is 

granted. Plaintiff is hereby,

ORDERED to pay Defendant $8,140 in attorney fees and 

$5.25 in costs within 10 days of the entry of this Order.

Trial Court Order, filed 6/16/15.

Our standard of review of an award of counsel fees is well settled: 

“we will not disturb a trial court's determination absent an abuse of 
J. A15008/16

- 6 -

discretion. A trial court has abused its discretion if it failed to follow proper 

legal procedures or misapplied the law.” A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352, 361 

(Pa. Super. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 

In custody cases, a trial court may award attorney’s fees “if the court 

finds that the conduct of another party was obdurate, vexatious, repetitive 

or in bad faith.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5339.

Issues 1 through 5

In his first five issues, Father challenges filings, rulings, and issues 

that were not before the trial court at the June 16, 2015 hearing. 

The only two matters before the trial court at the June 16, 2015 

hearing were Mother’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs and 

Father’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw. The only Order on appeal is the June 

16, 2015 Order granting Mother’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and 

Costs. Father’s first five claims of error fall outside the scope of the June 16, 

2015 Order and are not properly before this Court in this appeal. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and 

cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”)

Issues 6 and 7

In the sixth and seventh claims of error, Father contends that the trial 

court abused its discretion when it determined that Appellant’s Petition to 

Modify Custody and/or Praecipe to Mark Settled Discontinued and Ended was 
J. A15008/16

- 7 -

“vexatious, arbitrary, or filed in bad faith to warrant the assessment of 

attorney’s fees.” Father’s Brief at 8. 

The trial court opined:

Father further contends that the [c]ourt abused its discretion 

when it awarded Mother's attorney fees after determining that 

Father's conduct was vexatious. Father's conduct is directly at 

issue because Pennsylvania law dictates that participants shall 

be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees when the 

conduct of another party is arbitrary, vexatious, or in bad faith. 

42 Pa. C.S. § 2503. In Nernberg & Associates v. Coyne, 920 

A.2d 967, 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2007), the court held that 

conduct is arbitrary when decisions are made based on random 

or convenient selection or choice rather than on reason or 

nature. Similarly, vexatious conduct is defined as annoying 

behavior "without reasonable or proper cause or excuse." 

Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Here, there was no 

proper legal cause to file a petition in Montgomery County. 

Judge Daniele of Montgomery County dismissed the petition 

because Bucks County had never relinquished jurisdiction. See 

June 16, 2015 Hearing Transcript at 12 (hereafter Hearing 

Transcript). This [c]ourt found that the Montgomery filing was 

merely a blatant attempt at forum shopping. See Hearing 

Transcript at 72. Therefore, the [c]ourt appropriately held that 

Father's conduct was arbitrary and vexatious.

Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/30/15, at unmarked 5. A review of the record 

supports the trial court’s findings. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion.

Issues 8 and 9

Father’s eighth claim of error is that the trial court displayed “bias 

against Appellant by continually overruling Appellant’s objections” and his 

ninth claim of error is that the trial court subjected him to “inadequate 

counsel by forcing his counsel to remain.” Father’s Brief at 8. For the 

following reasons, we conclude both of these issues are waived.
J. A15008/16

- 8 -

In the argument section of his brief regarding bias and inadequate 

counsel, Father fails to include “discussion and citation of authorities as are 

deemed pertinent[,]” “a reference to the place in the record where the 

matter referred to appears[,]” and “a [s]tatement of place of raising or 

preservation of issues” as required by Rule 2119. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); (c); 

(e). The law is clear that arguments that are not properly developed are 

waived. Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also

Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(stating “[w]e shall not develop an argument for [an appellant], nor shall we 

scour the record to find evidence to support an argument; consequently, we 

deem this issue waived.”).

Further, “although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials 

filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit 

upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. 

Super. 2003) (citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to 

represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, 

assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” 

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation 

omitted). 
J. A15008/16

- 9 -

Father failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119. We are, therefore, unable to conduct meaningful appellate 

review of these two issues.3

Issue 10

Father’s tenth claim of error is that the trial court accepted and acted 

on Appellee’s deficient and improperly filed motions, petitions, answers, and 

pleadings. Father’s Brief at 9. We find this claim to be waived as Father 

failed to raise it in his Rule 1925(b) Statement and raises it for the first time 

in his Brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (providing that issues not included in a 

1925(b) Statement are waived). See also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not 

raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time 

on appeal”). 

For the reasons stated above, we conclude the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion in granting Mother’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. 

Order affirmed. Mother’s Application to Dismiss or Quash denied. 

Mother’s Application for Further Costs, Counsel Fees, and Damages for Delay 

denied without prejudice to seek relief in the trial court.

 

3

Father failed to develop his eighth claim of error – a challenge to the trial 

court’s evidentiary rulings – in his 1925(b) Statement as well as his Brief. 

The trial court was unable to address this issue and opined: “Father failed to 

identify any specific objections that indicated any apparent bias, and 

therefore the [c]ourt cannot compose an informed response to this matter.” 

Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/30/15, at unmarked 6. Like the trial court, we, 

too, were unable to address this claim of error because Appellant failed to 

provide any legal basis. 
J. A15008/16

- 10 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/15/2016