Court Opinion

ID: 9905545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:11:20.954027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.232410
License: Public Domain

J-S37031-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  JENNA M. BELL                                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  RAYMOND D. IGNOSH, JR.                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1319 EDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
                       Domestic Relations at DR-20-00215,
                             PACSES No. 668117923

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                           FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2023

       Raymond D. Ignosh, Jr. (Appellant), appeals from the order denying his

exceptions to the hearing officer’s report and recommendation in the

underlying child support action initiated by Jenna M. Bell (Mother). We affirm.

       This Court previously explained:1

       [Mother] petitioned for modification of an existing support order.
       [Mother] sought from [Appellant] an increase in support payments
       for their two minor children. On June 9, 2020, the trial court
       ordered the parties to appear before a hearing officer on July 20,
       2020[,] and to bring, among other things, certain documents in
       support of their respective incomes. Following the hearing, the

____________________________________________

1 The certified record does not include any documents filed prior to Appellant’s

December 21, 2022 exceptions. See Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944, 950
(Pa. Super. 2004) (“[I]t remains the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that
a complete record is produced for appeal.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we rely
primarily on information contained in this Court’s prior decision, the trial
court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement, and the parties’ briefs.
J-S37031-23

     hearing officer prepared a report and recommendation, wherein
     the officer observed in pertinent part:

           The only documentation provided by [Appellant] with
        regard to expenditures offsetting gross receipts were
        exhibits D-2 through D-8.         These exhibits represent
        payments made to the owners of insurance firms that had
        been acquired by [Appellant]’s business in calendar year
        2018. Ordinarily, a copy of the cancelled check would be
        required. However, since exhibits D-2 through D-8 clearly
        set forth specific payments, and the reason for the
        payments, and the fact that these exhibits are consistent
        with the testimony offered by the accountant, the
        undersigned hearing officer will offset [Appellant]’s gross
        receipts based upon the expenditures set forth in D-2
        through     D-8.       The     payments   represented      on
        D-2 total $14,000.00. The payments made on D-3 total
        $50,000.00. The payments on D-4 total $413,333.32. The
        payments on D-5 total $750.00. The payments on D-6 total
        $70,000.00. The payments on D-7 total $25,000.00. The
        payments on D-8 total $22,500.00. These figures constitute
        the only expenses which were documented by [Appellant].
        As a result, these are the only expenses that can be utilized
        to offset [Appellant’]s gross receipts.

     Summary Report, 8/13/20, at 4-5. On August 14, 2020, the trial
     court entered an order, largely adopting the hearing officer’s
     recommendations. The August 14 order determined [Appellant]
     had a net monthly income of $73,347.70 and owed $6,976.39 in
     monthly support obligations. On September 1, 2020, [Appellant]
     filed exceptions to the trial court’s August 14, 2020 order.
     Specifically, [Appellant] claimed that the hearing officer erred in
     failing to allow the record to remain open following the July 20
     hearing so [Appellant] could submit copies of receipts for all
     expenses that were used to offset the gross income of
     [Appellant]’s business. In support, [Appellant] argued that,
     because of closures caused by COVID-19, [his] counsel missed an
     order directing [Appellant] to produce certain financial
     documents.

          On November 2, 2020, the trial court granted [Appellant]’s
     exceptions relating solely to the hearing officer’s refusal to hold
     open the record and vacated its August 14 order. The court

                                    -2-
J-S37031-23

     dismissed as moot [Appellant]’s remaining exceptions and
     remanded the matter to the hearing officer.

            On May 3, 2021, the hearing officer conducted another
     hearing, following which the officer determined[,] on May 26,
     2021[,] that [Appellant] had a net monthly income of $21,858.71
     and owed $2,218.27 in support obligations. On June 3, 2021, the
     trial court entered an order adopting the hearing officer’s May 26
     recommendations.

           On June 24, 2021, [Appellant] filed exceptions to the trial
     court’s June 3 order. Specifically, [Appellant] argued that the
     hearing officer erred in failing to consider exhibits D-2 through D-
     8, relating to business expenses, which were introduced and
     admitted previously at the June 20, 2020 hearing. [Appellant]
     further argued that the hearing officer erred in failing to treat the
     May 3, 2021 hearing, which the trial court ordered to allow
     [Appellant] to introduce additional documents, as a continuation
     of the July 20, 2020 hearing. Thus, [Appellant] requested that
     the trial court remand the matter to the hearing officer for
     purposes of recalculating [Appellant]’s income based on
     previously admitted exhibits D-2 through D-8. On October 27,
     2021, the trial court denied [Appellant]’s exceptions.

Bell v. Ignosh, 283 A.3d 412, 2377 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. filed July 29, 2022)

(unpublished memorandum at 1-3). In denying the exceptions, the trial court

reasoned that it was only able to consider evidence presented during the post-

remand hearing, which did not include exhibits D-2 through D-8.              Id.

(unpublished memorandum at 4).

     On appeal, this Court disagreed. We stated:

     The May 3, 2021[,] hearing was made necessary only because the
     trial court expressly granted [Appellant]’s exceptions to the
     August 14, 2020 order. In particular, the trial court agreed with
     [Appellant]’s contention that the hearing officer erred at the July
     20, 2020[,] hearing when the officer failed to allow the record
     to remain open for the limited purpose of permitting [Appellant]
     to produce additional documents. Thus, the trial court vacated its
     August 14 order and remanded the case to the hearing officer to

                                     -3-
J-S37031-23

       allow [Appellant] an opportunity to offset the gross income of [his]
       business.

             Contrary to the hearing officer’s suggestion, the trial court
       did not order a de novo hearing. Indeed, the May 3, 2021
       hearing was simply a continuation of the July 20, 2020 hearing.
       It was limited in scope and ordered to allow [Appellant] an
       opportunity to submit additional documents. As a result, we
       cannot accept the trial court’s and the hearing officer’s contention
       that evidence previously introduced and admitted at the initial
       hearing had to be re-introduced and re-admitted at the May 3,
       2021 hearing. Not only can we not find any basis in law to support
       this contention, but to embrace it would be tantamount to
       sanctioning a waste of judicial resources and economy. We are
       not prepared to do so. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this
       matter to the trial court with direction to order the hearing officer
       to consider all previously introduced and admitted evidence from
       both the July 20, 2020 and May 3, 2021 hearings in calculating
       [Appellant]’s income and support obligations.

Id. (unpublished memorandum at 4-5) (emphasis in original).

       As noted, the certified record is lacking, and the earliest filing is

Appellant’s December 21, 2022, exceptions.2 Appellant averred the hearing

officer determined Appellant’s monthly income was $21,858.71, and ordered

Appellant to pay monthly child support of $2,218.71. Exceptions, 12/21/22,

¶ 1. Appellant argued the hearing officer failed to follow this Court’s directive

____________________________________________

2 The reproduced record includes the trial court order following remand, which

remanded the matter to the hearing officer

   to conduct a resumption of the hearing held on July 20, 2020 and
   May 3, 2021 to allow [Appellant] an opportunity to submit copies of
   receipts for all expenses that were used to offset the gross income of
   his business and allow the parties an opportunity to present any other
   evidence.

Reproduced Record at 315 (trial court’s remand order).

                                           -4-
J-S37031-23

on remand, and improperly recharacterized exhibits D-2 through D-8. See

id., ¶¶ 3-11. After hearing argument on Appellant’s exceptions, the trial court

entered the order denying the exceptions.

      Appellant filed this timely appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court

have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Appellant presents the following issue for review:

      1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its
         discretion when it denied Appellant’s Exceptions and refused to
         consider previously properly introduced and admitted evidence
         of record; specifically, the trial court reevaluated and
         reweighed the previously admitted evidence from the first
         hearing, when no prior appeal was taken or exceptions filed to
         the properly introduced and admitted evidence of record?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

      Appellant argues the trial court did not follow this Court’s instructions

on remand, and instead “reevaluated and re-weighed the evidence in order to

calculate a new income for Appellant.” Id. at 12.

      We reiterate that the certified record is lacking. It is Appellant’s duty to

provide a complete record. See Kessler, 851 A.2d at 950. Though some

additional documents are included in the reproduced record, “[i]nclusion in

the reproduced record is not an acceptable substitute for the original certified

record.” Id. (citation omitted). Critically, the certified record lacks filings,

transcripts, and other evidence pertaining to the post-remand hearing before

the hearing officer. Without this information, we are unable to properly review

whether, or how, the hearing officer and trial court evaluated exhibits D-2

                                      -5-
J-S37031-23

through D-8 following remand. See Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345,

410 (Pa. 2011) (explaining it is the responsibility of the appellant, not the trial

court, to provide a complete record for review). This Court has repeatedly

stated, “The failure of the appellant to ensure that the original record certified

for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review may

constitute a waiver of the issues sought to be examined.”            Id. (citation

omitted). The incomplete record in this case precludes meaningful appellate

review. Thus, we conclude Appellant’s issue is waived, and affirm the order

denying Appellant’s exceptions.3

       Order affirmed.

Date: 11/27/2023

____________________________________________

3 We further observe that Appellant fails to support his argument with citations

to pertinent law and the record, as Appellant’s sole reference is to the scope
of a hearing officer’s review. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (the argument shall include
“such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”).
Appellant’s issue is waived for this reason as well. “This Court will not act as
counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Bombar
v. West Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 78, 93 (Pa. Super. 2007); Lackner v.
Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating “arguments which are
not appropriately developed are waived.         Arguments not appropriately
developed include those where the party has failed to cite any authority in
support of a contention.” (internal citation omitted)).

                                           -6-