Court Opinion

ID: 9956261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 17:10:57.954338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:15.921533
License: Public Domain

J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 KRISTIN MARIE SMEDLEY                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee            :
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
 MICHAEL JOSEPH SMEDLEY                :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :        No. 312 EDA 2023

            Appeal from the Order Entered January 24, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
                   Civil Division at No(s): 2017-60541

 KRISTIN MARIE SMEDLEY                :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :          PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
           v.                         :
                                      :
 MICHAEL JOSEPH SMEDLEY               :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :         No. 328 EDA 2023

            Appeal from the Order Entered January 24, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
             Domestic Relations at No(s): 2017-DR-00472,
                          PACSES: 346116440

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                            FILED APRIL 1, 2024

     Appellant, Michael Joseph Smedley (“Husband”), appeals pro se from

the orders entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic

Relations and Family Court Divisions, which denied his petitions to modify

alimony and child support, to reconsider a prior support order, and for
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

contempt against Appellee Kristin Marie Smedley (“Wife”).1 We affirm.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

          Husband and Wife were married on June 13, 1997, in
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania.       Wife is fifty-two years old,
          currently resides at 252 Brownsburg Road,…and is
          employed at the Curing Retina Blindness Foundation for
          $30,000 per year. Husband is fifty-seven years old, resides
          at 45 Boxwood Road,…and is employed at Veolia North
          America, LLC, for approximately $340,000 per year.
          Husband and Wife had three children during their marriage.
          Husband and Wife are Pennsylvania residents and were
          married for nineteen years before separating on October 8,
          2016. Wife filed for a divorce on March 24, 2017. On
          August 31, 2018, the court approved the grounds for
          divorce and for the parties to proceed with resolving the
          equitable distribution, alimony, and counsel fees issues.

          On June 18, 2019, the court entered a divorce decree and
          order describing the equitable distribution and alimony while
          denying and dismissing the claim for an award of counsel
          fees, costs, and expenses.

          Amongst the assets distributed by that order and decree
          was the marital residence at 35 Sienna Circle, which was
          distributed to Wife, subject to an underlying mortgage. The
          order and decree also provided that Husband was to pay
          Wife $2,955 in alimony per month through December 2022.
          A child support order was also in place.

          On August 6, 2020, through the court’s domestic relations
          section, [the court] entered an order modifying Husband’s
          amount in child support based on Husband’s January 2020
          and February 2020 bonuses.
____________________________________________

1 For purposes of disposition, we dispose of Husband’s appeals at No. 312 EDA

2023 and No. 328 EDA 2023 together. The trial court issued one opinion in
this matter concerning both the family court and domestic relations cases.
Additionally, Husband presents the same issues and substantially similar
arguments in each appeal.

                                           -2-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

       On October 21, 2022, through the court’s domestic relations
       section, [the court] entered an [agreed upon] order
       modifying Husband’s amount due in child support based on
       a recent determination of the parties’ net incomes.

       On October 31, 2022, Husband filed a petition to
       modify/terminate order of alimony. Husband requested that
       the October 21, 2022, order be vacated because Wife
       allegedly did not completely disclose her income, including
       the sale of her Sienna Circle property in 2021. Husband
       alleges that Wife made a profit of $238,000 on that sale
       because she incurred $672,000 in costs from the $910,000
       sale. Husband further requested that the alimony be
       modified retroactive to April 2021, the month of the sale.
       The master’s office denied this petition [on November 9,
       2022].

       On November 21, 2022, Husband filed a contempt petition
       against Wife. Husband alleged that he found out on October
       31, 2022, that Wife failed to report $230,000 of realized
       capital gains from the 2021 sale of Wife’s Sienna Circle
       property and that, as a result, Husband’s amount due for
       child support should have been less. Husband further cited
       several incidents of Wife’s alleged misinformation about her
       income and of Husband’s during interactions with him and
       the court. Husband requested that the court find Wife lied
       about her income, order her to pay Husband $38,880 with
       penalties, sanctions, and interest as deemed by the court,
       and consider terminating child support early to decrease
       what Husband owes Wife.

       On November 26, 2022, Husband filed a motion to
       reconsider [the master’s denial of his] petition to modify
       alimony and child support. Husband reiterates that Wife
       concealed the alleged $230,000 capital gains made from her
       2021 sale of her Sienna Circle property from the conference
       that led to an agreed modification of support on October 21,
       2022, and that Wife provided misinformation about her
       income and Husband’s during interactions with him and the
       court. Husband claims that, as a result, he made an
       overpayment of at least $32,880 in alimony or $2,740 per
       month for twelve months. Husband further claims that, as
       a result, he made an overpayment of $6,000 in child

                                  -3-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

          support. Husband requests that the court reconsider and
          accept his October 31, 2022, petition to modify, vacate the
          [agreed upon] October 21, 2022, order, and schedule a
          conference and a hearing as needed to discuss the alleged
          misinformation.

          On December 23, 2022, and January 23, 2023, the court
          held hearings to hear Husband’s argument and evidence
          regarding his petition to modify, contempt petition, and
          motion to reconsider. During the first hearing, Husband did
          a direct examination of Wife, but it was continued due to [a]
          weather related early courthouse closure.        During the
          second hearing, Husband finished his direct examination,
          Wife gave her testimony, and Husband cross-examined her.
          The second hearing concluded with both parties’ closing
          arguments and the court’s decision.

          After hearing the parties’ arguments and evidence,…[the
          court] found that Wife’s testimony was credible, Wife was
          not obligated to report the sale of her Sienna Circle property
          because she incurred a loss instead of a gain on the sale,
          and Wife was not in contempt. [The court] also found that
          Husband is bound by the October 21, 2022, order which
          considered the Foundation lawsuit settlement he received
          as income because he admittedly agreed that it should be
          so considered.

(Trial Court Opinion, 3/15/23, at 2-3) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       On January 24, 2023, the court entered orders in both the family court

and domestic relations divisions denying Husband’s contempt petition, his

petitions to modify support and alimony, and his motion to reconsider. On

January 30, 2023, Husband filed notices of appeal.2 On January 31, 2023, the

____________________________________________

2 On February 24, 2023, this Court issued a rule to show cause concerning the

appealability of the court’s January 24, 2023 order. After Husband responded,
this Court issued an order discharging the rule, which noted that the portion
of the order denying the petition for reconsideration was not appealable, but
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

trial court ordered Husband to file a concise statement of errors complained

of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Husband timely complied on February

17, 2023.

       Husband raises the following issues on appeal:

       1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law by not considering
          income from dealings in property in the calculation for
          support purposes? Including Monthly Gross Income as
          defined in 231 Pa.Code § 1910.16-2, net income from
          dealings in property as referenced in 231 Pa.Code §
          1910.16-2(a), and Income as defined in 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302.

       2. Did the trial court err by concluding that 35 Sienna Circle
          sold at a loss instead of a gain when considering the
          definition of gain in the PA Tax Guidelines and the associated
          defined terms adjusted cost basis and original cost?

       3. Did the trial court fail to order a modification retroactive to
          a date preceding the date of filing as allowed under PA Title
          231, Chapter 1910.17 after Husband was precluded from
          filing a petition to modify by reason of misrepresentation by
          Wife not communicating such income associated with the
          gain from the sale of her primary residence, and have such
          income considered, for support purposes.

       4. Did the trial court fail to vacate the 10/21/2022 order due
          to the fact that there wasn’t full disclosure as required by
          23 Pa.C.S. § 3106 and therefore, the 10/21/22 mutual
____________________________________________

that the issue concerning the denial of modification and denial of contempt
would go to the panel.

Also on February 24, 2023, this Court issued a second rule to show cause
inquiring whether the appeals were duplicative.        Husband responded,
explaining that both appeals made the same arguments; however, the appeal
at 312 EDA 2023 is regarding alimony, whereas the appeal at 328 EDA 2023
concerned the docket related to child support. We further note that Husband
filed the contempt petitions at each underlying docket.          This Court
subsequently discharged the rule, reiterating that the order denying
reconsideration was not appealable.

                                           -5-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

         agreement was a “contract” that was entered into without
         full disclosure, rendering the 10/21/2022 Order as not
         enforceable because in the state of Pennsylvania, crafting
         an effective family law agreement–whether it is a prenup,
         settlement agreement or otherwise–requires full and fair
         disclosure.

      5. Did the trial court err by admitting evidence for which the
         exhibits were objected to, and the objection included the
         specific grounds in compliance with 225 Pa.Code § 103?

      6. Did the trial court err by finding that expense
         reimbursements made to Husband by the [F]oundation was
         income for support purposes?

      7. Did the trial court err by not finding Wife in contempt for not
         disclosing all sources of income?

(Husband’s Brief at 6-9) (emphasis omitted).

      Husband’s first three issues challenge the court’s denial of his petition

to modify the child support and alimony orders to include the approximately

$230,000 profit from the sale of Wife’s residence as Wife’s income for

purposes of calculating Husband’s support and alimony obligations. Husband

insists that income gains derived from property sales should be included in

the net income calculations related to both child support and alimony.

Husband avers that the trial court erred when it found that Wife sold the house

at a loss instead of a gain and incorrectly considered tax guidelines concerning

a gain or loss calculation for a primary residence. Husband maintains that the

trial court should not have factored into its calculations the facts that Wife

paid off a mortgage and purchased a new house with the proceeds of the sale.

Rather, Husband insists that the court ought to have simply considered the

                                      -6-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

gain derived from the sales price of the house less the original cost of the

house. Husband concludes that the court erred in its calculation of any gain

or loss concerning Wife’s sale of the residence and by denying his petition to

modify the child support and alimony orders. We disagree.

      We review the denial of a petition to modify or terminate alimony for an

abuse of discretion.

         The role of an appellate court in reviewing alimony orders is
         limited; we review only to determine whether there has
         been an error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court.
         Absent an abuse of discretion or insufficient evidence to
         sustain the support order, this Court will not interfere with
         the broad discretion afforded the trial court. An abuse of
         discretion is more than an error in judgment; it occurs if the
         judgment is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of
         prejudice, bias or ill-will.

Willoughby v. Willoughby, 862 A.2d 654, 656 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted).

      Additionally, “[w]hen evaluating a support order, this Court may only

reverse the trial court’s determination where the order cannot be sustained

on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded

the trial court absent an abuse of the discretion or insufficient evidence to

sustain the support order.” Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768, 772 (Pa.Super.

2008) (citation omitted).

         The starting point for calculation of a parent’s child support
         obligation is a determination of each party’s income
         available for support. [D.H. v. R.H., 900 A.2d 922, 931
         (Pa.Super. 2006).] “The assessment of the full measure of
         a parent’s income for the purposes of child support requires
         ‘courts to determine ability to pay from all financial

                                      -7-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

         resources.’” Id. at 930 (quoting Darby v. Darby, [686
         A.2d 1346, 1348 (Pa.Super. 1996)]).           Thus, “[w]hen
         determining income available for child support, the court
         must consider all forms of income.” Arbet v. Arbet, 863
         A.2d 34, 40 (Pa.Super. 2004) (quoting MacKinley v.
         Messerschmidt, 814 A.2d 680, 681 (Pa.Super. 2002)).
         The term “income” is defined specifically as:

            “Income.” Includes compensation for services,
            including, but not limited to, wages, salaries, bonuses,
            fees, compensation in kind, commissions and similar
            items; income derived from business; gains derived
            from dealings in property; interest; rents; royalties;
            dividends; annuities; income from life insurance and
            endowment contracts; all forms of retirement;
            pensions; income from discharge of indebtedness;
            distributive share of partnership gross income;
            income in respect of a decedent; income from an
            interest in an estate or trust; military retirement
            benefits; railroad employment retirement benefits;
            social security benefits; temporary and permanent
            disability    benefits;     workers’     compensation;
            unemployment compensation; other entitlements to
            money or lump sum awards, without regard to source,
            including lottery winnings; income tax refunds;
            insurance compensation or settlements; awards or
            verdicts; and any form of payment due to and
            collectible by an individual regardless of source.

         23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 4302.

Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294, 297-98 (Pa.Super. 2007). We also note that

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16–2(a)(2), which references the definition of income in the

Domestic Relations Code, provides that “income” includes, but is not limited

to “net income from business or dealings in property[.]” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16–

2(a)(2). Finally, this Court has held that “the definitions contained in the Code

and in the Guidelines contain references only to ‘net gains’ from dealings in

property, [and] do not include the sale of a party’s residence.”       K.J.P. v.

                                      -8-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

R.A.P., 68 A.3d 974, 980 (Pa.Super. 2013).

       Instantly, the trial court explained:

          Wife testified that she sold the marital home since she could
          no longer afford to keep it and she therefore needed to find
          a less expensive home in which to reside. Wife admitted
          that she sold the Sienna Circle property for the gross price
          of $910,000.00. However, that property was subject to a
          mortgage that pre-existed the parties’ divorce.          That
          mortgage had a balance due at settlement of $348,230.00.
          (N.T. Hearing, 12/23/22, at 97). Wife also incurred costs
          related to the sale of the property. Most importantly, Wife
          purchased a replacement home for $617,000.00. (N.T.
          Hearing, 1/23/23, at 53). The bottom line is that Wife did
          not realize any gain from the overall transaction thus there
          was no income to report and neither the support order nor
          the alimony order should be modified.

(Trial Court Opinion at 14-15) (record citation formatting provided;

unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       The record supports the court’s analysis. Wife was awarded possession

of the primary residence as part of the equitable distribution of marital assets

when the parties were divorced. The court credited Wife’s testimony/evidence

that she used the proceeds from the sale to pay off the existing mortgage and

to purchase a new primary residence, because Wife could no longer afford to

live in the marital residence. Once Wife paid off the mortgage and purchased

a new home, Wife was not left with any “net gain” resulting from the sale.3

Furthermore, the sale of Wife’s residence did not constitute a “dealing in

____________________________________________

3 Because the sale resulted in a loss rather than a gain, and no modification

of alimony or child support was necessary, we need not address Husband’s
claim that the modification should have been applied retroactively.

                                           -9-
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

property” for purposes of calculating a child support payment. See K.J.P.,

supra at 980 (explaining “the definitions contained in the Code and in the

Guidelines contain references only to ‘net gains’ from dealings in property, do

not include the sale of a party’s residence, and only allow an offset against

gains from dealings in property, not an offset against any other source of

income”). On this record, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in

denying Husband’s petitions to modify the child support and alimony awards

on the grounds alleged.    See Krebs, supra; Willoughby, supra.          Thus,

Husband’s first three issues lack merit.

      In his fourth issue, Husband claims that the trial court erred when it

failed to vacate the October 21, 2022 agreed upon support order.

Nevertheless, Husband’s challenge concerning the October 21, 2022 order is

the subject of a different appeal before this Court at No. 896 EDA 2023,

wherein Husband raised this same issue. Accordingly, we address Husband’s

issue in our disposition of Husband’s appeal pending at No. 896 No. 2023.

      In his fifth issue, Husband argues that the trial court erred when it

considered several exhibits that Wife submitted during the hearing.

Specifically, he claims that the trial court erred when it admitted W-1—a blog

posting from a divorce attorney discussing a California case dealing with

whether income from capital gains remains income if the funds are reinvested.

Husband contends that because the article concerns a California case it was

irrelevant to the court’s present determination. Husband also insists that the

                                    - 10 -
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

court erred when it admitted W-2—a blog post about how capital gains and

losses affect child support obligations under the Federal Child Support

Guidelines. Husband claims that this article was also irrelevant because it did

not concern Pennsylvania law. Finally, Husband maintains that the court erred

in admitting W-3—a blog post from a divorce mediation company, based out

of California, discussing the federal tax rules regarding the $250,000.00

capital gain exclusion for sale of a primary residence. Husband concludes that

the court referenced these erroneously admitted exhibits in its justification for

finding that Wife sold the primary residence at a loss, and this Court must

grant relief. We disagree.

      Our standard review of a trial court’s evidentiary ruling is well settled.

“The issue for an appellant, when challenging a trial court’s evidentiary ruling,

is not…whether the trial court committed an ‘error.’       Instead, the proper

framing of the appellate issue is whether the trial court committed an abuse

of discretion.” Hutchinson v. Verstraeten, 304 A.3d 1268, 1271 (Pa.Super.

2023). “An appellate court cannot find an abuse of discretion merely for an

error of judgment, unless, in reaching a conclusion, the trial court overrides

or misapplies the law; or its judgment is manifestly unreasonable; or the

evidence of record shows that the court’s judgment exercised is manifestly

unreasonable or lacking in reason.”     Id. at 1273 (citation omitted).     “The

question of whether evidence is admissible is a determination that rests within

the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent

                                     - 11 -
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

a showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.”    Moroney v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 850 A.2d 629, 632 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 580 Pa.

714, 862 A.2d 1256 (2004).

      “Under the Rules of Evidence, courts of common pleas enjoy broad

discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant[.]” Hutchinson, supra

at 1274 (citing Pa.R.E. 401 and Pa.R.E. 403).         Rule 401 provides that

“[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less

probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of

consequence in determining the action.” Pa.R.E. 401.

      Here, the trial court considered Wife’s exhibits in its determination of

whether Wife was in contempt for failing to disclose the sale of the 35 Sienna

Circle property.   In its opinion, the court explained that the exhibits were

evidence of Wife’s research into what she was required to report as income

and therefore relevant to proving Wife’s good faith effort to report her income

as required. (See Trial Court Opinion at 16) (noting Wife’s research in attempt

to become “‘more diligent’ with the financial issues”).

      We agree with the court’s analysis that the exhibits were relevant to

whether Wife had made a good faith effort to comply with the support order.

The exhibits demonstrated the research and effort that Wife put forth to

determine whether the house sold at a gain or a loss. As such, the exhibits

were relevant to the court’s determination of whether Wife was in contempt.

See Pa.R.E. 401.     See also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4345(a) (stating person who

                                    - 12 -
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

willfully fails to comply with any order under this chapter may be adjudged

in contempt). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion when it admitted the challenged exhibits, and Husband’s fifth issue

merits no relief. See Hutchinson, supra.

      In his sixth issue, Husband contends that the trial court erred when it

considered funds that he received as a settlement from his lawsuit against the

Curing Retinal Blindness Foundation as income, rather than as expense

reimbursements. Husband claims that “[e]xpense reimbursements are not

income and therefore should not be included as income for support purposes.”

(Husband’s Brief at 64).   Husband concludes the court erred in classifying

these funds as income, and this Court must grant relief. We disagree.

      Preliminarily, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in

briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for

review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking &

Tr. v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

         “The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
         pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
         discussion and citation of pertinent authorities.” Estate of
         Lakatosh, [656 A.2d 1378, 1381 (Pa.Super. 1995)]. “This
         Court will not consider the merits of an argument which fails
         to cite relevant case or statutory authority.” Iron Age
         Corp. v. Dvorak, 880 A.2d 657, 665 (Pa.Super. 2005).
         Failure to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of
         the claim on appeal. Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305
         (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 712, 839 A.2d 352
         (2003).

In re Est. of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209-10 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied,

                                     - 13 -
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

620 Pa. 724, 69 A.3d 603 (2013) (concluding that failure to cite legal authority

to support single-paragraph issue waived issue for purposes of review).

       Instantly, Husband’s sixth issue spans only three sentences and he cites

no relevant legal authority to support his claim. (See Husband’s Brief at 64-

65).   See also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (regarding requirements of argument

section). As this issue is woefully undeveloped, Husband has waived this claim

on appeal. See Branch, supra. See also Est. of Whitley, supra.

       In his seventh and final issue, Husband alleges that the trial court erred

when it did not find Wife in contempt for failing to disclose all sources of

income. Husband again maintains that Wife withheld income and the court

erred by failing to hold her in contempt, and this Court must grant relief. We

disagree.

       Preliminarily, Husband failed to cite to the record or to pertinent legal

authority in support of this argument. Thus, his seventh issue is waived. See

Branch, supra. See also Est. of Whitley, supra.

       Moreover, even if Appellant had preserved this claim, he would not be

entitled to relief. “In reviewing a trial court’s finding on a contempt petition,

we are limited to determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse

of discretion. This Court must place great reliance on the sound discretion of

the trial judge when reviewing an order of contempt.” Flannery v. Iberti,

763 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa.Super. 2000) (citations omitted).

       Instantly, the trial court explained its determination that Wife was not

                                     - 14 -
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

in contempt as follows:

         We heard from Wife under oath that she was unaware of
         having to report [the 2021 sale of the 35 Sienna Circle
         property] because it came in as a loss because she
         “invest[ed]” the proceeds for another house. (N.T. Hearing,
         12/23/22, at 9, 13). Likewise, Wife testified that the
         housing transactions were not required to be reported on
         her 2021 tax returns.

                                 *     *      *

         During Wife’s testimony, Wife presented evidence from case
         law, a legal documentation, and Internal Revenue Service
         rules, that establishes the basis for why she was not
         required to report [the 2021 sale of the 35 Sienna Circle
         property. (N.T. Hearing, 1/23/23, at 50-57).] Wife further
         testified that she became “more diligent” with the financial
         issues, and she communicated with Husband about having
         Husband appropriately disclose his financial information as
         required. (Id. at 57-66). Wife’s diligence was further
         revealed during her cross-examination when she responded
         that she was “not an expert” with the financial issues and
         that she engaged in research and collaboration with “an
         attorney and an accountant” to determine whether she had
         to report her property sale. (Id. at 67-69).

         Following    the   Pennsylvania    Supreme      Court    and
         Pennsylvania Superior Court’s standard of review for a
         contempt petition, we use our familiarity with the witnesses
         from both parties, our record, and presented evidence, to
         determine that Wife’s “testimony is credible” and that it is
         clear to us that Wife did a good-faith effort to report her
         income as required and did not willfully disobey court
         orders… Therefore, even if the real estate transactions had
         resulted in a realized gain, we find that Wife was not in
         contempt of court.

(Trial Court Opinion at 15-16) (record citation formatting provided).

      Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion concerning the court’s

ruling that Wife was not in contempt. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4345(a). See also

                                     - 15 -
J-A26034-23
J-A26035-23

Flannery, supra. Thus, even if not waived, Husband would not be entitled

to relief on this issue. Accordingly, we affirm the orders denying Husband’s

petition to modify child support, to modify alimony, and to find Wife in

contempt.

     Orders affirmed.

Date: 4/1/2024

                                   - 16 -