Court Opinion

ID: 9840645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 17:09:04.568984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:51.630589
License: Public Domain

J-A16026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  VASYL S. KOVALCHUK                           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  YELENA V. KOVALCHUK                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 464 MDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 3, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at
                           No(s): 2016-03340

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                  FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

       Appellant, Yelena V. Kovalchuk (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the trial

court’s March 3, 2023 order denying the petition for modification of custody

filed by her minor child, M.K. We dismiss this appeal, as Mother has failed to

pay the requisite filing fee for her notice of appeal.

       Mother filed a timely appeal from the trial court’s March 3, 2023 order.

Problematically, however, Mother did not pay the appropriate filing fee for the

notice of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(c) (“The appellant upon filing the notice

of appeal shall pay any fees therefor (including docketing fees in the appellate

court) prescribed by Chapter 27.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2701(a) (“A person upon filing

any paper shall pay any fee therefor prescribed by law.”).1 On May 8, 2023,

our Prothonotary’s office sent Mother a letter, notifying her that the filing fee

was overdue and that it is her responsibility to remit the fee promptly. As of
____________________________________________

1 Mother is not proceeding in forma pauperis.
J-A16026-23

the date of this writing, Mother still has not paid the filing fee for the notice of

appeal. The docket reflects that the fee amount of $90.25 is still owed.

      This Court has previously observed:
      An appellate court certainly has the authority to dismiss an appeal
      on the basis of failure to tender the required fee; however, that
      authority is a discretionary remedy which the appellate court can
      impose if circumstances warrant. Dismissal is therefore not
      obligatory in all instances. Appropriate circumstances warranting
      dismissal of an appeal by an appellate court would be, for
      example, if the filing party unduly delays paying the requisite fee,
      or unduly delays seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis. If
      also it has been demonstrated that a litigant has deliberately failed
      to remit a required filing fee, or exhibited a clear pattern of
      attempting to cause delay in legal proceedings by repeatedly filing
      appeals, and then failing to timely remit the appropriate fees, this
      Court will not hesitate to impose the sanction of dismissal, and
      any other sanctions that we deem appropriate.

First Union Nat. Bank v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 812 A.2d 719, 723

(Pa. Super. 2002). Because Mother still has not paid the filing fee, despite

our Prothonotary office’s reminder to do so, we exercise our discretion to

dismiss her appeal.

      Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/19/2023

                                       -2-