Court Opinion

ID: 9964720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:11:52.28704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.072222
License: Public Domain

J-S10002-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 DEBORAH GEARY                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                             :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                             :
              v.                             :
                                             :
                                             :
 MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN                       :
                                             :
                     Appellant               :   No. 1229 WDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
                         No(s): FD 20-008902-005

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                  FILED: April 30, 2024

      Appellant, Michael B. Greenstein (“Husband”), appeals from the

September 13, 2023 order granting the petition for special relief filed by his

former   spouse,     Deborah     Geary   (“Wife”),   during   post-divorce   decree

proceedings. We affirm.

      Husband and Wife were married on April 21, 2012.            On October 26,

2020, Wife filed a complaint in divorce, alleging that the marriage was

irretrievably broken.    Thereafter, both parties executed affidavits under

Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code consenting to the entrance of a divorce

decree. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(d). Neither party raised any ancillary claims

in their respective filings. A divorce decree was issued on November 19, 2020.

      On August 25, 2023, Wife filed the instant petition for special relief. In

her petition, Wife
J-S10002-24

        aver[red] that[,] since the parties’ divorce in 2020, the car, a
        2014 Subaru Forester, has continued to be owned by and titled
        to both parties, but was in the sole control and possession of
        Husband. Wife attached eight pages of public records showing
        unpaid parking tickets and tolls associated with the vehicle, the
        most recent issued by the Edgewood Bor[ough] Police
        Department on August 22, 2023, just two days before the date
        of Wife’s petition for special relief. Wife requested that the court
        order Husband to transfer ownership of the vehicle into his sole
        name within [30] days.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/23, at 2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       The trial court convened a hearing on Wife’s petition on September 7,

2023. Husband did not attend the hearing.1 Ultimately, the trial court granted

Wife’s petition, ordering Husband “to transfer into his name the title and

registration of [the Subaru Forester] purchased during the parties’ marriage.”

Id. at 3. This timely appeal followed.

       Husband raises the following issue on appeal:

        Whether the trial court erred and/or exceeded its authority by
        entertaining and subsequently granting [Wife’s] petition for
        special relief absent any jurisdiction to do so?

Husband’s Brief at 1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

____________________________________________

1 In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court noted that  the Family Court’s Client
Service Center (“CSC”) served Wife’s petition on Husband, which not only
informed him of the date and time of the hearing, but also provided
instructions for filing a response to Wife’s petition. The trial court further
noted that, despite the CSC’s clear instructions, Husband “emailed his
response directly to Wife on September 6, 2023, the day before the scheduled
presentation of Wife’s petition.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/23, at 2-3. Finally,
the trial court stated that, on the day of the scheduled hearing, it waited 30
minutes for Husband, but he did not appear to oppose Wife’s petition. Id. at
3.

                                           -2-
J-S10002-24

       Herein, Husband contends that the trial court committed an error of law

in granting Wife’s petition for special relief. More specifically, Husband points

to the fact that the parties’ divorce decree was entered in 2020, three years

prior to Wife filing the instant petition.       In addition, Husband argues that

neither party raised any claim ancillary to their former marriage, namely,

economic claims, and, as such, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider

Wife’s petition. We disagree.

       Husband’s claim on appeal raises a question of jurisdiction,2 which

presents a pure question of law. Thus, our standard of review is de novo, our

scope of review is plenary. Johnson v. Johnson, 864 A.2d 1224, 1228 (Pa.

Super. 2004).

       A trial court may only “modify or rescind any order within 30 days after

its entry.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. Otherwise, it loses jurisdiction. Id. The

Divorce Code provides, in relevant part, that

        (a) [t]he courts shall have original jurisdiction in cases of
        divorce and for the annulment of void or voidable marriages and
        shall determine, in conjunction with any decree granting a
        divorce or annulment, the following matters, if raised in the
        pleadings, and issue appropriate decrees or orders with

____________________________________________

2 As noted above, Husband did not file a proper response to Wife’s       petition
and, as such, Husband failed to raise a claim challenging the trial court’s
jurisdiction prior to the instant appeal. It is well-settled, however, that the
issue of subject matter jurisdiction is “not waivable, even by consent, and may
be raised by any party or by the court, sua sponte, at any stage of the
proceeding.” Commonwealth v. Hemingway, 13 A.3d 491, 496 (Pa. Super.
2011). Hence, Husband’s failure to previously raise this claim before the trial
court is not detrimental to his current claim on appeal.

                                           -3-
J-S10002-24

       reference thereto, and may retain continuing jurisdiction
       thereof:

            (5) Any other matters pertaining to the marriage and
            divorce or annulment authorized by law and which fairly
            and expeditiously may be determined and disposed of in
            such action.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3104(a)(5).

      In addition, Rule 1920.43 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure

provides, in relevant part, as follows:

       (a) At any time after the filing of the complaint, on petition
       setting forth facts entitling the party to relief, the court may,
       upon such terms and conditions as it deems just, including the
       filing of security,

                                       ***

            (3) grant other appropriate relief.

Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43(a)(3). Importantly, this Court previously explained that

“[t]he granting of appropriate relief under Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43 . . . . is an

exercise of the [trial court's] equitable powers” and the filing of a petition for

special relief is “not limited to the period when an action is pending[,]” since

“[i]t is easily conceivable that, after the final disposition of all matters in the

divorce action, a party may need the assistance of the court in enforcing some

portion of its order.” Jawork v. Jawork, 548 A.2d 290, 292-293, n.6 (Pa.

Super. 1988); see also Johnson, 864 A.2d at 1229; Romeo v. Romeo, 611

A.2d 1325 (Pa. Super. 1992) (accord).

      Upon review, we conclude that Husband’s contention that the trial court

lacked jurisdiction over Wife’s petition for special relief lacks merit. Pursuant

                                       -4-
J-S10002-24

to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43(a)(3) and Jawork, supra, the trial court was permitted

to exercise jurisdiction over Wife’s petition at any time, even “after the final

disposition of all matters in the divorce action.” Jawork, 548 A.2d at 292,

n.6; see also Reese v. Reese, 593 A.2d 1312, 1313 (Pa. Super. 1991)

(holding that the appellant’s argument that appellee/wife’s motion for special

relief “was effectively a request to consider a new issue not properly raised at

trial” was “specious” because “a petition for special relief is not limited to the

period when [a divorce] action is pending” and can be filed “at any time after

the filing of the complaint”) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). This is

true even though the divorce decree was entered in 2020 and neither party

raised ancillary claims in their filings. See McNamara v. McNamara, 2018

WL 2173522 *1, *2 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that the trial court had

jurisdiction over the appellee/wife’s petition for special relief even though

“neither party raised a claim for medical benefits in their filings” and the

divorce decree was final) (non-precedential decision).         Thus, Husband’s

argument fails.

      Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 04/30/2024

                                      -5-