Court Opinion

ID: 9941643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 17:11:28.996576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:50.517448
License: Public Domain

J-S45044-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  ARLENE W. REICH                              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  BLAIR J. REICH                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 875 MDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Domestic Relations at
                           No(s): 2021-00333,
                            PACSES 967300735

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                      FILED: FEBRUARY 16, 2024

       Blair J. Reich (“Father”) appeals from the trial court’s May 16, 2023

order entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas directing him

to pay Appellee, Arelene W. Reich (“Mother”), $6,769.65 per month in child

support and alimony pendente lite (“APL”), plus $677 per month in arrears,

effective March 14, 2022; and $5047.80 per month, plus $505 per month in

arrears, effective July 1, 2022. After careful review, we affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from

the certified record, are as follows: The parties were married on August 2,

2002 and separated on November 30, 2019. The parties have three minor

children born of the marriage, and they share physical custody of children

equally. A divorce complaint was filed on September 16, 2020. On March 2,
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45044-23

2021, Mother filed a complaint for support against Father, seeking child

support and APL.

      Following several conferences and hearings, some of which were

rescheduled, as well as the entry of multiple interim support orders, the trial

court ultimately held a complex support hearing before the Honorable

Christopher Hackman on April 18, 2023. Both Father and Mother testified at

length at the April 18, 2023 hearing.

      Thereafter, on May 16, 2023, the trial court ordered Father to pay

Mother $6,769.65 per month in child support and APL, plus $677 per month

in arrears, effective March 14, 2022; and $5047.80 per month, plus $505 per

month in arrears, effective July 1, 2022. See trial court order, 5/16/23 at 1-

2.   Father also pays the tuition and costs associated with the children’s

attendance at the Waldorf School, a private school that is approximately

$30,000.00 per year.

      The trial court summarized the following findings in support of its

computation of Father’s income and support obligation:

            [Father] is an entrepreneur in the cryptocurrencies
            markets. Although [Father] has interest in many
            ventures relating to cryptocurrency, only two are
            generating income for him.

            [Father] is the founder and CEO of Steam Monsters,
            Corp. Although [Father] currently has a minority
            interest in the company, he is compensated by salary.
            [Father’s] salary as CEO is $120,000, but his salary is
            currently reduced to $96,000 due to a company-wide
            policy that reduces the salary of executives as a result
            of reduction in revenue. [Father’s] Federal personal

                                     -2-
J-S45044-23

            income tax return for 2022, reflects a $96,000 salary
            from Ste[a]m Monster, which is what the trial court
            utilized in its calculation.

            [Father] owns a 99 percent interest in Peace,
            Prosperity, and Freedom, LLC (“PPF”). PPF receives
            payments for providing services to Steam Monsters.
            [Father’s] paramour owns the remaining 1% of PPF.
            As such, [Father] receives business income from PPF.

            The trial court utilized [Father’s] 2022 salary as CEO
            of Ste[a]m Monster of $96.000. Additionally, the trial
            court utilized the gross receipts stated in PPF’s 2021
            Amended Federal Tax Return and deducted PPF's
            reasonable business expenses based upon [Father’s]
            testimony. The trial court calculated [Father’s]
            business income as follows[:]

              PPF’s Gross Receipts:                   $455,076
              Return of Capital for Real Blocks:      -$50,000
              Supplies and Software:                  -$16,398
              Meals (Out of State):                   -$5000
              Maintenance:                            -$425
              Office Radiator:                        -$3,258
              Insurance:                              -$495
              Legal and Professional Services:        -$500
              Sales:                                  -$45,000

              Total:                                  $334,000

            After determining [Father’s] income, the trial court
            completed a guidelines calculation of the support
            obligation and entered its order accordingly. This
            calculation considered the costs that [Father] pays for
            the parties’ children to attend private school pursuant
            to an agreement reached by the parties at a custody
            hearing earlier in the year.

Trial court opinion, 7/27/23 at 2-3 (citations and headings omitted).

                                     -3-
J-S45044-23

      This timely appeal followed. On June 23, 2023, Father filed a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b). On July 27, 2023, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

      Father raises the following issues for our review:

            I.     Did the court err and abuse its discretion in
                   basing the instant support order on Father's
                   2021 income instead of his 2022 income
                   inasmuch as he filed the petition to modify on
                   March 14, 2022, and Father's 2022 income tax
                   return was timely submitted to the court?

            II.    Did the court err and abuse its discretion in in
                   that it did not give appropriate consideration to
                   any of Father’s reasonable business expenses in
                   determining Father's income?

            III.   Did the Court err and abuse its discretion in that
                   it did not take into consideration the fact that
                   Father’s business did not do well in 2022 for
                   reasons which were completely beyond Father’s
                   control?

            IV.    Did the Court err in that it did not consider the
                   fact that the income which Father has received
                   from his business in year-to-date 2023 is
                   substantially less than his income in both 2021
                   and 2022?

            V.     Did the Court err in that it did not consider the
                   fact that Father’s only source of income is a
                   company of which Father is a minority
                   shareholder?

Father’s brief at 5-6.

      Prior to addressing the merits of Father’s claims, we must first

determine the appealability of the May 16, 2023 support order, as questions

concerning appealability of an order go to the jurisdiction of the court to hear

                                      -4-
J-S45044-23

the appeal and may be raised sua sponte. Interest of Z.V., 158 A.3d 665,

669 (Pa.Super. 2017).

        In the instant matter, the order at issue is an unallocated support order,

i.e., it does not make separate provisions for child support and separate

provisions for spousal support.          Historically, this Court has relied on

Pennsylvania of Civil Procedure 1910.16(b), which was rescinded on January

1, 2019, to support the appealability of an unallocated support order. See

Diament v. Diament, 771 A.2d 793, 795 (Pa.Super. 2001).                    Prior to its

recission, Rule 1910.16 provided, in relevant part, that “[a]n unallocated order

in favor of the spouse and one or more children shall be a final order as to all

claims covered in the order.”        Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16(b); see also Pa.R.C.P.

1920.56 (setting forth the same language in the context of allocation of “an

order     awarding     child   support     combined     with    spousal      support,

alimony pendente lite or both[.]”).

        If an order addresses both child support and spousal support, the child

support issue is immediately appealable. See Capuano v. Capuano, 823

A.2d 995, 998 (Pa.Super. 2003). In contrast, the appealability of the spousal

support issue depends on whether the economic aspects of a divorce are still

being litigated:

              A spousal support order entered during the pendency
              of a divorce action is not appealable until all claims
              connected with the divorce action are resolved. The
              rationale behind this rule is that, for purposes of
              judicial efficiency, in the event that an initial award of
              interim relief is granted in error, the court has the

                                         -5-
J-S45044-23

            power to make adjustments in the final settlement via
            the equitable distribution of marital property. Thus,
            when all economic matters involved in a divorce are
            resolved, any support order can be reviewed and
            corrected when the court finalizes the equitable
            division of the property.

Id. at 998–999 (citations omitted). An order awarding APL, in turn, is “an

order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a

divorce or annulment proceeding.” Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127, 134

(Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

      Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the order in question appears to

constitute an appealable unallocated support order with regard to both child

support and APL. Accordingly, we now turn to Father’s arguments on appeal.

            When 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. An abuse of
            discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in
            reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or
            misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is
            shown by the record to be either manifestly
            unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice,
            bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition,
            we note that the duty to support one’s child is
            absolute, and the purpose of child support is to
            promote the child’s best interests.

M.E.W. v. W.L.W., 240 A.3d 626, 634 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

      “[W]ith regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this

Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and

thus viewed the witnesses first hand. When the trial court sits as fact finder,

                                       -6-
J-S45044-23

the weight to be assigned the testimony of the witnesses is within its exclusive

province . . . and the court is free to choose to believe all, part, or none of the

evidence presented.”      Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.Super.

2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 995

A.2d 354 (Pa. 2010).

         Likewise, “[t]he amount awarded as alimony pendente lite is within the

sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, will not

be disturbed on appeal.” Cook v. Cook, 186 A.3d 1015, 1023 (Pa.Super.

2018) (citation omitted). “In ruling on a claim for alimony pendente lite, the

court should consider the following factors: the ability of the other party to

pay; the separate estate and income of the petitioning party; and the

character, situation, and surroundings of the parties.” Strauss v. Strauss,

27 A.3d 233, 236 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation and brackets omitted).

         Following our thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the

parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court,

we conclude that Father’s claims on appeal warrant no relief. The trial court’s

Rule 1925(a) opinion comprehensively discussed each of Father’s five issues

and concluded that they were without merit. We find that the trial court’s

conclusions are supported by competent evidence and are clearly free of legal

error.

         Specifically, we agree with the trial court that its determination of

Father’s income was properly based on evidence supported in the record and

                                       -7-
J-S45044-23

that it “gave proper consideration to [Father’s] reasonable business

expenses.” See trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 7/27/23 at 3-4. We also

agree with the trial court’s conclusions that the record did not support a finding

that Father’s company, PPF LLC, did poorly in 2022, nor was Father’s business

income was marginally reduced in 2023. Id. at 5. Additionally, we agree with

the trial court that there is no merit to Father’s contention that his income is

derived solely from his interest as a minority shareholder in Steam Monsters

Corp., Inc. As the trial court noted, “[Father] receives income from Ste[a]m

Monsters in two ways: “[Father] is a W2 employee of Ste[a]m Monsters and

[Father] receives business income from Ste[a]m Monsters in the form of

payments to PPF.” Id. at 6.

      Accordingly, we adopt the comprehensive and well-reasoned July 27,

2023 opinion of the Honorable Christopher A. Hackman as our own for

purposes of this appellate review.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/16/2024

                                      -8-