J-S22032-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
JAMIE FLICK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : MELINDA FLICK : No. 75 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered December 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Civil Division at No(s): FC-2017-20555-DC
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 5, 2025
Appellant Jamie Flick (“Husband”) appeals from the December 23, 2024,
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. After a
careful review, we affirm.
The litigation in this matter arose from a divorce complaint with
contested economic issues, as well as subsequent petitions for the
enforcement of the parties’ property settlement agreement, which was
incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree. The pertinent
background is as follows.
Husband and Melinda Flick (“Wife”) were married in April of 1998, and
they separated in July of 2016. On May 4, 2017, Husband filed a complaint
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S22032-25
in divorce averring the parties’ marriage is irretrievably broken. Husband
sought equitable distribution, as well as counsel fees and costs.
On June 5, 2017, Wife filed an answer with a counterclaim to Husband’s
complaint in divorce. In her counterclaim, Wife sought equitable distribution,
alimony pendente lite, alimony, and counsel fees. On October 18, 2018, the
trial court appointed a master to address divorce, equitable distribution,
alimony, counsel fees, and cost/expenses. On December 17, 2018, Wife filed
a motion to compel discovery, and on January 15, 2019, Husband filed an
Inventory and Appraisement of all property.
On October 15, 2019, the master held a hearing at which the parties
reached an agreement resolving the economic claims. On November 5, 2019,
the master filed a “Memorandum of Understanding,” which sets forth the
parties’ property settlement agreement.1 The parties acknowledged that the
Memorandum of Understanding resolved all pending economic issues between
them.
By order entered on November 5, 2019, the trial court approved the
parties’ Memorandum of Understanding. The trial court specifically indicated
that the property settlement agreement was approved and shall be
incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree. Trial Court Order, filed
11/5/19, at 1.
1The “Memorandum of Understanding” is a transcribed excerpt from the master’s hearing.
-2- J-S22032-25
Thereafter, the parties filed several petitions for contempt, which the
trial court resolved. The parties executed the necessary forms for consent to
the divorce. On November 19, 2020, the trial court entered a divorce decree.
The trial court indicated that the parties were divorced from the bonds of
matrimony, and the court reiterated that the terms of the comprehensive
property settlement agreement as set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding reached between the parties on October 15, 2019, and
approved by the trial court on November 5, 2019, was incorporated into but
not merged with the divorce decree.
Thereafter, Wife and Husband filed petitions for contempt of the
Memorandum of Understanding. Relevantly, on March 5, 2021, the trial court
held Husband in contempt and directed him to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees. On
April 16, 2021, Wife filed a petition for contempt contending that Husband
failed to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees as directed by the trial court’s March 5,
2021, order.
On June 16, 2021, Husband filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge,
the Honorable Eric R. Linhardt, from this matter. On June 30, 2021, Judge
Linhardt granted Husband’s request for his recusal, and the matter was
assigned to the Honorable Ryan M. Tira. However, by order entered on August
26, 2021, Judge Tira recused from the matter because Wife was in a
relationship with a person with whom the Judge had a personal connection.
The matter was then assigned to the Honorable Jeffrey A. Smith, Senior Judge.
-3- J-S22032-25
Thereafter, Wife filed an amended motion for contempt of the parties’
Memorandum of Understanding, and Husband filed a motion for contempt.
Also, on October 21, 2021, Husband filed a motion to recuse Judge Smith
because Husband had “concerns” about Judge Smith’s political connections.
Judge Smith denied Husband’s motion to recuse.
On March 8, 2022, the parties entered a stipulation, which Judge Smith
approved by order filed on March 10, 2022. Specifically, the parties
acknowledged the stipulation was intended to address the then outstanding
contempt motions and petitions for enforcement of the Memorandum of
Understanding.
On September 28, 2023, Wife filed another petition to enforce the
Memorandum of Understanding. Specifically, Wife indicated that, pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, she is to retain a fifty percent interest in
Husband’s fifty percent interest of the oil, gas, and mineral rights associated
with the property at 17** Lick Run Road, which is owned by Flanton
Properties.2 However, Wife contended Husband did not take the steps
necessary to transfer the allotted interest in the subsurface rights to Wife.
2 Flanton Properties is a general partnership governed by a partnership agreement dated October 19, 2010, with Christopher Branton and Husband each owning a fifty percent interest in the partnership. The surface and subsurface estate of real property located at 17** Lick Run Road is the sole asset of Flanton Properties. Pursuant to Husband’s and Wife’s Memorandum of Understanding, Husband was to receive 100% of his 50% interest in the surface rights of the property; however, Wife was to receive 50% of Husband’s 50% interest in the subsurface oil, gas, and mineral rights of the property.
-4- J-S22032-25
Wife’s September 28, 2023, petition for enforcement was assigned to
the Honorable William P. Carlucci. On December 21, 2023, Husband filed a
petition to disqualify Wife’s attorney from further matters. On February 12,
2024, Husband filed his first motion for the recusal of Judge Carlucci.
Specifically, Husband contended that Wife’s attorney’s former law firm was
the same law firm where Judge Carlucci was a partner prior to his taking the
bench. He also noted that the counsel involved in the “land deal” regarding
17** Lick Run Road was a partner of the Judge’s and Wife’s attorney’s former
law firm. Thus, Husband sought Judge Carlucci’s recusal.
By order entered on February 20, 2024, Judge Carlucci denied
Husband’s petition to disqualify Wife’s attorney. By order entered on February
21, 2024, and clarified on February 26, 2024, Judge Carlucci denied Husband’s
motion for his recusal.
By order and opinion entered on May 6, 2024, Judge Carlucci granted,
in part, Wife’s September 28, 2023, petition to enforce the Memorandum of
Understanding, and directed, in part, that the parties would return to court for
further proceedings in connection with the petition for enforcement.
Specifically, Judge Carlucci directed Mr. Branton3 to present a proposed
3 By order entered on December 5, 2023, Judge Carlucci directed that Christopher H.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S22032-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
JAMIE FLICK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : MELINDA FLICK : No. 75 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered December 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Civil Division at No(s): FC-2017-20555-DC
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 5, 2025
Appellant Jamie Flick (“Husband”) appeals from the December 23, 2024,
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. After a
careful review, we affirm.
The litigation in this matter arose from a divorce complaint with
contested economic issues, as well as subsequent petitions for the
enforcement of the parties’ property settlement agreement, which was
incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree. The pertinent
background is as follows.
Husband and Melinda Flick (“Wife”) were married in April of 1998, and
they separated in July of 2016. On May 4, 2017, Husband filed a complaint
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S22032-25
in divorce averring the parties’ marriage is irretrievably broken. Husband
sought equitable distribution, as well as counsel fees and costs.
On June 5, 2017, Wife filed an answer with a counterclaim to Husband’s
complaint in divorce. In her counterclaim, Wife sought equitable distribution,
alimony pendente lite, alimony, and counsel fees. On October 18, 2018, the
trial court appointed a master to address divorce, equitable distribution,
alimony, counsel fees, and cost/expenses. On December 17, 2018, Wife filed
a motion to compel discovery, and on January 15, 2019, Husband filed an
Inventory and Appraisement of all property.
On October 15, 2019, the master held a hearing at which the parties
reached an agreement resolving the economic claims. On November 5, 2019,
the master filed a “Memorandum of Understanding,” which sets forth the
parties’ property settlement agreement.1 The parties acknowledged that the
Memorandum of Understanding resolved all pending economic issues between
them.
By order entered on November 5, 2019, the trial court approved the
parties’ Memorandum of Understanding. The trial court specifically indicated
that the property settlement agreement was approved and shall be
incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree. Trial Court Order, filed
11/5/19, at 1.
1The “Memorandum of Understanding” is a transcribed excerpt from the master’s hearing.
-2- J-S22032-25
Thereafter, the parties filed several petitions for contempt, which the
trial court resolved. The parties executed the necessary forms for consent to
the divorce. On November 19, 2020, the trial court entered a divorce decree.
The trial court indicated that the parties were divorced from the bonds of
matrimony, and the court reiterated that the terms of the comprehensive
property settlement agreement as set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding reached between the parties on October 15, 2019, and
approved by the trial court on November 5, 2019, was incorporated into but
not merged with the divorce decree.
Thereafter, Wife and Husband filed petitions for contempt of the
Memorandum of Understanding. Relevantly, on March 5, 2021, the trial court
held Husband in contempt and directed him to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees. On
April 16, 2021, Wife filed a petition for contempt contending that Husband
failed to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees as directed by the trial court’s March 5,
2021, order.
On June 16, 2021, Husband filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge,
the Honorable Eric R. Linhardt, from this matter. On June 30, 2021, Judge
Linhardt granted Husband’s request for his recusal, and the matter was
assigned to the Honorable Ryan M. Tira. However, by order entered on August
26, 2021, Judge Tira recused from the matter because Wife was in a
relationship with a person with whom the Judge had a personal connection.
The matter was then assigned to the Honorable Jeffrey A. Smith, Senior Judge.
-3- J-S22032-25
Thereafter, Wife filed an amended motion for contempt of the parties’
Memorandum of Understanding, and Husband filed a motion for contempt.
Also, on October 21, 2021, Husband filed a motion to recuse Judge Smith
because Husband had “concerns” about Judge Smith’s political connections.
Judge Smith denied Husband’s motion to recuse.
On March 8, 2022, the parties entered a stipulation, which Judge Smith
approved by order filed on March 10, 2022. Specifically, the parties
acknowledged the stipulation was intended to address the then outstanding
contempt motions and petitions for enforcement of the Memorandum of
Understanding.
On September 28, 2023, Wife filed another petition to enforce the
Memorandum of Understanding. Specifically, Wife indicated that, pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, she is to retain a fifty percent interest in
Husband’s fifty percent interest of the oil, gas, and mineral rights associated
with the property at 17** Lick Run Road, which is owned by Flanton
Properties.2 However, Wife contended Husband did not take the steps
necessary to transfer the allotted interest in the subsurface rights to Wife.
2 Flanton Properties is a general partnership governed by a partnership agreement dated October 19, 2010, with Christopher Branton and Husband each owning a fifty percent interest in the partnership. The surface and subsurface estate of real property located at 17** Lick Run Road is the sole asset of Flanton Properties. Pursuant to Husband’s and Wife’s Memorandum of Understanding, Husband was to receive 100% of his 50% interest in the surface rights of the property; however, Wife was to receive 50% of Husband’s 50% interest in the subsurface oil, gas, and mineral rights of the property.
-4- J-S22032-25
Wife’s September 28, 2023, petition for enforcement was assigned to
the Honorable William P. Carlucci. On December 21, 2023, Husband filed a
petition to disqualify Wife’s attorney from further matters. On February 12,
2024, Husband filed his first motion for the recusal of Judge Carlucci.
Specifically, Husband contended that Wife’s attorney’s former law firm was
the same law firm where Judge Carlucci was a partner prior to his taking the
bench. He also noted that the counsel involved in the “land deal” regarding
17** Lick Run Road was a partner of the Judge’s and Wife’s attorney’s former
law firm. Thus, Husband sought Judge Carlucci’s recusal.
By order entered on February 20, 2024, Judge Carlucci denied
Husband’s petition to disqualify Wife’s attorney. By order entered on February
21, 2024, and clarified on February 26, 2024, Judge Carlucci denied Husband’s
motion for his recusal.
By order and opinion entered on May 6, 2024, Judge Carlucci granted,
in part, Wife’s September 28, 2023, petition to enforce the Memorandum of
Understanding, and directed, in part, that the parties would return to court for
further proceedings in connection with the petition for enforcement.
Specifically, Judge Carlucci directed Mr. Branton3 to present a proposed
3 By order entered on December 5, 2023, Judge Carlucci directed that Christopher H. Branton of Flanton Properties be joined as a party since he had an interest in the property held by Flanton Properties. Since the Memorandum of Understanding was incorporated, but not merged, into the divorce decree, Wife’s petition for enforcement was properly addressed by the civil court with (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5- J-S22032-25
assignment document in a form reasonably sufficient to assign Wife a 25%
interest in the subsurface rights of 17** Lick Run Road. Moreover, by order
entered on June 7, 2024, Judge Carlucci directed the proposed assignment
document shall include language indicating that no portion of the oil, gas, or
mineral rights of the property could be leased or transferred without the
written consent of Husband, Wife, and Mr. Branton. The trial court set a
continued hearing date for June 4, 2024.
On June 3, 2024, Husband filed a second motion for the recusal of Judge
Carlucci. Therein, Husband asserted, inter alia, that on May 4, 2024, Judge
Carlucci made disparaging comments regarding pro se litigants in an opinion
editorial, which was published in a local newspaper. Thus, since Husband was
proceeding pro se,4 Husband requested Judge Carlucci recuse himself.
Husband also noted that he recently learned Wife’s counsel represented Judge
Carlucci during his divorce proceedings. Moreover, he reiterated that Wife’s
attorney’s former law firm was the same law firm where Judge Carlucci was a
the law of contracts governing. See Krasinger v. Krasinger, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa.Super. 2007) (holding marital settlement agreements are governed by the laws of contract unless they are merged into the divorce decree in which case they are governed by the provisions of the Divorce Code).
4 Husband was initially represented by counsel in this matter. However, on November 4, 2019, counsel filed a petition to withdraw her representation based upon Husband’s request that she do so, and the trial court granted the petition on November 14, 2019. Husband then proceeded pro se in the lower court, although he is represented by counsel on appeal.
-6- J-S22032-25
partner prior to his taking the bench, and he noted that the counsel involved
in the “land deal” regarding 17** Lick Run Road was a partner of the Judge’s
and Wife’s attorney’s former law firm. On June 14, 2024, Judge Carlucci
denied the second motion for his recusal.
By order entered on August 5, 2024, the trial court held that, as it
pertains to Wife’s September 28, 2023, petition for enforcement, as well as
the trial court’s subsequent orders related thereto, the parties had reached an
assignment document, which the court approved and would be filed by the
parties. On August 5, 2024, Wife, Husband, and Mr. Branton filed the
Assignment of Partnership Rights Agreement, thus satisfying Wife’s petition
to enforce the Memorandum of Understanding filed on September 28, 2023.5
On August 7, 2024, Mr. Branton filed a petition to enforce the
Assignment of Partnership Rights Agreement. Specifically, Mr. Branton
indicated Flanton Properties had received an offer of $300.00 per acre,
inclusive of the oil, gas, and mineral rights, and Wife would not agree to sell.
Thus, Mr. Branton sought a court order to permit the sale.
On August 22, 2024, Wife filed a petition to enforce the Memorandum
of Understanding. Therein, she alleged that Husband, without Wife’s consent,
5 The Assignment of Partnership Rights Agreement provided that Mr. Branton,
Husband, and Wife agreed that no portion of the oil, gas, or mineral rights associated with the real property would be leased or transferred without the consent of all parties or order of court. The agreement also provided that, if any party refused a proposed agreement for sale or lease of the oil, gas, or mineral rights, the trial court would be permitted to resolve the dispute.
-7- J-S22032-25
could not agree to the sale of the oil, gas, and mineral rights for the property
held by Flanton Properties since, pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding, Wife owns a 50% share of Husband’s 50% interest in the oil,
gas, and mineral rights for the property.
By order entered on August 28, 2024, the trial court indicated that, as
it pertains to Mr. Branton’s petition to enforce the Assignment of Partnership
Rights Agreement and Wife’s petition to enforce the Memorandum of
Understanding, the parties agreed that Husband would pay Wife $28,875.00
in full satisfaction for any and all interest Wife has pursuant to the assignment
agreement document and equitable distribution orders. The trial court
directed the payment shall be made by September 6, 2024. The trial court
held the petition to enforce the Assignment of Partnership Rights Agreement
and the petition to enforce the Memorandum of Understanding were dismissed
as moot.
On November 25, 2024, Husband filed a motion for special relief for
enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding. Therein, Husband
averred that, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, he has been
paying his, as well as his three children’s, Verizon accounts. However, he
recently attempted to make changes to the plan, and he was informed the
“Administrator” was Wife. Husband asked Wife to remove herself as the
“Administrator;” however, Wife refused.
-8- J-S22032-25
On December 16, 2024, Wife filed a petition to enforce the Memorandum
of Understanding. She indicated that the parties agreed that each would
retain all household property and furnishings in their possession; however,
Husband would not give her certain personal property.
On December 17, 2024, Husband filed a third motion for the recusal of
Judge Carlucci. Therein, Husband raised new claims seeking the Judge’s
recusal, as well as reiterated and asked the Judge to reconsider recusing based
on the fact he was a law partner at the same firm where Wife’s counsel had
been a law partner, he was a law partner at the same firm where the attorney
who drafted the initial “land deal” related to 17** Lick Run Road was a law
partner, Wife’s counsel represented Judge Carlucci in his divorce proceedings,
and he made alleged disparaging comments regarding pro se litigants in a
local newspaper. On December 18, 2024, Wife filed a petition for attorney’s
fees.
By order entered on December 18, 2024, Judge Carlucci granted
Husband’s request for enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Judge Carlucci directed Wife to provide a letter to Husband permitting Verizon
to list Husband as the “Administrator” of the Verizon Wireless Account. By
order and opinion entered on December 23, 2024, Judge Carlucci denied
Husband’s third motion for his recusal. Wife subsequently withdrew her
December 16, 2024, petition for enforcement of the Memorandum of
Understanding, as well as her December 18, 2024, petition for attorney’s fees.
-9- J-S22032-25
On January 13, 2025, Husband filed a notice of appeal to this Court. In
his notice of appeal, Husband averred he was challenging the three orders
wherein Judge Carlucci denied Husband’s motions for his recusal. All Pa.R.A.P.
1925 requirements have been met.
On appeal, Husband sets forth the following issues in his “Statement of
Question Presented” (verbatim):
I. Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the appeal? II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when denying a motion for recusal based off its failure to disclose its previous relationship with opposing counsel? III. Whether the trial court abuised (sic) its discretion and acted in a biased manner when denying a motion for recusal after the local newspaper published the judge’s personal editorial regarding pro se litigants?
Husband’s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Initially, we address the procedural posture of this case. Here, Wife filed
a petition to enforce the parties’ marital property settlement agreement (the
Memorandum of Understanding) on September 28, 2023, and Judge Carlucci
was assigned to the matter. During the pendency of Wife’s petition for
enforcement, Husband filed a first motion for Judge Carlucci’s recusal on
February 12, 2024, which Judge Carlucci denied on February 21, 2024
(clarified by order on February 26, 2024). Husband filed a second motion for
Judge Carlucci’s recusal on June 3, 2024, which Judge Carlucci denied on June
14, 2024.
- 10 - J-S22032-25
In these two motions for recusal, Husband raised the same substantive
issues that he raises now on appeal; to wit, that Judge Carlucci should have
recused since he was a law partner at the same firm where Wife’s counsel had
been a law partner, he was a law partner at the same firm where the attorney
who drafted the initial “land deal” related to 17** Lick Run Road was a law
partner, Wife’s counsel represented Judge Carlucci in his divorce proceedings,
and he made disparaging comments regarding pro se litigants in a local
newspaper.
Thereafter, Wife’s petition to enforce the Memorandum of
Understanding, which she filed on September 28, 2023, was disposed of by
final order entered on August 5, 2024. See Whittaker v. Lu, 323 A.3d 871,
875 (Pa.Super. 2024) (holding “an order granting enforcement of a settlement
agreement constitutes a final, appealable order”). However, Husband did not
file an appeal within thirty days from the August 5, 2024, order.6 See
Pa.R.A.P. 903 (requiring all “notices of appeal shall be filed within 30 days
after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken”).
6 We note that, generally, an order denying a motion for recusal is a non- appealable interlocutory order. See In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 51 A.3d 224, 229 (Pa.Super. 2012); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Lin, 992 A.2d 132, 149 (Pa.Super. 2010) (noting a motion for recusal does not meet the collateral order doctrine). However, “[o]nce an appeal is filed from a final order, all prior interlocutory orders become reviewable.” In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 51 A.3d at 229. Here, Husband could have filed an appeal from the August 5, 2024, order challenging the trial court’s denial of his first and second motions for recusal.
- 11 - J-S22032-25
Rather, thereafter, on November 25, 2024, Husband filed a motion for
enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding on a different issue than
that presented in Wife’s September 23, 2023, petition for enforcement.
Husband then filed a third motion seeking Judge Carlucci’s recusal on
December 17, 2024, wherein he, inter alia, again sought recusal on the same
basis as he presented in his prior motions for recusal (and he sets forth on
appeal). After Judge Carlucci granted Husband’s motion for enforcement on
December 18, 2024, he denied Husband’s third motion for his recusal on
December 23, 2024.7 Husband filed a notice of appeal on January 13, 2025,
which is within the requisite thirty days. See Pa.R.A.P. 903. However, we
decline to address the substantive merits of Husband’s recusal issues.
Our Supreme Court has held:
In this Commonwealth, a party must seek recusal of a jurist at the earliest possible moment, i.e., when the party knows of the facts that form the basis for a motion to recuse. If the party fails to present a motion to recuse at that time, then the party’s recusal issue is time-barred and waived.
Lomas v. Kravitz, 642 Pa. 181, 170 A.3d 380, 390 (2017) (citations
omitted).
Here, as indicated supra, the recusal issues raised in Husband’s third
recusal motion, which he filed on December 17, 2024, are the same as those
raised in his previous recusal motions and for which he did not file a timely
7 All other outstanding petitions were withdrawn, and no further matters are
pending related to this matter in the trial court at this time.
- 12 - J-S22032-25
appeal following the denial thereof.8 In essence, in the December 17, 2024,
motion, Husband reiterated his recusal issues, which are time-barred and
waived because he failed to file a timely appeal from the final order entered
after the previous denial of the first and second motions to recuse wherein
he raised the same issues.9 Accordingly, we conclude that, to the extent
Husband’s instant appeal was from a timely, appealable order,10 he has
waived the substantive issues regarding recusal on appeal.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
8 In his third recusal motion, Husband included additional “new” reasons seeking Judge Carlucci’s recusal; however, the additional “new” reasons have not been presented on appeal.
9 To the extent the third motion for recusal could be construed as a motion for
reconsideration, we note that it was not timely filed. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (allowing a court to modify or rescind an order within 30 days after its entry, if no appeal has been taken).
10 As indicated supra, orders denying motions for recusal are generally non-
appealable interlocutory orders. However, here, Husband filed his third motion for recusal while he and Wife had petitions for enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding pending. Judge Carlucci ruled on Husband’s petition for enforcement on December 18, 2024, and after Judge Carlucci denied Husband’s third motion for recusal on December 23, 2024, Wife withdrew her pending petitions for enforcement. Thus, the December 23, 2024, order disposed of all parties and claims in this particular case. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). We note Wife contends that, to the extent the December 23, 2024, order is a final order, we should find Husband’s recusal claims moot since there are no pending petitions. However, given our discussion supra, we need not address whether the issues are moot.
- 13 - J-S22032-25
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/05/2025
- 14 -