Giordano, M. v. Giordano, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 1608 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A21006-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

MARY ELLEN GIORDANO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JASON GIORDANO : : Appellant : No. 1608 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered October 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No(s): 2020-04058

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025

Jason Giordano (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the final divorce

decree entered in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on October

7, 2024. As we find Appellant has waived his issues on appeal, we affirm.

The parties were married in 1999. Mary Ellen Giordano (“Appellee”) filed

a complaint in divorce in 2020. On October 1, 2024, the parties mutually

entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), which divided their

marital assets. Notably, both parties were represented by counsel at the time

of the execution of the MSA. A praecipe to transmit the record for entry of a

divorce decree was filed along with the MSA.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A21006-25

The day after the MSA was filed, Appellant’s counsel withdrew her

appearance, and Appellant entered his appearance pro se.

A divorce decree was entered on October 7, 2024. The next day,

Appellant filed an “Emergency Petition/Motion for Stay of Disbursement from

Escrow Account,” along with a letter to the court, and a brief in support of the

motion, arguing a disbursement should be stayed pending resolution of

“outstanding procedural and substantive issues of a handwritten marriage

settlement agreement.” Motion, 10/8/24, at 1.

On the same date, Appellee filed a Petition for Enforcement of Marital

Settlement Agreement and for Attorney Fees and Sanctions.

On October 9, 2024, in response to both parties’ filings, the trial court

entered an order denying Appellant’s request for a stay and scheduling a

hearing on the remaining issues.

On October 28, 2024, following argument from both parties,1 the trial

court issued an order declaring Appellant’s emergency motion for stay to be

moot, and granting Appellee’s petition for enforcement of the MSA in part,

1 We would have liked to review what occurred during the October 28, 2024

argument, but we are precluded from doing so since Appellant failed to ensure the certified record contains a transcript of it. See Mazzarese v. Mazzarese, 319 A.3d 586, 596 (Pa. Super. 2024) (reiterating that it is an appellant’s burden “to ensure that the certified record contains all documents necessary” for this Court to conduct its review) (citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 1931, Cmt. (“Appellant has the responsibility to make sure that the record forwarded to an appellate court contains those documents necessary to allow a complete and judicious assessment of the issues raised on appeal.”) (citation omitted).

-2- J-A21006-25

directing Appellant to comply with specific terms of the MSA and to pay

Appellee’s counsel fees. Appellant thereafter filed the instant timely appeal

from the final divorce decree.

On November 1, 2024, the trial court issued an order directing Appellant

to file and serve a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal

within 21 days. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). While Appellant did not timely comply,

this Court subsequently granted Appellant additional time to file a concise

statement, noting the trial court had failed to include sufficient instruction

regarding where to serve the concise statement. On December 13, 2024,

Appellant filed a concise statement, raising numerous issues.

On December 21, 2024, the trial court issued an opinion pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), noting that despite timely filing his concise statement,

Appellant had not followed this Court’s directive regarding serving the trial

court with that document. This Court subsequently granted Appellant

additional time to properly serve the concise statement on the trial court,

which he did on February 10, 2025. The trial court has since filed a new opinion

addressing the issues raised by Appellant.

Preliminarily, we must determine what, if any, issues Appellant has

preserved on appeal. We note the trial court ordered Appellant to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Appellant did file a statement, but it is anything but concise. In fact, the

statement is over ten pages, raising numerous allegations of bad behavior by

-3- J-A21006-25

Appellee in the execution of the MSA. Notably, many of the issues relate to

Appellant’s concern over the welfare of the parties’ adult, neurodivergent

daughter.

The trial court noted in its responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion that

Appellant’s issues on appeal are waived or not properly before this Court.

In [Appellant]’s voluminous concise statement of errors, he raises several alleged defects with the process and execution of the [MSA] in this case. Notably he does not raise any issue with this court’s order of October 28, 2025 where it was determined []that his emergency petition/motion for stay of disbursement from escrow account was moot. At no time since the entry of the MSA has [Appellant] properly raised a legal objection to the MSA as his only filing was the emergency motion requesting a stay of escrow disbursement. Even if he had properly raised and preserved objections to the MSA, his objections to the MSA are primarily based on custody law, which is inapplicable in this divorce setting, and duress, despite being represented by competent counsel at the time of the signing of the MSA. Finally, his disagreement with the discovery process, lack of involvement of the divorce hearing officer, and other pre-trial issues are of no relevance as the parties reached an agreement through counsel and did not proceed to any type of hearing before the divorce hearing officer. So, while those objections may have been relevant on exceptions if there was report and recommendation issued, the parties were able to reach an agreement with the benefit of counsel.

While this court is sympathetic to [Appellant]’s desire to care for his disabled child, it does not appear to this [c]ourt that he has at any point raised or preserved a valid objection to the MSA or this court’s order directing that the MSA be followed. Therefore, the divorce decree and order dated October 28, 2024 should be affirmed.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/12/25, at 15-16 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We agree with the trial court. Appellant has filed a pro se brief raising

numerous issues regarding the process and execution of the MSA. However,

-4- J-A21006-25

it is well-settled that, “[o]rdinarily, a party who consents to, or acquiesces in,

a judgment or order cannot appeal therefrom.” Brown v. Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania Department of Health, 434 A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. 1981)

(citing authority holding that to obtain appellate relief from claimed error a

party must first present it to the court whose determination is challenged on

appeal); see Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived

and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).

The record before us demonstrates Appellant freely consented to both

the MSA and the divorce decree, after having received the benefit of

representation by counsel in the formation of the agreement. After Appellee

filed a motion to enforce the MSA, Appellant failed to properly object or oppose

it.

Further, we cannot address any issues relating to custody or child

support, as they are not properly before us in this divorce matter. We share

the same feelings as the trial court and sympathize with Appellant’s strong

desire to adequately care for his child. However, we simply have no jurisdiction

to act on child support claims when no child support matter has been

presented to the trial court and therefore is not presently before this Court.

For these reasons, we conclude Appellant’s appeal affords him no relief.

Decree affirmed.

-5- J-A21006-25

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 09/18/2025

-6-