Kalnoki, C. v. Kalnoki, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 1354 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S02011-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

CHARITI KALNOKI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEVEN KALNOKI : : Appellant : No. 1354 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered April 10, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at No(s): PACSES No.: 107116871

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED JUNE 3, 2025

Steven Kalnoki (Father) appeals from the child support order, entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County on April 10, 2024. After

careful review, we affirm based on the opinion authored by the Honorable

Richard H. Lowe. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 7/25/24.

Father and Chariti Kalnoki (Mother) were married in 2004 and divorced

in 2017. They are the parents of three minor children (twins, born in 2011,

and a younger child born in 2014).

On December 21, 2017, Mother filed a complaint in support. On

November 17, 2021, Mother filed a petition to increase support. On December

21, 2022, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Angela Martinez, who

entered recommendations and findings. Thereafter, the matter was

designated as complex and, on May 12, 2023, a protracted hearing was held

before Hearing Officer Michael Pierce. Hearing Officer Pierce’s J-S02011-25

recommendations for a support order incorporated, in part, Hearing Officer

Martinez’s recommendations of December 21, 2022.

Mother filed a timely demand for a hearing de novo, which was held on

April 2, 2024. On that date, the court, following the hearing, determined the

parties’ “current order is appropriate.” See Order, 4/2/24. That order set

Father’s support obligation for the three children at $4,300.00 per month, plus

$430.00 per month in arrears, for a total of $4,730.00 per month, effective

May 12, 2022. Id.1

Father filed a timely appeal from the support order. Both Father and

the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Father raises three issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a de novo hearing, limiting Father’s arguments, and requiring Father to specify errors made by the hearing officer?

2. Whether the trial court erred by relying upon the hearing officer’s order and calculations and declining to calculate Father’s income and child support obligations?

3. Whether the court erred by including an asset previously awarded and distributed in equitable distribution in Father’s income for the purpose of calculating child support?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4 (reworded for clarity).

In reviewing orders granting, denying[,] or modifying support, this Court is limited to considering whether, based on clear and convincing evidence, the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion requires proof of more than a mere error in judgment, but rather evidence that the law was misapplied or ____________________________________________

1 Father has been employed as a lawyer with the law firm of Dechert, LLP since 2008.

-2- J-S02011-25

overridden, or that the judgment was manifestly unreasonable or based on bias, ill will, prejudice, or partiality.

Rebert v. Rebert, 757 A.2d 981, 983 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citations omitted).

Father first argues that because the trial court required the parties to

“list specific errors they believed had been made by the hearing officer” at the

start of the de novo hearing, the court “impermissibly limited the scope of the

parties’ arguments[.]” Appellant’s Brief, at 9-10. The trial court reasoned

that this was necessary in light of the protracted history and complexity of the

case. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/24, at 2. Father claims this is contrary

to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11 and this Court’s decisions in Warner v. Pollock, 644

A.2d 747 (Pa. Super. 1994) and Rebert, supra.

Rule 1910.11 provides, in relevant part:

Rule 1910.11. Office Conference. Subsequent Proceedings.

Order

(i) If a demand is filed, there shall be a hearing de novo before the court. The domestic relations section shall schedule the hearing and give notice to the parties. The court shall hear the case and enter a final order substantially in the form set forth in Rule 1910.27(e) within sixty days from the date of the written demand for hearing.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11(i) (emphasis added).

In Warner, the trial court adhered to a local Westmoreland County rule,

which required a party seeking de novo review in a support matter to assign

reasons for the “appeal.” Warner, supra at 750. Father failed to assign

reasons and the trial court dismissed father’s demand for a de novo hearing.

-3- J-S02011-25

On appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the local rule regarding the steps

a party must take to obtain judicial review of the hearing officer’s

recommended support order, to the extent that it required party to recite

reasons for “appeal” or to risk having “appeal” dismissed, was invalid

as conflicting with Rule 1910.11, which grants parties to support proceedings

an absolute right to de novo hearing before the court simply upon his or her

written demand, with no need for assignment of reasons. Warner, supra at

750-51. “The rule does not require that a party state any grounds for the

demand for a hearing, nor are any restrictions placed upon one’s right

to a de novo hearing.” Id. at 749.

To Father’s point, the Warner Court further clarified the scope of the

de novo hearing:

We are also concerned that the Westmoreland rule, as it is currently drafted, could create misperceptions of what is to take place should a party demand a de novo hearing. First, we must agree with appellant that under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.11[,] a litigant has an absolute right to his/her day in court should it be desired. Second, that hearing shall be de novo and not limited in scope. Third, there would be no need for the demanding party’s opponent to also make a demand for a hearing or take an “appeal” from the recommended order. To the extent Westmoreland County Rule W1910.11 is inconsistent with these points the rule is invalid.

We acknowledge the trial court’s position that the Westmoreland rule benefits litigants by alerting the court to possibly complicated cases or ones [that] would require a greater amount of time than average. Alerted to these matters[,] the court can schedule hearings in a more efficient manner. This may be true[;] however, Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.11(j)(1) also allows litigants to move the court for a separate listing for these very same reasons.

-4- J-S02011-25

Id. at 751 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). In Warner, this Court stated

that under Rule 1910.11, “one demands a hearing, one does not file an

appeal.” Id. at 750. The Court emphasized the differences between an appeal

and a hearing de novo, explaining that an appeal deals with assertion of

specific error, whereas a de novo hearing is a full reconsideration of the case.

Id. See also Rebert, supra at 984 (“`De novo’ review entails, as the term

suggests, full consideration of the case anew. The reviewing body is in effect

substituted for the prior decision[-]maker and redecides the case.”).

However, here, we emphasize that the court’s statement at the start of

the hearing—“Ma’am, what are you appealing? Why are you appealing? . . .

What are you saying is wrong with that Order?”—was directed to Mother who,

at the hearing, was proceeding pro se. See N.T. De Novo Hearing, 4/2/24, at

5. The court was clearly trying to guide Mother. After our review of the

transcript of the hearing, we find Father’s argument—that this statement

required “the parties to list specific errors they alleged were made by the

hearing officer,” “limited the scope of the hearing, and did not permit Father

to present his arguments and evidence as thought this were an initial

hearing[,]”—is a mischaracterization. See Appellant’s Brief, a 12-13.

The court heard Father’s expert testify, at length, regarding Mother’s

earning capacity. See N.T. De Novo Hearing, supra at 28-50. The court also

heard Father’s arguments and accepted the evidence Father presented, which

included his pay stubs and W-2 form, his gross and net monthly income, and

Father’s counsel’s guidelines calculations. See id. at 12, 17-20, 23. As

-5- J-S02011-25

Mother points out in her brief, Father had “every opportunity to produce

supplemental evidence, specifically his tax returns. However, [Father] failed

to do so.” Appellee’s Brief, at 11. When the court requested the tax returns

be provided, Father’s counsel, as Mother states, “deflected.” Id. Our review

of the record confirms this. See N.T. De Novo Hearing, supra at 11-12. The

trial court concluded, therefore, that Father had presented nothing to establish

that a change in the support order was warranted.2

After our review, we find no error or abuse of discretion, Rebert, supra,

and we rely on Judge Lowe’s opinion to affirm the order of support. The

parties are directed to attach a copy of Judge Lowe’s opinion in the event of

further proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Date: 6/3/2025

____________________________________________

2 The trial court notes that Father’s position or title at Dechert, LLP was never

put on the record and, thus, it was “unclear if [he] is a partner at Dechert or if [he] received any profit distributions, or other income that would not appear on his W-2s.” Trial Court Opinion, supra at 3.

-6- 02:07 PM Circulated 05/08/2025 02-07

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N DOMESTIC RELATIONS DOMESTIC RELATIONS

CHARM KALNOKI CHARITT DOCKET NO: 2018-00011 Plaintiff

VS. PACSES NO: NO:107116871 107116871

STEVEN KALNOK KALNOKI 1354 EDA 2024 Defendant Defendant SUPPORT

OPINION LOWE, A LOWE, J. muse. a5-a-4 FILED: 1-35.2W

t.I. Introduction introductlon The Defendant has appealed the support order entered by this court on April 2, 2024,

("the Support Order") following aade novo hearing held on April 2, 2024 2024 ("the ("the De Novo

Hearing"). The De Novo Hearing followed an extended hearing on May 12, 2023, before the I

Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer recommended aa3-tier Support Order that was was effective

December 1, 2021, and ran through 2023 2023 (the (the "Recommended Order"). N.T. 6-7. Following the

entry of the Recommended Order, the Plaintiff filed aatimely Demand for a a Hearing De Novo.

The De Novo Hearing was held on April 2, 2024. This court issued its decision from the

bench. The Plaintiff is bench, is the Mother of the subject children and the Payee under the Support

Order. The Defendant is the Father of of the subject children and the Payor under the Support

The Defendant filed a Order. The a timely Appeal to the Superior Court, on May 7, 2024. Plaintiff 2024, The Plaint#f

did not appeal. The Defendant raised three issues on appeal:

1. Whether the Court erred by limiting Appellants' arguments and requiring Appellant Appellant to specify errors made by the Hearing Officer, instead of conducting aaproper de novo hearing. ovo

iThe transcript for the April 2, 2024, hearing is cited herein as N.T. The 1 1

38 2. Whether the Court erred by declining to calculate the Appellant's income and child 2 support obligation(s), and instead relied upon the Hearing Officer's Order and calculations.

3. Whether the Court erred by including an asset previously awarded and distributed in equitable distribution in Father's income for purposes of calculating child support.

Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal Appeal filed May May 14, 2024. The

Defendant's complaints/issues on appeal are without merit and unsupported by the record.

This court's April 2, 2024, decision should be affirmed.

ll. It. Factual Factual Summary and Summary and History History

At the De Novo Hearing, the only issue before this court was the support of three

children. N.T. t children, This parties' divorce and support litigation had been protracted. N,T, at 6, 6. The support support

hearings in this case had been continued multiple times, and several interim orders had been

entered. Id. The Recommended Order was retroactive to 2021. Id. Id. Each party had been

represented by an attorney before the Hearing Officer. N.T. 4 4. At the De Novo Hearing, the

Plaintiff/Mother was pro se and the Defendant/Father was represented by 3-4. by counsel. N.T. at 3.4,

The Recommended Order included three different support support obligations, obligations. The obligations

varied based on variations in the Defendant's income during the relevant time periods. The

Recommended Order set the Defendant's obligation as follows:

1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 From December ,

Base support support $4,000.00 OOA $400.00 00A Total $4,400.00/mo.

From January 1, 1, 2022 to May 2022 t0 May 12, 2023

Base support support $4,658.86 OOA $465.00 00A Total $5,123.86/mo.

39 From May 12, 2023 forward forward2

support $ 4,300.00 Base support OOA $430.00 00A Total $4,730.00/mo.

The income percentage for all time periods was set at at 85% 859% Plaintiff and 15% Defendant Defendant.

N.T. 6-7. The Recommended Order was N.T. at 6.7. was retroactive to December 1, 2021, and the Order

superseded any prior interim orders.

At the time of the De Novo Hearing, Hearin, the Defendant was aalawyer with the international

law firm of Dechert, LLP. ("Dechert"). N.T. at 13. The Defendant had been employed

continuously with Dechert since 2008, approximately 16 years. Id. The Defendant's position or

title at Dechert was not stated on the record. record. It It was unclear if the Defendant is aapartner at

Dechert or if the Defendant received any profit distributions, or other income that would not

appear on his W-2$. W-2s.

As proof of the Defendant's income, counsel for As for the Defendant provided provided this court with with

copies of copies of the Defendant's W-2s W-2s from Dechert for tax years years 2021, 2021, 2022, and 2023.' 2022, and 2023. 1The

Defendant did not provide any tax returns. The Plaintiff specifically asked to see Defendant's

tax returns at the De Novo Hearing. The Plaintiff stated that Defendant had had "never never given me his

tax returns" and want and "I N.T at want his tax returns." N.T, at 11. lL. This court asked counsel for the Defendant

"do you have have [tax [tax returns] you can give her?" id. Id. Counsel responded, responded, "I I can provide you with his

W-2s now, yes. IIbelieve lIhave his tax w.2s tax [returns] [returns] somewhere, but but ... •• we have never received

Information from actual income information from [Plaintiff]". Id. This court asked counsel again: All [Plaintiff]". d. "All Iam trying

The Hearing Officer only used Father's "base wages" The 2 wages" —-"no "no bonus"- to calculate Father's bonus"-to income from May 12, 2023 forward. See Paragraph 6 6 of the Recommended Order. The exhibit marked D-1, included 'The 3 Included Defendant's W-2s, hearsay letters from his employer, employer, and summary prepared by Defendant's counsel. No tax returns were included. 3

40 to do is figure out whether you have one one [a [a tax return] now that you can show." show..." id. Counsel

responded "I responded l can give you his W-2s W-2s .._"" N.T. at 12. The Defendant never produced aatax return at12.

at the De Novo Hearing.

The Defendant's 2021 w-2 The W-2 from Dechert showed gross from Dechert gross earnings of $431,473,97. The

W-2 from Dechert showed gross earnings of $540,112.00. The Defendant's Defendant's 2022 w-2

2023 w-2from W-2 from Dechert showed gross earnings of of $428,470.08. See D-1.

The Plaintiff described herself as a "stay-at-home mom" of three kids. N.T, N.T. at 5. S. The

Plaintiff had an Associate Degree in Culinary Arts and very limited work experience. N.T. 33, 43.

The Plaintiff also complained of undocumented health problems that negatively impacted her

ability ability to work. Id. The Hearing Officer found that the Plaintiff had Id. The had an earning capacity capacity "higher "higher

than 30k/yr. but less than the 50/75k per year requested by Defendant/Father." Defendant/Father" See Paragraph

7of the Recommended Order. The Hearing Officer set 7of set Mother's earning capacity at

$40,000/year. See See Paragraph 22of the Recommended Order. The Hearing Officer also

recommended that that "this case should be relisted for review review in 120 days to get get aaclearer dearer picture

Plaintiffs actual earnings based on change in profession of the Plaintiff's profession (life (life insurance sales) or some

other profession." td. other profession, Id. The Plaintiff decided not not to wait for further review further revi ew and and filed filed a a Demand for

a De Novo. a Hearing De

At the start of At of the De Novo Hearing Hearing, this court asked the Plaintiff why she appealed the

Recommend Order. Recommend Order. N.T. N.T. at S. The responded that the hearing The Plaintiff responded Officer had set hearing Officer set her her

earning capacity too high. Id. She testified rve earning "I've never in my over $20,000[/yr.]." my life made over $20,000[/yr.]." ld. Id.

After aabrief discussion, After discussion, the Plaintiff agreed to to defer to Defendant's counsel counsel for prosecution of

the De Novo Hearing. Id. The Plaintiff agreed to to let the Defendant's counsel go go forward to

4 4

41 "clarify things." Id. Counsel for the Defendant argued her case in three parts. N.T. 18. First, she clarify

Plaintiffs earning capacity.N.I.29-54, made argument on the Plaintiff's capacity. 4 N.T.29-54. Second, she argued an alleged

"double dipping" by the court. double 22- 24. Third, she claimed the court erroneously court, N.T. 16, 18, 22.-24.

included in the Defendant's 2023 income a a bonus the Defendant never received,'N.T. received.' N.T. at 10, 15,

18.

Defendant's counsel prosecuted the De prosecuted the De Novo Appeal Appeal and and presented presented her case/arguments

without any interference from this court. This court did not prohibit counsel for the Defendant

from raising any issue, presenting any evidence, or calling any witness. Every witness called by

the Defendant testified. Every document submitted for admission by Counsel for the Defendant

was admitted. The court made an independent and de novo review of the evidence. evidence, The

Defendant simply did not meet his burden or prove his case.

This court reviewed the guidelines based on the evidence presented at the De Novo

Hearing. This court's findings were consistent with the Hearing Officer's May 12, 2023,

Order. N.T. 54-56. Recommended Order. This court affirmed the Recommended Order,

Ili. it. Standard of review

°The Defendant had an expert witness testify at «The at the De Novo Hearing. N.T, N.T. 29-54. The expert had performed aavocational assessment of the Plaintiff. N.T, N.T. at 37. The Defendant's expert testified testified that in his opinion the Plaintiff had an earning capacity of about about $ 40,000. The court asked the Defendant's expert if If he felt the Plaintiffs Plaintiff's earning capacity would be in the the $35,000 responded "correct." to $40,000 range and he responded correct." N.T. at 49. The Hearing Officer set set the Plaintiffs Plaintiff's earning capacity similarly at $ 40,000. N.T. at 50. The Plaintiff did not appeal to the Superior Court, and Defendant did not raise the Plaintiffs Plaintiff's earning capacity in its Statement of Matter¢ Matters Complained of. Complained of. SCounsel for the Defendant does not raise 'Counsel raise this issue on appeal. appeal, The record is is however clear that the hearing officer set the Defendant's 2023 support obligation on his base earnings only- "no Bonus." See footnote 2 2 above. This court set the Defendant's Obligation base on the Defendant's 2023 w-2 W-2 and the other relevant income information supplied by by the Defendant.

42 Itit is well-settled that a a trial trial court's support order should only only be disturbed on appeal appeal "if if

the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground." 8rickus Brickus v. Dent, S 5A.3d 1281, 1284 1284 (Pa. (Pa.

Super. 2010). The Super. The findings of aatrial court must be accepted if they are supported by competent

evidence. Id. Trial courts have broad discretion that should only be disturbed if there was an

Insufficient evidence was presented to sustain the support order, abuse of the discretion or insufficient order. Id.

An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment. It requires aashowing that the trial

court in reaching aaconclusion overrode or misapplied the law, or that that the judgment exercised is

by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, shown by

prejudice, bias, or ililll will. Id., citing Mackay • prejudice, v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529, 533 533 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2009)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted]; omitted); see also M.E.W. M.F.W. v. • W.L.W., 240 A.3d 626, W.LW., 240 626, 634 634

(Pa. Super. Super. 2020).

IV. IV, Discussion and Analvsis Dlscusslon Analysis

The complaints or Issues by the Defendant on appeal issues raised by appeal are without merit, and this

court's Order of April April 12, 2024, should be sustained.

A. This court did not A, not in any way restrict, limit, or interfere with the Defendant's arguments or the presentation of of Defendant's case at the De Novo Hearing.

Counsel for the Defendant presented the Defendant's case at the De Novo Hearing without

any restrictions or interference from the court. N.T. at 5. witness the Defendant called S. Every witness

was allowed to to testify. testify. Every document or piece of of evidence the Defendant presented, even

admitted into evidence. The trial court did not hearsay, was admitted not restrict, restrict, limit, or or interfere with with the the

presentation of Defendant's case in any way. Defendant's Counsel chose not to produce the

Defendant's tax returns, even after the trial court asked about them twice. twice. N.T. at 11-12.

6 ' 43 Defendant's counsel chose not to introduce introduce any documents or evidence showing what each

party received in equitable distribution. distribution, Defendant's counsel did not produce, reference, or

offer Into into evidence any Property Property Settlement Agreement or final Equitable Distribution Order. Order

Defendant's counsel chose not to call the Defendant to testify under oath about his income or

what was considered or awarded in equitable distribution. distribution, The Defendant failed to meet his

burden through through no error of this court.

B. The trial court calculated the Defendant's income and support obligations based on g. the testimony and evidence evidence presented at the De Novo Hearing and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, therefrom.

This court calculated the parties' incomes and Defendant's support obligation based on the

evidence that was presented at the De Novo Hearing. The Plaintiff's Plaintiffs earning capacity was set

based on the testimony of Defendant's expert witness. he The Defendant's income was set based

on his W-2s and other income information the Defendant presented at the De Novo Novo Hearing.

The Defendant's expert set Plaintiffs earning capacity set Plaintiff's capacity at $40,000/yr. N.T. at 49-50. The

Defendant's expert's opinion was consistent with the finding of the hearing Officer. Officer."6This court

set the Defendant's income and calculated the Defendant's support obligation based on the

official income documents documents (W-2s) by the Defendant. The w.2s (w.2)} presented by W-2s presented at the De

Novo Hearing were consistent with the information presented before the Hearing Officer. Since

this court and the Hearing Officer used consistent information, both calculated/found

consistent support obligations. Consistency does not demonstrate an error or an abuse of of

discretion.

The court asked the Defendant's expert if he felt the Plaintiff's ·The 6 Plaintiffs earning capacity would be in the $ 35,000 to $40,000 range, and he responded the $35,000 responded "correct." correct" N.T. at 49. 7 7

44 Our Supreme Court has directed that in calculating calculating aaparent's parent's financial obligation obligation to support support

his his children "a "a court must must make aathorough thorough appraisal of the [parent's] earnings ...." [parent's] actual earnings ..."

Mascaro v. Mascaro, 803 A.2d 1186, 1194 1194 (PA. (PA. 2002). The court is to consider all sources of the

Defendant's income Defendant's 7MacKinley income.' MacKinley v. Messerschmidt, 814 A.2d 680, 681 814 A.2d 681 (Pa. 2002). (Pa. Super. 2002)

providing his tax returns, the Defendant thwarted this court's ability By not providing ability to thoroughly thoroughly

appraise his actual earnings appraise earnings and/or income from from all sources. This case has been pending pending since

2021. 8he 2021.' The Plaintiff did not object, nor did she ask for for aadelay to obtain Defendant's tax returns, returns.

This court moved forward and set the Defendant's support obligations based on the

information and evidence presented.

The The Defendant Defendant in in this case case is an an experienced attorney. The Defendant was experienced attorney. was also also represented represented

by highly capable by capable counsel who often appear who often appear before this this court. Despite Despite all this knowledge and all this and

experience, the experience, the Defendant did did not not bring bring to or present present at aaDe Novo Hearing copies copies of of tax tax

"Income" come" is is defined defined as including: including: compensation for services, services, including, but not not limited limited to, to, wages, salaries, bonuses, bonuses, fees, fees, compensation in compensation in kind, commissions commissions andand similar similar items; items; income derived derived from from business; business; gains dealings in property; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; gains derived from dealings income from income life insurance from life insurance and and endowment endowment contracts; contracts; all forms forms of retirement; retirement; pensions; pensions; income from discharge discharge of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership partnership gross gross income, income in income respect o€ in respect of a decedent, income a decedent; from an income from an interest interest in in an estate or an estate or trust; military trust; military retirement benefits; railroad railroad employment employment retirement retirement benefits; benefits; social social security security benefits; benefits; compensation; unemployment temporary and permanent disability benefit; workers' compensation; unemployment compensation; other compensation; other entitlements entitlements toto money money or lump sum or lump sum awards, awards, without without regard to regard to source, source, including including lottery lottery winnings; income tax winnings; income tax refunds; insurance compensation refunds; insurance compensation or or settlements; awards settlements; awards or or verdicts; and any form of of payment payment due to to and and collectible collectible by by an individual regardless individual regardless of source. source. 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C$. $§ 4302 4302.

The effective date of this order was 2021. The matter has been pending "The 8 pending for almost 2 2X % years years as of as of the date date of of the the De Novo Hearing. De Novo Hearing.

8 8

45 returns for for the years in in question. This This court requested the Defendant's tax returns at least

twice. Defendant's counsel deflected each request or attempted attempted to change change the subject. N.T. at

11-12. This court concludes 11-1this concludes that the the Defendant's Defendant's failure failure to to introduce his tax returns was tax returns

intentional. This court drew a intentional, anegative negative inference from the Defendant's failure to produce his

returns. This court tax returns, court inferred that the Defendant had other sources of income not reflected

on his W-2s that would have appeared on his tax returns. The other sources possibly included

investment income, equity equity or partnership partnership disbursements, disbursements, tax free free income, income, etc. The The parties

failed to provide provide sufficient evidence evidence for the court to impute a a specific amount of additional

income .9

C. The Defendant failed to prove prove or produce any evidence demonstrating that the Defendant's $115,000.00 bonus received in 2022 and included in Defendant's in his 2022 W-2 was treated as amarital asset in as a in the parties' divorce and distributed as as part of Equitable tqultable Distribution.

In January of 2022 the Defendant received a a bonus from his employer in the amount of

$115,000.00. N.T.at 22. 22. The The bonus bonus was was reflected in the Defendant's 2022 W-2. N.T at at 23.

Counsel for the Defendant repeatedly argued without any supporting evidence that the

$115,000 $115,000 bonus had been treated treated as aamarital asset In in the parties' divorce and distributed as as

Equitable Distribution. Counsel for the part of Equitable argued that including the bonus in the Defendant argued

Defendant's income constituted impermissible impermissible "double double dipping." dipping." N.T. 22-24. Counsel argued

that it was that was an an error to to include the the bonus bonus as as a a marital asset asset in in the the divorce and as income for

support purpose.

Despite Despite these arguments, arguments, the Defendant failed to provide any any evidence to to support his his

9 fIf parties obtain additional information or evidence, it can be addressed via aamodification modification.

9 9

46 argument. The Defendant did not introduce into evidence an executed Property argument, Property Settlement

Agreement or a a final Equitable Distribution Order. Defendant's counsel did not call her client client or

the Plaintiff to testify under oath about the financial terms of the parties' divorce. Without Without

proof to the contrary, this court calculated the Defendant's income and support obligation

based on the Defendant's W-2, the only official income or tax reporting reporting document presented by

the Defendant. Defendant.

V. v. Conclusion Conclusion the reasons set For the above the Defendant's appeal should be dismissed and this court's set forth above

April 12, 2024 Order should be sustained.

BY THE COUR

RICHARD H. LOWS, J.

47 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Alexandra Alexandra ]Junkin, unkin, attorney for Appellant, certify that the

attached brief complies with the provisions or Rule of Appellate

Procedure 2135, based on the calculation by the word processing

system used to prepare such brief.

Resp ectfully submitted, Respectfully ' RAF,AERE RAFiA� PUPPIOPUPPIO

Dated: }

Ve / I x - u' iin, n, Esquire A to , ey ID.: 322708 Attor 1• 1 W. Third Street Media, PA 19063 610-891-6710 alex@RaffaelePuppio.com alex@RaffaelePuppio. com