J-S25019-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CRAIG S. MARKELY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ABBY E. JONES, WILLIAM K. JONES : No. 199 WDA 2022 AND BARBARA A. JONES :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD-21-6750
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: AUGUST 30, 2022
Craig S. Markely (“Appellant”) appeals from the Order entered in the
Allegheny Court of Common Pleas on January 25, 2022, denying a permanent
injunction and awarding custody of Koda and Oakley, two Pembroke Welsh
Corgi dogs, to Abby E. Jones (“Appellee”).1
We glean the following factual and procedural history from the trial
court’s Opinion and the record. Appellant and Appellee lived together from
February 2018 to March 2021 in Appellant’s home. During the relationship,
Appellant purchased Koda on November 30, 2019, as a Christmas present for
Appellee; in May 2020, they purchased Oakley together with Barbara Jones,
Appellee’s mother, contributing a significant amount of the funds. ____________________________________________
1 Appellant’s counsel, Jill A. Devine, Esq., filed an Application to Withdraw as Counsel on July 26, 2022. We grant counsel’s application, effective thirty days after the date of this Memorandum’s filing. J-S25019-22
In March 2021, when the couples’ relationship ended and Appellee left
the residence, Appellee took Koda and Oakley with her to live at her parents’
house.2 Appellee subsequently obtained two Protection from Abuse orders
against Appellant based on allegations that Appellant had physically abused
her and was harassing her. During a search of Appellant’s home, police
officers found several firearms. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with
weapons violations, harassment, and assault.3
On June 15, 2021, Appellant filed a civil complaint against Appellee
seeking money damages for alleged property damage and removing contents
from his home, as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On June 17, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief seeking the
immediate return of both dogs.
On July 1, 2021, the court held a hearing on the motion. Appellant
testified that he had purchased both dogs, and that Koda was his emotional
support dog, certified as such by his therapist with whom he met regularly at
the Wellness Recovery Center where he was in treatment for drug and alcohol
addiction, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Appellant’s counsel informed the
court that Appellant was scheduled for sentencing in August 2021 for multiple
felonies and a simple assault in an unrelated matter. See generally N.T., ____________________________________________
2 Appellant named Appellee’s parents, Barbara and William Jones, as defendants in his complaint.
3 Appellant pled guilty to those charges and was sentenced on March 30, 2021, to 11 and ½ to 23 months’ incarceration following by 7 years’ probation and no contact with the victim (here, Appellee).
-2- J-S25019-22
7/1/21, at 5-30. Appellee’s counsel presented evidence of Appellant’s
previous convictions for felony crimen falsi offenses.
Appellee testified that both Koda and Oakley belonged to her, stating
that Appellant gave Koda to her as a Christmas gift, and she and her mother
had purchased Oakley with their own funds with a contribution of $200 from
Appellant. She also testified that she paid for both dogs’ vaccinations and
veterinarian bills, and that Appellant did not license the dogs until after she
had filed the PFA against him. She further testified that the only reason
Appellant is listed as the owner of Oakley is because she was holding the
puppy while Appellant handled the transaction with the seller. Appellee also
testified that she was afraid Appellant would harm the dogs because during
arguments, he had threatened to kill the dogs. She also stated that she had
seen Appellant abuse another dog, Bella, who lived with Appellant’s mother
and that Appellant had recently purchased a new dog, Axel. See id. at 32-
45.
The court entered a preliminary injunction on July 1, 2021, placing Koda
with Appellant and Oakley with Appellee pending eventual hearings on a
permanent injunction and damages. See N.T. Hearing, 7/1/21, at 48.
Discovery ensued.
On October 8, 2021, Appellant discontinued his action by Praecipe and
Appellees filed a motion requesting that Appellant discontinue his injunction
action and return Koda to Appellee or that the court maintain jurisdiction and
resolve the injunction action.
-3- J-S25019-22
On January 15, 2022, the court held a hearing solely on the permanent
injunction and the ownership of Koda. According to the trial court, the
testimony essentially mirrored the testimony provided at the July preliminary
injunction hearing and Appellees proffered copies of Wellness Recovery Center
records indicating that, contrary to Appellant’s testimony at the preliminary
injunction hearing, Appellant had not undergone treatment which led to the
alleged certification of Koda as his Emotional Support Dog. Appellant admitted
that he had had a single visit with a therapist for a biopsychosocial assessment
in March of 2020, and that he did not receive treatment at the Wellness
Recovery Center; rather, he only transported patients. Tr. Ct. Op., 4/14/22,
at 5-6.
Appellee testified, inter alia, that she had never heard Appellant’s claim
that Koda was his therapy dog until the July 2021 preliminary injunction
hearing. Appellee’s father testified that Koda was a Christmas surprise from
Appellant, and that Appellant had approached him at one hearing and
suggested that, in the event Appellant is incarcerated, Appellee would care for
Koda. See id. at 6.
On January 24, 2022, the court denied Appellant’s request for a
permanent injunction and awarded Koda and Oakley to Appellee, directing
Appellant to return Koda to Appellee immediately.
-4- J-S25019-22
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.4
Appellant raises the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the trial court’s reasons for awarding both dogs to Appellee are discernable from the record?
2. Whether the trial court’s decision to award both dogs to Appellee was supported by the evidence?
3. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding both dogs to Appellee?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
We address Appellant’s issues together.5 Appellant summarily asserts
that the reasons for the court’s decision “are not discernable from the record”
because “[n]o reason was given for the [c]ourt’s reversal regarding the dog
____________________________________________
4 After the court entered its order awarding custody of Koda and Oakley to Appellee, Appellant refused to return Koda. On February 11, 2022, Appellee filed a Motion for Contempt against Appellant for refusing to return Koda. On February 18, 2022, Appellant’s counsel presented a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal, which the court denied. The court granted Appellee’s Motion for Contempt that same day and ordered Appellant or anyone in possession of Koda to return Koda to Appellee no later than February 19, 2022, and to post a bond of $1,000.00.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S25019-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CRAIG S. MARKELY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ABBY E. JONES, WILLIAM K. JONES : No. 199 WDA 2022 AND BARBARA A. JONES :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD-21-6750
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: AUGUST 30, 2022
Craig S. Markely (“Appellant”) appeals from the Order entered in the
Allegheny Court of Common Pleas on January 25, 2022, denying a permanent
injunction and awarding custody of Koda and Oakley, two Pembroke Welsh
Corgi dogs, to Abby E. Jones (“Appellee”).1
We glean the following factual and procedural history from the trial
court’s Opinion and the record. Appellant and Appellee lived together from
February 2018 to March 2021 in Appellant’s home. During the relationship,
Appellant purchased Koda on November 30, 2019, as a Christmas present for
Appellee; in May 2020, they purchased Oakley together with Barbara Jones,
Appellee’s mother, contributing a significant amount of the funds. ____________________________________________
1 Appellant’s counsel, Jill A. Devine, Esq., filed an Application to Withdraw as Counsel on July 26, 2022. We grant counsel’s application, effective thirty days after the date of this Memorandum’s filing. J-S25019-22
In March 2021, when the couples’ relationship ended and Appellee left
the residence, Appellee took Koda and Oakley with her to live at her parents’
house.2 Appellee subsequently obtained two Protection from Abuse orders
against Appellant based on allegations that Appellant had physically abused
her and was harassing her. During a search of Appellant’s home, police
officers found several firearms. The Commonwealth charged Appellant with
weapons violations, harassment, and assault.3
On June 15, 2021, Appellant filed a civil complaint against Appellee
seeking money damages for alleged property damage and removing contents
from his home, as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On June 17, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief seeking the
immediate return of both dogs.
On July 1, 2021, the court held a hearing on the motion. Appellant
testified that he had purchased both dogs, and that Koda was his emotional
support dog, certified as such by his therapist with whom he met regularly at
the Wellness Recovery Center where he was in treatment for drug and alcohol
addiction, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Appellant’s counsel informed the
court that Appellant was scheduled for sentencing in August 2021 for multiple
felonies and a simple assault in an unrelated matter. See generally N.T., ____________________________________________
2 Appellant named Appellee’s parents, Barbara and William Jones, as defendants in his complaint.
3 Appellant pled guilty to those charges and was sentenced on March 30, 2021, to 11 and ½ to 23 months’ incarceration following by 7 years’ probation and no contact with the victim (here, Appellee).
-2- J-S25019-22
7/1/21, at 5-30. Appellee’s counsel presented evidence of Appellant’s
previous convictions for felony crimen falsi offenses.
Appellee testified that both Koda and Oakley belonged to her, stating
that Appellant gave Koda to her as a Christmas gift, and she and her mother
had purchased Oakley with their own funds with a contribution of $200 from
Appellant. She also testified that she paid for both dogs’ vaccinations and
veterinarian bills, and that Appellant did not license the dogs until after she
had filed the PFA against him. She further testified that the only reason
Appellant is listed as the owner of Oakley is because she was holding the
puppy while Appellant handled the transaction with the seller. Appellee also
testified that she was afraid Appellant would harm the dogs because during
arguments, he had threatened to kill the dogs. She also stated that she had
seen Appellant abuse another dog, Bella, who lived with Appellant’s mother
and that Appellant had recently purchased a new dog, Axel. See id. at 32-
45.
The court entered a preliminary injunction on July 1, 2021, placing Koda
with Appellant and Oakley with Appellee pending eventual hearings on a
permanent injunction and damages. See N.T. Hearing, 7/1/21, at 48.
Discovery ensued.
On October 8, 2021, Appellant discontinued his action by Praecipe and
Appellees filed a motion requesting that Appellant discontinue his injunction
action and return Koda to Appellee or that the court maintain jurisdiction and
resolve the injunction action.
-3- J-S25019-22
On January 15, 2022, the court held a hearing solely on the permanent
injunction and the ownership of Koda. According to the trial court, the
testimony essentially mirrored the testimony provided at the July preliminary
injunction hearing and Appellees proffered copies of Wellness Recovery Center
records indicating that, contrary to Appellant’s testimony at the preliminary
injunction hearing, Appellant had not undergone treatment which led to the
alleged certification of Koda as his Emotional Support Dog. Appellant admitted
that he had had a single visit with a therapist for a biopsychosocial assessment
in March of 2020, and that he did not receive treatment at the Wellness
Recovery Center; rather, he only transported patients. Tr. Ct. Op., 4/14/22,
at 5-6.
Appellee testified, inter alia, that she had never heard Appellant’s claim
that Koda was his therapy dog until the July 2021 preliminary injunction
hearing. Appellee’s father testified that Koda was a Christmas surprise from
Appellant, and that Appellant had approached him at one hearing and
suggested that, in the event Appellant is incarcerated, Appellee would care for
Koda. See id. at 6.
On January 24, 2022, the court denied Appellant’s request for a
permanent injunction and awarded Koda and Oakley to Appellee, directing
Appellant to return Koda to Appellee immediately.
-4- J-S25019-22
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.4
Appellant raises the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the trial court’s reasons for awarding both dogs to Appellee are discernable from the record?
2. Whether the trial court’s decision to award both dogs to Appellee was supported by the evidence?
3. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding both dogs to Appellee?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
We address Appellant’s issues together.5 Appellant summarily asserts
that the reasons for the court’s decision “are not discernable from the record”
because “[n]o reason was given for the [c]ourt’s reversal regarding the dog
____________________________________________
4 After the court entered its order awarding custody of Koda and Oakley to Appellee, Appellant refused to return Koda. On February 11, 2022, Appellee filed a Motion for Contempt against Appellant for refusing to return Koda. On February 18, 2022, Appellant’s counsel presented a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal, which the court denied. The court granted Appellee’s Motion for Contempt that same day and ordered Appellant or anyone in possession of Koda to return Koda to Appellee no later than February 19, 2022, and to post a bond of $1,000.00. The order also provided that Appellees may contact law enforcement to assist them in the return of Koda and that any law enforcement officer had to the authority to seize Koda and return him to Appellees. The record does not indicate whether Koda now resides with Appellee.
5 Our review of the grant or denial of a final or permanent injunction “is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law.” Buffalo Twp. v. Jones, 813 A.2d 659, 663–64 (Pa. 2002).
-5- J-S25019-22
Koda.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. Appellant also argues that the court’s decision to
award the dogs to Appellee after the permanent injunction hearing is not
supported by the evidence.6 Id. Appellant avers, without citation to the
record, that he “presented clear evidence of ownership for both dogs: titles,
payment receipts, veterinary records, and dog licenses, all of which are in
Appellant’s name.” Id. He also boldly asserts, without citation to the record,
that he presented documentary evidence that Koda was certified as his
emotional support dog. Id. at 7-8. Finally, Appellant argues, again without
citation to the record or legal authority, that the court abused its discretion in
“revers[ing] its own decision regarding the dog Koda and award[ing] both
dogs to Appellee . . . [b]ecause no Appellee established a ‘clear right of relief’
to either dog[.]’” Id. at 8. We find Appellant’s issues waived for the following
reasons.
Appellant’s brief suffers from substantial defects that hamper our ability
to provide meaningful review of his issues. The brief includes no citations to
the record or to legal authority to support Appellant’s claims, as required by
our rules of appellate procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (setting forth argument
6 Appellant mischaracterizes the trial court’s decision as a “grant of a mandatory injunction,” citing case law to support his claim that Appellee had the burden of establishing her clear right to relief. Appellant’s Br. at 7. In fact, the court’s order denied the permanent injunction requested by Appellant. Because Appellant had requested the injunction, he had the burden of establishing a clear right to relief. Buffalo Twp., 813 A.2d at 663.
-6- J-S25019-22
briefing requirements, including “discussion and citation of authorities” and
“reference to the place in the record where the matter refers to appears”). In
addition, the brief presents no legal analysis at all and includes only self-
serving summary statements essentially requesting this Court to reweigh the
evidence.
Appellant’s brief is so deficient that in order to address the issues that
Appellant raises on appeal, this Court would have to articulate the factual and
legal basis to support those issues. This court cannot act as counsel for
Appellant and advocate on his behalf. 9795 Perry Highway Mgmt., LLC v.
Bernard, 273 A.3d 1098, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2022). Further, “[w]hen
deficiencies in a brief hinder our ability to conduct meaningful appellate
review, we can dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived.”
Id. See also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“if the defects . . . are substantial, the appeal
or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”).
Additionally, it is well-settled that it is an appellant’s responsibility to
ensure that the record certified to this Court is complete. Commonwealth v.
Holston, 211 A.3d 1264, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc). Without a
complete record containing documents pertaining to the issues raised on
appeal, this Court is unable to review their merits and will deem the issues
waived. See, e.g., id. at 1276-77 (finding issue waived where the
Commonwealth as the appellant failed to provide a complete certified record).
-7- J-S25019-22
The certified record in this appeal does not contain the transcript from the
January 15, 2022 hearing.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant waived his challenges to the trial
court’s decision because (1) Appellant has filed a deficient brief that fails to
address the legal and factual basis for the challenges to the trial court’s
decision and (2) has failed to provide us with a complete record. We, thus,
affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for an injunction and
awarding custody of the dogs to Appellee.
Order affirmed. Application to Withdraw as Counsel granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/30/2022
-8-