Maurer, D. v. Curran, W.
This text of Maurer, D. v. Curran, W. (Maurer, D. v. Curran, W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-A01002-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
DAWN D. MAURER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WALTER CURRAN, JR. : : Appellant : No. 1426 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered May 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2021DR00468
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2024
Walter Curran Jr. (Father) appeals from the order, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Bucks County Domestic Relations Section (DRS), holding
him in civil contempt for willful failure to pay $1,317.61 of unreimbursed
medical expenses, for his two children, as a part of child support. After review,
we affirm.
In light of our disposition, we provide only a truncated, relevant history
of the proceedings. On March 9, 2010, the parties entered into a marital
settlement agreement, and were divorced by decree on April 16, 2013. On
March 22, 2023, the trial court entered a modified support order. Eight days
after the entry of this order, the DRS filed a petition for contempt against
Father for failing to pay unreimbursed medical expenses in the amount of
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A01002-24
$1,437.61. On May 11, 2023, the trial court conducted a contempt hearing,
after which the trial court found Father in contempt and ordered that Father
be remanded to the Bucks County Correctional Facility for six months.
Additionally, the trial court ordered that Father may purge his contempt by
paying the overdue unreimbursed medical expenses in the amount of
$1,317.61. Father paid immediately and purged himself of his contempt.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Father and the trial court
have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Prior to addressing Father’s claims, we observe that the certified record
before this Court contains no transcripts. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (if appellant
fails to take action required by appellate rules and Pennsylvania Rules of
Judicial Administration for preparation of transcript, appellate court may take
such action as it deems appropriate); see also Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d
622, 623 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“it is the responsibility of the [a]ppellant to supply
this Court with a complete record for purposes of review”) (emphasis in
original). “[A] failure by an [a]ppellant to [e]nsure that the original record
certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review
constitutes a waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined.” Smith, 637 A.2d
at 623-24; see also Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944, 950 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(reiterating appellant’s responsibility to produce complete record for appeal);
see also Love-Diggs v. Tirath, 911 A.2d 539, 541 (Pa. Super. 2006) (finding
waiver of issue on appeal where appellant failed to include necessary
information for appellate review in certified record).
-2- J-A01002-24
Instantly, Father included a Request for Transcripts in his Notice of
Appeal, as required by Rule 1911(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a) (“appellant shall
request any transcript required under this chapter in the manner and make
any necessary payment or deposit therefor in the amount and within the time
prescribed by Rules 4001 et seq. of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial
Administration”). However, Father only requested the transcripts “for the
hearings held on March 8, 2013[,] and October 31, 2013.” See Notice of
Appeal and Request for Transcript, 6/5/23, at 1. As we noted supra, the
instant contempt proceedings originated in 2023. Moreover, no transcripts
appear in the certified record before this Court. Accordingly, we are
constrained to conclude that Father has waived his claims. See Smith,
supra; Love-Diggs, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d).
Order affirmed.
Date: 3/11/2024
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Maurer, D. v. Curran, W., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurer-d-v-curran-w-pasuperct-2024.