Santo, S. v. Batterman, C.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 21, 2025
Docket3258 EDA 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of Santo, S. v. Batterman, C. (Santo, S. v. Batterman, C.) 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.

Bluebook
Santo, S. v. Batterman, C., (Pa. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

J-A14011-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Silvia Santo : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : : v. : : : Chad Batterman : No. 3258 EDA 2024 : Appellant : :

Appeal from the Order Entered November 18, 2024 And the Order Entered December 6, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County At No. 2024-DR-00154

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 21, 2025

Chad Batterman, Appellant, appeals from the orders entered on

November 18, 2024 and December 6, 2024, filed by the Court of Common

Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In the November 18, 2024, Order, the

trial court denied Batterman’s petition for modification of child support and

denied his request for in forma pauperis status. In the December 6, 2024,

Order, the trial court found Batterman in contempt for failing to pay child

support although he had the financial ability to pay.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A14011-25

Batterman filed a “STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON

APPEAL” on January 2, 2025 in the trial court, and stated that he was

requesting review of the November 18, 2024 Order. This statement is five

pages and contains 27 paragraphs in a rambling, incohesive fashion.

Batterman filed a second statement on January 7, 2025, addressing the Order

of December 6, 2024. This statement is eight pages long with 49 paragraphs

and is mostly confusing and incoherent, raising issues which date back to the

inception of the support actions and not related to the issues addressed in the

December 6, 2024 Order.

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure No. 1925(b) requires, when

ordered by the trial court, “a concise statement” of the errors complained of

on appeal. A concise statement which is too vague to allow the trial court to

identify and address the issues on appeal is the functional equivalent of no

concise statement. Statements which are too lengthy create confusion for the

trial court, and inhibit meaningful review.

Pursuant to our Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant “shall set

forth only those errors that the appellant intends to assert” in the concise

statement of matters complained of on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i).

Moreover, an appellant’s 1925(b) statement “shall concisely identify each

error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the

issue to be raised for the judge[,]” and it “should not be redundant or provide

lengthy explanations as to any error.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii), (iv). Any

-2- J-A14011-25

issues “not raised in accordance with the provisions of [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)]

are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

Batterman’s brief is largely nonsensical and lacks conformity with the

Rules of Appellate Procedure. The caption of Batterman’s brief states that he

is appealing the November 18, 204 Order, however, on page 1 of the brief, in

Section II, “ORDER OR OTHER DETRMINATION IN QUESTION” he cites the

December 6, 2024 Order. In Section VI, “SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT &

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT” he addresses the November 18, 2024 Order. Even

applying a liberal construction of the brief due to his self-represented status

does not remedy many of the brief’s inadequacies, thereby precluding

meaningful appellate review.

Despite these deficiencies, which could have resulted in this appeal

being quashed, we elected to review the merits of Batterman’s arguments, as

best we can discern them. Following this review, we find that the trial court,

per the well-written and comprehensive Opinion filed by the Honorable James

M. McMaster on February 3, 2025, thoroughly analyzed the issues and

correctly concluded that the aforementioned Orders should be affirmed.

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion dated

February 3, 2025, which is attached hereto.

The Prothonotary is directed to remove this case from the Argument List

of June 3, 2025.

Orders affirmed.

-3- J-A14011-25

Date: 5/21/2025

-4- Circulated 05/19/2025 01 :41 PM Circulated 0rt 0X 05/19/2025 01:41 PM V' OU . I-

(t%.mck- dEd IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF BUCKS BUCKS COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY DIVISION FAMILY DIVISION

SILVIA SANTO SILVIA SANTO NO.: 2024-DR-00154 NO.: 2024- DR- 00154 Appellee Appellee +,

;I

v. V. PACSES:267116855 PACSES:267116855 ,,i BATTERMAN CHAD BATTERMAN CHAD Appellant Appellant I OPINION OPINION Appellant, Chad Appellant, Chad Batterman Batterman("("Father), pro se, moving pro Father"), moving from two appeals from se, appeals two i orders by by this this Court. Court. The The first first isis an an Order Order entered entered by by this this Court Court on on November November i orders :1 18,2024 18, 2024denying denyingboth bothFather's Father'sPetition Petitionfor forModification Modificationof ofSupport Supportand andInInForma Forma lj PaperisPetition. Pauperis Petition.The Thesecond secondappeal appealisisfrom fromthe theOrder Orderdated datedDecember December6,6,2024, 2024, !1 which found which found Father Father inin contempt. contempt. For For the the reasons reasons discussed discussed below, below, we we I recommendour recommend ourOrders Ordersbebeaffirmed. affirmed. !i BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

Mother,Silvia Mother, SilviaSanto Santo("Mother") ("Mother")and Fatherare andFather arethe thenatural naturalparents parentsofoftwo two

minorchildren: minor children:C.B., C.B.,born bornon October 4]2015 onOctober#* 2015and andD.B., D.B.,born bornononOctober $ OctoberIs li I.

2017. 2017.

This case This case was was bought bought inin Bucks Bucks County County byby being being·transferred transferred from from

Court ofofCommon County Court Philadelphia County Philadelphia Common Pleas. Pleas. AAPhiladelphia Philadelphia Order Orderdated dated [/ 26,2023 September26, September 2023directed directedFather Fathertotopay $674.48per pay$ 674.48 permonth monthplus plus$ 51.00 $51.00inin

arrears.Through arrears. ThroughananOrder Orderdated datedApril 25,2024, April25, 2024,this thisCourt Courtregistered registeredthe the : l OrderNumber SupportOrder ForeignSupport Foreign Number17-01602 17-01602issued issuedbybythe thePhiladelphia PhiladelphiaCounty County 1\ Courteffective Court effectiveAugust 23,2023, August23, 2023,which whichdirected directedFather Fathertotopay pay$674.48 $674.48per per month month

forfor thechildren, the children,with witharrears arrearsofof$28,575.23. $28,575.23. 11 On June 20, 2024, a Petition for Contempt was filed Father. As of against Father. As of On June 20, 2024, aPetition for Contempt was filed against

that date that totaled $$29,924.19. arrears totaled date arrears 29,924.19.

Father filed a Father filed modification petition a modification on August petition on 2, 2024. August 2, 2024.

Father filed his petition for in formapauperis Father filed his petition for in forma on November 7, 2024. pauperis on November 7, 2024.

Father filed his first appeal on December 5, 2024, from the Order dated Father filed his first appeal on December 5, 2024, from the Order dated

November 18, 2024 in which this Court denied Father's Petition for Modification November 18, 2024 in which this Court denied Father's Petition for Modification

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Calibeo v. Calibeo
663 A.2d 184 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Commonwealth v. Cannon
954 A.2d 1222 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Portugal v. Portugal
798 A.2d 246 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Nicholson v. Nicholson
371 A.2d 1383 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
In Re Paper-Writing Purporting to Be the Will of Bartles
19 A.2d 17 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1941)
Hyle v. Hyle
868 A.2d 601 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Habjan v. Habjan
73 A.3d 630 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Picchianti
600 A.2d 597 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Santo, S. v. Batterman, C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santo-s-v-batterman-c-pasuperct-2025.