Baumert, C. v. Baumert, M.

J-A28003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

CLAUDIA BAUMERT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MATTHEW BAUMERT : : Appellant : No. 622 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 29, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Domestic Relations at No(s): PACSES: 105114283

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and NICHOLS, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 28, 2025

Appellant, Matthew Baumert (“Father”), appeals pro se from the January 29, 2024, order dismissing his exceptions to the support order. He claims that the trial court’s support order violates the constitution and miscalculated Claudia Baumert’s (“Mother”) income. We affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned trial court opinion.

The trial court thoroughly stated the history of the proceedings before the hearing officer, the trial court, and this Court. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/24, at 1-13. We highlight some notable facts.

On August 5, 2020, Mother filed a complaint for support seeking Alimony Pendente Lite and child support for the parties two minor children. In the initial proceedings before the hearing officer, Father filed a motion to dismiss for Mother’s failure to comply with the discovery order. This motion was denied. On March 11, 2021, the hearing officer issued a recommended order on

J-A28003-24

Mother’s complaint. However, on July 14, 2021, the trial court granted Father’s support exceptions and remanded the matter to the hearing officer to revise Mother’s earning capacity and reconsider treatment of Father’s bonus.

Before the hearing officer, Father again filed a motion to dismiss for Mother’s failure to comply with the discovery order, which was denied. Also, at some point in these proceedings before the hearing officer Father began to assert that he should not have to provide child support since the parties share custody. On January 25, 2022, after a support hearing, the hearing officer issued a recommended order dismissing Father’s motion to dismiss and recommended that Father’s monthly support payment be $226.00 per month, effective January 1, 2022. The support calculation was based on an assessment of Mother’s earning capacity as $60,000 and Father’s gross income for 2021 being $142,581.

Father filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendation. On May 11, 2022, the trial court denied Father’s exceptions. Father appealed the trial court’s May 11, 2022, order to this Court at Docket No. 1543 EDA 2022. However, after the trial court issued its twenty-six-page 1925(a) opinion, Father withdrew his appeal.

The instant appeal stems from Mother filing a modification petition on August 8, 2022. The purpose of the modification petition was to adjust the mortgage credit that Father received for paying the mortgage because Mother was prepared to move out of the residence, and Father was moving back into

-2-

J-A28003-24

the residence. On September 11, 2023, the hearing officer issued her recommendation to remove Father’s mortgage credit and relieve him of paying alimony. This increased Father’s monthly support obligation to $1,019.00 per month. Father filed exceptions that were nearly identical to his previous exceptions.

On January 29, 2024, the trial court dismissed Father’s exceptions. Father timely appealed and filed a court-ordered statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a).

Father raises the following issues on appeal.

1. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DRO SUPPORT ORDER WHERE APPELLANT/FATHER IS A CUSTODIAL PARENT WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL LAW, NAMELY, THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ACT, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION PROVISION IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

2. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT, IN DISMISSING APPELLANT/FATHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHERE APPELLEE/MOTHER CONTINUOUSLY FAILED TO ABIDE BY DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND COURT ORDERS REQUIRING HER TO PROVIDE INCOME INFORMATION TO APPELLANT.

3. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SUPPORT ORDER WHICH ASSESSED APPELLEE/MOTHER WITH A DEFICIENT EARNING CAPACITY OF $60,000 PER YEAR WHERE SUCH EARNING CAPACITY WAS LESS THAN HER ACTUAL EARNINGS FROM MORE THAN 15 YEARS AGO, WHERE APPELLEE/MOTHER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SHE WAS QUALIFIED FOR MANAGEMENT LEVEL POSITIONS AND WHERE SHE

-3-

J-A28003-24

TESTIFIED THAT SHE CHARGED BE[]TWEEN $95 AND $130 PER HOUR AS A PRIVATE CONSULTANT.

Appellant’s Brief, at 7 (numbering provided; suggested answers omitted). 1

“Our review of the trial court’s order is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether there is insufficient evidence to support the order.” T.M.W. v. N.J.W., 227 A.3d 940, 944 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted).

When evaluating a child support order, this Court may only reverse the trial court’s determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note that the duty to support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child’s best interests.

Id. (brackets omitted; citation omitted).

After reviewing the record, Father’s brief, and the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford’s comprehensive and well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, we conclude that Father’s issues merit no relief. The trial court correctly analyzed each issue raised by Father, and thus, we adopt the trial court’s analysis. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/24, at 24-31 (refuting Father’s argument that child support may only be imposed on a non-custodial parent); see id. at 20-21 ____________________________________________ 1 In his appellate brief Appellant narrows his arguments to these three issues.

We note that in his concise statement he purported to raise sixteen issues for our review. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/24, at 14-16.

-4-

J-A28003-24

(concluding that the hearing officer did not err in denying Father’s motion to dismiss because Mother provided the necessary financial records to calculate her earning capacity); see id. at 21-24 (recounting the evidence that supported the hearing officer’s finding that Mother’s yearly earning capacity was $60,000; crediting Mother’s testimony regarding her current job; and rejecting Father’s attempt to establish Mother’s yearly earning capacity to be between $112,500 and $153,000 where Mother never earned that amount).

Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion. 2

Judgment affirmed. Date: 1/28/2025 ____________________________________________

2 The trial court requests that we remand the matter for the trial court to impose attorney’s fees. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/24, at 37-39. The position of the trial court is very understandable; however, we decline to do so, particularly because Mother did not file an appellate brief in which she requested attorney’s fees.

-5-

2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf Circulated 01/14/2025 01:34 PM

2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf 2013-DR-02341_Entry_Number_0098.pdf