Webster, C. v. Webster, H.

J-S37019-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CAROL A. WEBSTER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

HAROLD D. WEBSTER

Appellant No. 2099 MDA 2013

Appeal from the Order entered October 25, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No: 2006-3802

BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2014

Appellant, Harold D. Webster, appeals pro se from an order imposing sanctions for his repeated filing of frivolous motions in this divorce case. We affirm.

During divorce proceedings, a master issued a final report with recommendations r June 13, 2011, the divorce master filed his report with the trial court. The coversheet of the report informed Appellant that he needed to file any

filed within the ten [sic] (20) day period, the Court shall receive the report, and if approved, shall enter a final decree in accordance with the recommendations contained in instructed Appellant how to file exceptions. Appellant filed no exceptions,

J-S37019-14

and the trial court entered a final divorce decree confirming the report on August 2, 2011.

Appellant has repeatedly filed motions in the trial court and a civil lawsuit in another co Appellee to request sanctions. On October 23, 2013, after a hearing, the precluding Appellant from filing any further motions except this appeal. Stewart v. Foxworth, 65 A.3d 468, 471 (Pa. Super. 2013). A court has authority to order a par

2503(7). Furthermore, a party cannot use pro se status as a shield to thwart sanctions for papering the courts with frivolous filings. See Winpenny v. Winpenny, 775 A.2d 815, 816 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2001).

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning that Appellant is obviously trying to re-litigate a matter that was finally decided three years ago. See Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 3/18/14, at

-2-

J-S37019-14

erred.1 Instead of asking us to reverse the order imposing sanctions, he has con the very conduct that lead to the sanctions in the first place. The relentless fees. See, e.g., Miller v. Nelson, 768 A.2d 858, 862 (Pa. Super. 2001). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court for the imposition of sanctions upon Appellant for his attempting to litigate the same claims over

and over again and expecting a different result. See Stewart, 65 A.3d at 2

____________________________________________ 1

reproduced record violate the following Rules of Appellate Procedure, among others:

- Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (statement of scope and standard of review); - Pa.R.A.P. 2114 (statement of jurisdiction); - Pa.R.A.P. 2116 (statement of questions involved); - Pa.R.A.P. 2117 (statement of the case); - Pa.R.A.P. 2118 (summary of argument); - Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2151-54 (form and contents of reproduced record).

Appellant also makes no legal argument, cites no legal authority, and asks pro se status does not excuse compliance with applicable rules of procedure. Winpenny v. Winpenny, 775 A.2d at 816 n.1. 2 Appellee has requested a remand for imposition of sanctions under

procedurally improper. See Pa.R.A.P. 2751. We recognize frustration with having to defend against repeated frivolous filings by

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-3-

J-S37019-14

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/25/2014

_______________________ (Footnote Continued)

sanctions and a prohibition against further filings (except this appeal) will have a salutary effect on Appellant.

-4-