Dyachenko, L. v. Vitiaz, S. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A12039-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LYUDMILA DYACHENKO, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SERGI VITIAZ, Appellant No. 1951 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order June 28, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Domestic Relations at Nos.: 2009-27747; 2009-37495; PACSES No. 831111121 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JUNE 25, 2014 Appellant, Sergi Vitiaz (Father), appeals pro se from the order entered in this child support case for the support of his three children with Appellee, Lyudmila Dyachenko (Mother). We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them here. Father raises one question for our review: Is [Father] entitled to an accurate review and reconsideration of June 28, 2013 Support Order and previous unappealable Orders from 2010, 2011 and 2012 (See 718 EDA ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A12039-14 2013) given the supplemental case information, documents and testimony presented or refuted in [c]ourt and in full docket records, in order to have a true, meaningful and realistic support order obligations for his children, and weather [sic] the [c]ourt so abused its discretion from the support guidelines, that the case of extremely inflated Order must be revisited and reversed, by now applying applicable child support law, and in full consideration to the guidelines, facts presented, both by testimony and on record, via formal pleadings/exhibits? Id.). In addition to objecting to the amount of child support, he challenges the information and tax records which he submitted. Father argues he makes substantially less than the trial court concluded he did. (See id. at unnumbered page 12). Our standard and scope of review for an order of child support is wellsettled: When evaluating a support order, this Court may only 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 the 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 Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850, 854 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). -2- J-A12039-14 After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Father has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of all the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, dated August 23, 2013 and filed 8/27/13, at 3-8) (concluding that the trial court: (1) properly imputed earning capacity to Father for the mortgage adjustment; (3) correctly directed payment of child support to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit; (4) imputed proper earning capacity to Father; (5) properly applied procedural rules Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1 through 1910.16-6 in determining child support; (6) did not -21; (7) properly assessed the weight and credibility of the evidence presented; (8) properly determined that Father had the earning capacity to make the required support payments; (9) properly set a 20% increase in the amount ordered until all arrearages are paid in full; (10) properly included findings of facts and procedural history appellate objections to evidentiary rulings during trial were waived for support orders were now timeprior support orders were temporary; (13) properly imputed income and earning capacity to Father based on bank deposits and other financial -3- J-A12039-14 inter alia, on inconsistent financial documentation). Accordingly, we affirm inion, which we incorporate and attach for reference. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/25/2014 -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
