Ciferni, J. v. Ciferni, C. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A22004-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOHN CIFERNI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. CAROLYN CIFERNI, Appellee No. 574 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered January 12, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2007-01131 PACSES No. 711109200 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2018 John Ciferni (Father) appeals from the January 12, 2018 order that reduced the child support arrearages to zero dollars owed by Carolyn Ciferni (Mother) to Father for the period between May 20, 2007 to May 21, 2009, when Mother was incarcerated.1 Following our review, we affirm. Father raises the following issues for our review: 1. Was it error on the part of the [t]rial [c]ourt to fail to take into consideration that [Mother], at the time of the [h]earing, had income and assets awarded in the parties’ [d]ivorce/[e]quitable [d]istribution [h]earing which were more than sufficient to pay a child support obligation while [Mother] was incarcerated[?] ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Mother has not filed a responsive brief. J-A22004-18 2. Was it an abuse of discretion on the part of the [t]rial [c]ourt in determining that marital assets, that were in the custody of the [d]ivorce [c]ourt while [Mother] was incarcerated, were not foreseeable assets in spite of the fact that the parties in [c]ourt had held the issue of incarceration arrears in abeyance until the divorce action was concluded[?] Father’s brief at 5. Initially, we note that our standard of review over the modification of a child support award is well settled. A trial court’s decision regarding the modification of a child support award will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion, namely, an unreasonable exercise of judgment or a misapplication of the law. See Schoenfeld v. Marsh, 418 Pa. Super. 469, 614 A.2d 733, 736 (Pa. Super. 1992). An award of support, once in effect, may be modified via petition at any time, provided that the petitioning party demonstrates a material and substantial change in their circumstances warranting a modification. See 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 4352(a); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.19. The burden of demonstrating a “material and substantial change” rests with the moving party, and the determination of whether such change has occurred in the circumstances of the moving party rests within the trial court’s discretion. See Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609, 807 A.2d 830 (2002). Plunkard v. McConnell, 962 A.2d 1227, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008). We have reviewed the certified record, Father’s brief, the applicable law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Dominic F. Pileggi of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, dated April 25, 2018. We conclude that Judge Pileggi’s extensive, well-reasoned opinion correctly disposes of the issues that have been raised by Father. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Pileggi’s opinion as our own and affirm the order on appeal on that basis.2 ____________________________________________ We direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings. 2 -2- J-A22004-18 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/12/18 -3- Circulated 11/19/2018 02:51 PM
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.
