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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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