J-A25035-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
OLIVIA J. CASSELL, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GABRIEL B. CASSELL,
Appellant No. 741 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered February 25, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No.: 13-09733
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
Appellant, Gabriel B. Cassell (Father), appeals pro se from the
February 25, 2014 order overruling and dismissing his April 25, 2013
Objection to Registration of Foreign Order. Appellant claims fraud. We
affirm.
The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case in
pertinent part as follows:
On April 9, 2013, the Domestic Relations Section of the
Court of Common Pleas [of] Montgomery County[] issued a
Notice of Registration of Order–(UIFSA)[1] case, in this matter.
The Notice incorporated by attachment a March 31, 2006
[f]indings of [f]act, [c]onclusions of [l]aw, and [o]rder for
[j]udgment from Ramsey County, Minnesota[]. On April 25,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. ¶¶ 7101-7901.
J-A25035-14
2013, [Father] filed an [o]bjection . . . . because “the order was
obtained by fraud” and “the issuing tribunal lacked personal
jurisdiction over [Mother] and the child.” [(Objection to Foreign
Order, 4/25/13, at unnumbered page 2).]
(Trial Court Opinion, 5/07/14, at 1).
The trial court held a hearing on February 7, 2014. On February 25,
2014, the court overruled and dismissed Father’s objection. Father timely
appealed on March 6, 2014.2
Father raises one issue for our review: “[Father] wishes to raise a
single issue in this brief–the question of fraud.” (Father’s Brief, at 5).3
“In reviewing a decision concerning the registration of a foreign
support order, our standard of review is whether the trial court manifestly
abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Simpson v. Sinclair,
788 A.2d 1016, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 806 A.2d 862 (Pa.
2002) (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
2
Pursuant to the trial court’s March 11, 2014 order, Father filed a Rule
1925(b) statement on March 21, 2014. The court entered its Rule 1925(a)
opinion on May 7, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
3
Father’s brief fails to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
2111(a), which states in relevant part: “The brief . . . shall . . . [contain a]
[s]tatement of the questions involved . . . [and] a copy of the statement of
errors complained of on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), (11); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Because we are able to discern the crux of Father’s
argument on appeal, we decline to find waiver. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(authorizing quashal where substantial briefing defects); see also
Commonwealth v. Levy, 83 A.3d 457, 461 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(declining to find waiver where omissions do not impede review).
-2-
J-A25035-14
Here, Father argues that, “[w]hether [Father’s] minor child and
[Mother] were residing in Ramsey County, Minnesota or in Anoka County,
Minnesota, is clearly a question of fact.” (Father’s Brief, at 5). He
continues, “[Mother] and her attorneys, as well as Ramsey County[,] had
repeatedly maintained that [M]other and minor child resided in Ramsey
County when the case was filed. [Father] has maintained that the claim of
residence in Ramsey County is fraud and that the order was obtained by
fraud.” (Id.). This issue lacks merit.
It is well-settled that: “[r]es judicata, which is also known as claim
preclusion, holds that a final judgment on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction will bar any future action on the same cause of action
between the parties and their privies.” Rearick v. Elderton State Bank,
97 A.3d 374, 380 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Furthermore,
“[r]ecognition of a judgment entered in one state by a sister state is
mandated by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution and the
Full Faith and Credit Act.” Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v. Fin.
Software Sys., Inc., 99 A.3d 79, 82 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
Here, the record reflects that Father has raised the issue of fraud and
lack of jurisdiction with the family court in Ramsey County, Minnesota and
the Minnesota Court of Appeals, based on Mother’s subsequent move to
Anoka County. (See N.T. Hearing, 2/07/14, at 6-7, 11, 15-18, 21-24, 26-
28, 33, 38, 42; see also Mother’s Hearing Exhibit 8, Minnesota Order,
1/30/09, at 2, 4-6). In response, the Minnesota courts have repeatedly
-3-
J-A25035-14
found that Mother did not commit fraud, and jurisdiction and venue are
proper in Ramsey County. (See N.T. Hearing, 2/07/14, at 6-7, 11, 15-16,
23; see also Mother’s Hearing Exhibits 2, 7, and 8; Minnesota Order,
3/21/06, at 2; Minnesota Order, 7/26/07, at 2-3; Minnesota Order, 1/30/09,
at 1, 6 (“[Father] raised the issue of venue and jurisdiction on appeal to the
Minnesota Court of Appeals.”); Cassell v. Cassell, 2008 WL 2651425,
unpublished opinion (Minn. App. July 8, 2008)).
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that
Father has previously litigated his issue in Minnesota and res judicata
prohibits him from re-litigating the issue in Pennsylvania. (See Trial Ct. Op.,
at 7-11; N.T. Hearing, 2/07/14, at 14, 17-18); see also Rearick, supra at
380; Louis, supra at 82. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion or commit an error of law in overruling and dismissing Father’s
objections. See Simpson, supra at 1017. Father’s issue on appeal does
not merit relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/31/2014
-4-