J-A07024-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BRIDGET M. GAUSSA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
RICHARD C. CRAWFORD
Appellee No. 1324 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered August 26, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Court at No: FD 08-004098
BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, * JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 27, 2017
Appellant, Bridget M. Gaussa (“Mother”) appeals from the August 26,
2016 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (“trial
court”) granting Richard C. Crawford’s (“Father”) exceptions to an order of
child support. Upon review, we quash the appeal as interlocutory.
The procedural and factual history of the matter is undisputed. Briefly,
following Father’s petition for modification of support, a hearing officer held
a support hearing on April 11, 2016. The hearing officer made findings of
fact and determined that Father’s support should be based on his earning
capacity as a biomechanical engineer rather than his actual income as a
bartender. The trial court issued an interim support order on April 11, 2016.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A07024-17
Father filed timely exceptions on April 28, 2016, and Mother timely filed
cross-exceptions on May 6, 2016. The trial court entered an order on
August 26, 2016, granting Father’s exceptions, remanding the matter to the
hearing officer to determine Father’s actual income, and denying Mother’s
exceptions. On September 7, 2016, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal
and concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. The trial court
issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on October 24, 2016.
Preliminarily, we must determine whether this appeal is properly
before this Court. Pa.R.A.P. 311(f) provides an interlocutory appeal as of
right from “an order of a common pleas court or government unit remanding
a matter to an administrative agency or hearing officer for execution of the
adjudication of the reviewing tribunal in a manner that does not require the
exercise of administrative discretion.” Pa.R.A.P. 311(f). As the remand in
this matter is to recalculate support using Father’s actual earnings, rather
than an earning capacity, the hearing officer is required to make factual
findings. Thus, because the hearing officer’s discretion is to be employed
making such finding, the order is not final. See Arguelles v. Pennsylvania
Bd. of Probation and Parole, 892 A.2d 912, 913 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2006)
(“If a local agency must engage in fact-finding to determine an award
calculation, administrative discretion is involved, the order is not final, and
thus, the appellate court must quash the appeal.”) (citation omitted).
Therefore, we must quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-2-
J-A07024-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/27/2017
-3-