J-S60018-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CORENA A. GLOSEK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
KENNETH JOHN GLOSEK
Appellant No. 2218 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order entered November 12, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
Civil Division at No: CV-2005-1695
BEFORE: OTT, STABILE, and JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 29, 2014
Appellant, Kenneth John Glosek, appeals from the order entered
November 12, 2013 holding him in contempt of court. We are constrained
to dismiss this appeal, because Appellant’s counsel failed to request
transcription of the contempt hearings.
The record of this interminable divorce and custody case is
interspersed with multiple petitions and citations for contempt, including one
citation against Appellant for lying under oath during a divorce master’s
hearing. This specific appeal concerns two contempt petitions filed by
Appellee, Corena A. Glosek, one counseled and one pro se. She claimed
Appellant was in violation of a January 30, 2012 trial court order, which
incorporated the reports of a special master regarding custody of the parties’
child and distribution of their marital property. After hearings on April 17
J-S60018-14
and November 6, 2013, the trial court entered an order finding Appellant in
contempt and sentencing him to 30 days in the county jail with purge
conditions. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence of record fails to
show that he intentionally violated the January 30, 2012 court order.1
Appellant, however, did not request transcription of the April 17 and
November 6, 2013 hearings when he filed his notice of appeal, or at any
time before or after filing his appeal. Not surprisingly, no transcripts of
those hearings appear in the certified record.
“For purposes of appellate review, what is not of record does not
exist.” Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355, 359 (Pa. Super. 2000). It is an
appellant’s burden to request transcription of relevant trial court proceedings
when filing an appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 904(c), 1911, 1921; Weissberger v.
Myers, 90 A.3d 730, 734 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting an appellant has the
responsibility to “ensure that complete record is produced for appeal”).
Generally, an appellant who fails to ensure that an adequate record exists
waives appellate review. Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 623-34 (Pa.
____________________________________________
1
Orders imposing coercive sanctions for civil contempt generally are final
appealable orders. Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 487 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Civil contempt requires proof that the contemnor intentionally, and with
wrongful intent, violated a court order of which he had notice. Id. at 489.
We review a finding of civil contempt for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 488-
89.
-2-
J-S60018-14
Super. 1993). Specifically, where an appellant fails to order relevant
transcripts, an appellate court may dismiss the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1911(d); see also In the Interest of R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361, 363 (Pa. Super.
2012) (dismissing appeal from decree terminating parental rights where lack
of transcript precluded meaningful appellate review); Gorniak v. Gorniak,
504 A.2d 1262, 1263-64 (Pa. Super. 1986) (dismissing an appeal because
appellant failed to request transcription of divorce master’s hearing).
Because Appellant failed to ensure that a sufficient record exists,
appellate review is impossible.2 We cannot determine whether the trial court
abused its discretion without the record on which it based the finding of
contempt. Although dismissal is an extreme remedy, here we have no
choice because Appellant’s counsel failed to follow clear, mandatory Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See Gorniak, 504 A.2d at 1264 (“Since the appellant
has not complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and we have no
record before us on which to conduct our review, we shall dismiss the
appeal.”).
Appeal dismissed.
____________________________________________
2
We cannot consider the portions of parties’ briefs that recite what
happened at the contempt hearings. “[A]n appellate brief may not be used
to prove a fact missing from the certified record.” Sevin v. Kelshaw, 611
A.2d 1232, 1239 n.3 (Pa. Super. 1992).
-3-
J-S60018-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/29/2014
-4-
Glosek, C. v. Glosek, K.
Combined Opinion