Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause

No question identified. : QUESTIONS TO BE PRESENTED The Lower Court incorrectly granted Judgment (Contempt of Court) in favor of the Plaintiff (Wife) where genuine issues of material fact exist which were timely raised and objected to by the Defendant. eg Contempt of Court for performing a Realty appraisal based upon the date of sperate instead of current date. ° The main issue is — Why are “some” assets valued up to the date of separation (DOS), eg bank accounts, 401K and other assets such as Realty Property valued to date of sale which can be years “after” the date of separation. PA rule 3501 and 3505 do not differentiate between assets when it comes to date of separation. In this instance the lower Court Judge applied arbitrary dates to assets which resulted in incorrect asset values which affected the financial outcome for Mr Anyika. If Rule 3501 and 3505 is i followed it would have been a fair and equitable to both parties. Mr Anyika should not be found Contempt of Court for following Rule 3501 and 3505 which clearly states appraised values of assets are to be based upon Date Of Separation regardless of the asset. This is an ongoing problem that should be resolved promptly. Defendant (Yusufu Anyika) request consistency in the Rule 3501 and 3505 because it has detrimental financial impact to him. Defendant objected to Plaintiff (wife) obtaining ownership of the properties due to Contempt of Court. Defendant objected to selling of his house/properties i PARTIES TO PROCEEDING 1. Defendant Yusufu Anyika 2. Plaintiff Cecelia Francis-Anyika