Perry, L. v. Perry, W.

J-A02020-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LINDA MARIE PERRY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WAYNE J. PERRY Appellant No. 363 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered December 28, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2009-FC-1619 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J. FILED JULY 29, 2014 claims do not entitle him to relief, and that this case should be remanded for counsel fees. However, because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award receive but did not, I respectfully dissent. It is well- pension funds accrued during marriage is marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Endy v. Endy, 603 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, the parties and the trial ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A02020-14 pension. When the pension initially entered pay status, Wife received 100% of the marital portion of her pension, and Husband received nothing. Husband requested that he be awarded these missed payments in his The trial court denied this petition. In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, the trial court justifies this decision by stating that Husband delayed the preparation of a QDRO and the entry of the divorce decree, and that he 12/28/2012, at 15. T initial refusal to sign the QDRO while exceptions were pending cannot be deemed a meritless delaying tactic where, as here, the trial court granted those exceptions in part. Admittedly, Husband did not sign the QDRO immediately after his exceptions were resolved. However, APL was It does not appear that Husband was receiving any sort of financial benefit from Wife after that date, and he would have had no incentive to delay the proceedings unnecessarily. Thus, I conclude that Husband was entitled to the relevant portion of -2-