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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J. FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2014
This matter returns to us following a remand in which the trial court
was asked to file a supplemental opinion explaining the reasoning for
Husband’s $2,000.00 attorney’s fee award.1 Husband sought $16,000.00 in
attorney’s fees, the Master recommended no fees be awarded and the trial
court awarded Husband $2,000.00 in attorney’s fees. Husband contends he
is entitled to a greater amount. The trial court has obliged us and supplied
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
In our original decision, filed July 29, 2014, we addressed Husband’s seven
issues on appeal. We affirmed six of the issues on the basis of the sound
reasoning of the trial court. We remanded on the issue of attorney’s fees,
not because the award was inherently improper, but only because the
reasoning supporting the award was left unstated. Without the trial court’s
reasoning, we could not determine whether there had been an abuse of
discretion.
J-A02020-14
the requested supplemental opinion. Following a review of that decision and
in light of our prior decision in this matter, including a thorough review of the
certified record, we affirm.
We will not restate the factual or procedural history of this matter.
However, we note that this decision is meant to be read in conjunction with
our prior memorandum.2 See Perry v. Perry, 363 EDA 2013, filed
7/29/2014.
As stated, the Master recommended denial of Husband’s claim for
$16,000.00 for attorney’s fees. The Master’s report noted the extensive
amount of support Wife has provided to Husband throughout the separation
and divorce as well as the delays attributed to Husband which operated to
extend those support payments. While the trial judge agreed, in large part,
with the Master’s findings, the judge nonetheless awarded Husband
$2,000.00 toward attorney’s fees.
In justifying this particular amount, the trial judge stated:
This Court awarded counsel fees because, if not granted,
Husband would not be able to appropriately defend his rights.
Wife’s counsel has described Husband as a “malingering spouse”
who has only been delaying this matter. However, due to the
disparity in income and earning capacity, this Court deemed
attorney fees as commensurate under the facts and case law.
Ultimately, this Court awarded Husband $2,000.00 of the
requested $16,000 for two reasons: 1 – due to the monetary
____________________________________________
2
As stated in the prior decision, our standard of review in such matters is for
abuse of discretion. See Braderman v. Braderman, 488 A.2d 613, 615-16
(Pa. Super. 1985).
-2-
J-A02020-14
disparity, it allows Husband to defend his rights pursuant to case
law, and 2 – had counsel fees not been awarded, this litigation,
and others similar, would intolerably frustrate the judicial
system’s attempts to achieve finalized divorce decrees.
Supplemental Opinion, 8/29/2014, at 2.
Considering the certified record, relevant law, and the trial court’s
stated reasoning, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
determination to award Husband $2,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
Order affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins the memorandum.
Judge Strassburger files a dissenting memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/18/2014
-3-