J-S25039-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
GEORGE SEAMAN, JR., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LISA A. SEAMAN,
Appellant No. 1931 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered October 23, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County
Civil Division at No.: A.D. No. 32 of 2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MAY 06, 2015
Appellant, Lisa A. Seaman (Wife), appeals from the order of equitable
distribution. Wife asserts that the order failed to provide economic justice
and greatly favored her former husband, Appellee, George Seaman, Jr.,
(Husband). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
The parties were married on March 31, 2006. (See Special Master’s
Report, 8/26/14, at 3). Both were born in 1963. It was the second
marriage for each. They separated in December of 2012. The marriage
produced no children.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S25039-15
Both parties are high school graduates, and are in apparent good
health. During the marriage the couple lived in property already owned by
Husband. Wife also owned pre-marital residential property (consisting of a
mobile home on real estate) in West Virginia.
Husband is employed in the family cattle trading business, G. William
Seaman, LLC, started by his parents. During the marriage, Husband
acquired a 49% ownership interest in the business. Wife became employed
in the family business as well, but did not acquire any ownership interest.
Following the separation, Wife’s employment was terminated. She has since
obtained part-time employment elsewhere at a lower salary.
During the marriage Husband and Wife also operated their own cattle
business, 2SCattle. They used a line of credit, a home equity loan, and
profits to finance the purchase of cattle for their business. After the
separation, Husband began operation of 2SCattle for himself, as the Bill
Seaman Cattle Company.
The special master held a hearing on May 5, 2014. After the hearing
he submitted a report and recommendations. Wife filed exceptions. The
trial court denied the exceptions in its order granting divorce and equitable
distribution. (See Order, 10/23/14, at unnumbered pages 1-4). The overall
scheme of the equitable distribution was to award Wife 53% of the marital
estate and 47% to Husband. (See id. at unnumbered page 3; see also
Special Master’s Report, at 26).
-2-
J-S25039-15
Wife filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on
November 6, 2014. This timely appeal followed on November 20, 2014.1
Wife presents six questions for our review:
I. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in awarding
the marital residence to Husband, when Husband clearly has the
greater earning capacity and is more capable of obtaining
another mortgage given that Wife remained in the home during
separation?
II. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in failing to
direct Husband to reimburse Wife for all Husband’s personal
expenditures from marital funds, including but not limited to,
payment of federal and state income tax assessed on an asset
that was found by the master to be Husband’s non-marital
asset?
III. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in reducing
the equity in the marital residence by speculative costs and
expenses such as realty transfer tax and real estate agent
commission when there was no direction that the real estate be
sold?
.
IV. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion by
considering the value of the Wife’s premarital real estate
together with the value of a mobile home thereon when those
items were transferred to Wife separately in making an
assessment of increase in value of the asset(s)?
V. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in failing to
direct Husband to pay to Wife some portion of her counsel fees
and expert expenses?
VI. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in failing to
consider that both marital funds and marital loan accounts were
____________________________________________
1
The trial court did not order a statement of errors. The court entered an
order on December 2, 2014, adopting and referencing the Special Master’s
Report as explanation for its final order and decree. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3-
J-S25039-15
used to purchase livestock that formed part of the marital
estate?
(Wife’s Brief, at 4-5) (most capitalization omitted).
Wife argues that the overall scheme of equitable distribution failed to
provide economic justice. (See id. at 7). She maintains that the trial
court’s decision, which generally adopted the Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation, was highly favorable to Husband and detrimental to her,
and should be vacated. (See id. at 18). We disagree.
We review an equitable distribution order for an abuse of
discretion.
A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an
award of equitable distribution. Our standard of review when
assessing the propriety of an order effectuating the equitable
distribution of marital property is whether the trial court abused
its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow
proper legal procedure. We do not lightly find an abuse of
discretion, which requires a showing of clear and convincing
evidence. This Court will not find an abuse of discretion unless
the law has been overridden or misapplied or the judgment
exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in
the certified record. In determining the propriety of an equitable
distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme
as a whole. We measure the circumstances of the case against
the objective of effectuating economic justice between the
parties and achieving a just determination of their property
rights.
Reber v. Reiss, 42 A.3d 1131, 1134 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 62
A.3d 380 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted). Similarly, “[o]ur scope of review
requires us to measure the circumstances of the case against the objective
of effectuating economic justice between the parties in discerning whether
-4-
J-S25039-15
the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedure.”
Gates v. Gates, 933 A.2d 102, 105 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
Here, preliminarily, we observe that the argument in Wife’s brief
consists principally in the presentation of a collection of objections to the
order with the implicit common theme that the case should be remanded for
her to receive a more favorable result. (See Wife’s Brief, at 7-18).
However, Wife fails to develop an argument that the allocations of which she
complains are the result of a misapplication of the law or failure to follow
proper legal procedure.
Furthermore, aside from a few (four) citations to caselaw, mostly for
simple recitation of general principles, Wife fails to support her claims with
pertinent precedent, or develop any arguments that the trial court’s decision
in any way violated controlling authority. (See id.; see also Husband’s
Brief, at 3) (“The issues raised by Wife . . . are simply not supported by any
legal precedent, caselaw, or record created in this case.”).
Therefore, Wife has failed to make the required showing of an abuse of
discretion by clear and convincing evidence. See Reber, supra at 1134.
Nor has she demonstrated how the law has been overridden or misapplied or
that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in the certified
record. (See id.; see also Wife’s Brief, at 7-18).
-5-
J-S25039-15
We recognize that Wife’s disappointment is general and palpable.
Nevertheless, we conclude that she has not demonstrated an abuse of
discretion. Moreover, we decline Wife’s implicit invitation to re-weigh the
arguments in her six claims to afford her a more agreeable result. We are
also mindful that the scheme of distribution is to be considered as a whole,
not piecemeal. See Reber, supra at 1134. Under our standard of review,
none of Wife’s claims merit relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/6/2015
-6-