J-A12034-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ANDREW J. DSIDA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
HEATHER J. ESPOSITO
Appellant No. 1480 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree September 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Court at No(s): F.D. 13-006046-001
BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and RANSOM, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2017
Appellant, Heather J. Esposito, appeals from the divorce decree
entered on September 12, 2016. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural
posture of this case. As the trial court explained:
The parties married on June 14, 2003 and on January 9,
2013, the stipulated date of separation (DOS), the Plaintiff,
hereinafter Husband, filed a divorce complaint. [Appellant]
filed claims for economic relief and began receiving
$20,000[.00] per month in support pursuant to an interim
order entered on April 8, 2013 and the issue was deferred
to equitable distribution for final resolution. . . .
[A] judicial conciliation on equitable distribution was held on
June 18, 2014. By consent order dated August 28, 2014[,]
the parties stipulated to the DOS and the second
conciliation and hearing regarding the DOS were cancelled. .
..
J-A12034-17
For a little over four [] months there was no action on the
case until Husband filed a praecipe for a judicial conciliation
on equitable distribution which was held on February 17,
2015. A second conciliation was scheduled for May 19,
2015 and at the request of [Appellant,] it was continued
until July 14, 2015 based on her argument that Husband
had not turned over discovery in a timely manner. . . .
On the day of the conciliation[, Appellant] was unprepared
[because she had] discharged her attorney who had been
representing her for over two [] years. She desired new
counsel and requested another continuance of the judicial
conciliation. The request was denied but [Appellant’s]
counsel was permitted to withdraw and the case was
ordered to the Master for trial on the pending economic
claims. . . .
A three [] day trial was scheduled to take place on [October
26, 27, and 28, 2015] before Master Chester Beattie. In
September [] 2015[,] a series of motions were presented to
the [trial] court regarding discovery and requests for [a]
continuance. . . .
The Master’s report and recommendation was issued on
December 15, 2015[,] followed by an amended report and
recommendation on December 30, 2015. [Appellant] and
Husband filed timely exceptions and cross-exceptions [],
and after briefs and argument [the trial] court entered an
order on July 6, 2016[,] remanding the [case to the Master
for] the single issue of the calculation of Husband’s 2015
monthly income. . . . Husband’s exception to the Master’s
alimony pendent lite (APL) award was granted and it was
ordered that [Appellant] was to receive monthly support
consistent with the April 8, 2013 interim order pending
exceptions and final order. All other exceptions and cross-
exceptions were denied. . . .
On August 8, 2016, Master Beattie issued his second
amended report and recommendation wherein Husband’s
2015 monthly income was recalculated resulting in a
monthly APL award of $91,938.52 to [Appellant]. Prior to
the order becoming final, a wage attachment was issued for
this new support award. Husband petitioned in [motions]
[c]ourt on August 23, 2016 and asked the court to order
-2-
J-A12034-17
that the wage attachment be reset to $20,000[.00] per
month consistent with [the trial] court’s July 6, 2016 order.
The motion was granted and retroactivity was preserved.
On September 12, 2016[,] a divorce decree was entered
from which [Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal].
Trial Court Opinion, 12/22/16, at 2-4 (internal footnotes and some internal
capitalization omitted).
Appellant raises four claims on appeal:
[1.] Whether the [trial] court committed errors of law and
abuses of discretion in not compelling full discovery once
[Husband] admitted that full disclosures were not
contractually prohibited as had been represented to the
court, contrary to the [trial] court’s order, with full
discovery having not been produced with only [17] days
until the Master’s hearing?
[2.] Whether the [trial] court committed an abuse of
discretion in awarding [Appellant] only 55% of the marital
estate when Husband earned in excess of at least 135 times
[Appellant’s] imputed earning capacity and Husband’s non-
marital estate had increased to be almost equal to that of
the marital estate between the date of separation and the
Master’s hearing in less than three years?
[3.] Whether the trial court committed abuses of discretion
in not awarding Appellant rehabilitative alimony and
reinstating APL during the appeal?
[4.] Whether the [trial] court committed abuses of
discretion in not awarding Appellant counsel fees, costs, and
expenses?
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (some internal capitalization omitted).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the
certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial
court judge, the Honorable Mark V. Tranquilli. We conclude that there has
been no error in this case and that Judge Tranquilli’s opinion, entered on
-3-
J-A12034-17
December 22, 2016, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s
issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Tranquilli’s
thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or
any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of
Judge Tranquilli’s opinion.
Decree affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/2017
-4-
Circulated 05/23/2017 12:59 PM
:JN. :r-11'.E COURT Of':C()~:¥.(:).fiLPLEAS-OFALLE(HIE~Y cottNtY~ J~ltNN.S){LVANIA.
- -· - FAMILYD.I.ViSlO~t .
NQ.; P.D .. 13-006046-0:ll
PLAINTiFF'
.·· , , . . . ~-. : . . #.1480
'SUPERIOR'COURT . . . ·WDA
. . .. .
. . . 2016,.
Vs,..
.O.PINION'BY:
....... - .·
'··:
JIEAtHERJ.
...... - . . . . ESPOSITO
•. ,.. . .... . , :
J(J])GE MARK Y~· TRANQUILLI
COPIES·
. .....
. SEN!TTQi
·. ... . .
.
CQt]NSEL_FORPLAINTIFF:
).it~i-g~e.f P.. J'qy. ::es.q~
.McCarthy, McDona1d;Schuloetg .&Joy
535:SmithfiekI·Stre~t ·· · ·
.Bq1J~ ~~(J: '{Ieilcy. Qli Y.¢r Btiildi~g
Pittsburgh,
··,
PA 15222 . •'
-Rob~rt L. Garber, Esq.
355: Fifth Avenue ·
Suite 605 :eai:kJ~µiidJ~g ·
r-bt$burgh\ P.A f5.242~2407
·(.",
·~
LLl ":,::,:·
.u, .
··...... ... -s·uPERIOR'
. .. . .... . . . COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. ·-
--u.
,,: ·.· .. ~. . . ...
-.J (!..;;
PROTHON.OTA:RY
u
.... ·
u..:
C'~
. . GRAN1SmBt
3:10 . . . . - ' ..... ,.1sufrE
- ...,.. .. eoo . ....
.. ~i PI'i'TSBlJRGH'·PA
_,, ... _.. . .. ,. . ,'" 15219
"
~
:lN T:IIE COP.RT OF COMMON::PL'EAS OF ALLE.GllE'l'fY. ·CQ.tJNTV; :PENNS.:Yi.-VAN.IA
;F\~N.lltX Ji.lVIS'ION . . .
..
AND.REWJ; DSIDA N..O.·. f.J).. (3.:()06()46-0.11 •·
soeeRmR co.tJRT. #t4so WDA ·2016.
PLAINTIFF,
v«
.HEATHERJ'. ESPOSiTO~-
DEFENDANT·
.. . . -·· .,.
OPINION
Decembe't er, 2016
TheDefendant,' h~rein.~ri~r'Wffe,.appeais from the:Piv_orce: Decree-entered on Se.pt~mber
i2,-., 2016.,
.
.A Nonce of Appeal
...~ .
w.as: filed. on October .3-,.. 201Q: and-on
..
O~\Qper fl, . ;ZQ i6 Wife· wa~:
orderedto file ~:C.~ncis~-Statement of Matters.Complained of.on A:Ppeal. .A concise stat~ment
Was filed oh October 31,. ·2Qt6 ,Wh~r~iQ:W,'jfe. GQmp{ajns·of.,d)irteen,( l3Jertprs. The Court will.
addresa themin the opirrion.that follows.
RELEVANT msTOR:Y
·'
The-parties: mM-ti.J ~moJ.ij_Qe .Vh .2003 and .on· January 9 •. ·201 J~; the-stipulated date :of
.~ep_afijti6.il (DOS)I the. Plaintiff, .hereinafter Husbanq,JiJ~g ~ ;Di\'~~~e Co.m.p.faf()t, Wife :fiJ~d . ,
claims for ecommii.c .r~ifof:anCii 'began' reeeivi{lg $20;0001-,et month In.S-\ipporr puts\iant to· an .
:Interim;Order·eh:tered on.April 8, i? 1.3 30(1.th.~ issue. ~~s: deferred to· equitable. 41s.tribtition;for
·Jin~l J-'.~~9!~tJ~l.l, The:pas~ was or~gµialty :*ssi's.ne·cl to, the Honorable' William Ward. and .after-re- ·
i.
sssignmen; to this .Court, ajudtdal conclliationon equitable· distribution was held (mJu.n~ -1'8·, .
2014.1 By Consent Order. dated A'1gu,st:i.8., '20i4 tti~:p~i;t.i~~ stipu.l~~eg tQ the DOS .and :tne
, :second conciliation and hearing;r~iatdb)g the DOS ·were ·call~elle(l fer a little· over four (4):
rrfomh.~. 'th~rewl;!S no- ~cti~:m orrthe
\
case until Husband 'filed .a praecipe for. a judi_cia.I. c9qciila:t.lo1t
.
on .equuable distribution which .was.held on. Fet,ru~1y-17.~ :2015 •. A second conciliatiortwas ..
scheduled for May, 19\ 20'.15 and .afthe:request .ofWife·inyas continued, t1ntil Julyl4~ ·2015. based
on her ~.rgµJl1:~0.J #1at Husband had.no] turn,ed: over-discovery · in, a timely·Q'lanner,l 'On (Q.~ diiy 0£
the·con:cili~tioil Wife was u.nprepared havint dischat.Md:het attom~y who .bad been.representing'
her.for over ~WO (2) yea.r& .. Sh~, desired new ceunsel and.requested ;~o~er,cQnt,1p.µ;u.1<:;~ .9fth~
judicial conciliation. · The: tef'20t5 a series ,qf motions were, presented Jq the CQ~rt teg~diiig:
di'~~ov~ry @d ;r.:equests,Cor,continuance which will he: addressed 'in further detailbelow as the
ruli'qgs are sUbJtict
:- ·.
to.the present ~PP¢~(
.·
Ih.~ Mii~t~t's ,R~port andJ~~comme11thJtiQn ,wa.s'i:ss.'1ed
on:O.ec:ember 1'.5~ 2015 followed by ,attAmenoed.Rep.o.it and· Rec6mmeiid.ation oitP..e.c~mber 30,
..tots;. W,jfe ;an,d, .aui])a.11.d: fiied timely excep'tions· and cress-exceptions ·respectiveix~. 'and after·
~ . .
briefs and :iltgumeiitthis :Court entered w,Orcier qnJi.ily 6.;,.20-l~J:em~ditig.th~ sipgie }~$.U~, of
~ll~t;@i~µi~tion'.qf Husband's 20J~ -m~nthly;incotiie,back.'to the Master. Husband's exception.to
.the Master's alim.()nype_114.en,t~·iire :(APLYaw.ard was: granted..and' it w~s,or(lered .tl:iat Wife wasto
receive.monthly :s:upport"cohsistent·w.itlt the April 8, -20.13 .Interirn :9rder _pending exceptions and
0
1
:ay;Conserit Qrijer-:dated M~y _49., _2.QJ4·th~ ls~"'~: reganiing the,f Court(b.ocket #42).
.3 ;
final order,I All· other exceptions.
. and.:cross'°\exceptrons.
. . were denied. On.Aug·· ost'.8', 2016; Master
8,l!~~(ie, is,u.ed. his Se~end: Amended.Repori,and· Recommendation whereirr+lusbarrd's' 2015.'
·-1 .• .. . . .. . '. ... .. . ... , - .. . .
monthty in.c9m,· WW! r~c.alc.lJ.l.at~d resulting iIJ a monthly APL ,aw~d,: of. $91 ~9J~~5.2 tQ Wife,
1Priot· to Je Order becoming:fi.hal, ·a wag¢ attachmentwasjssuea for. this new support 'award.
ijusband l.e.titiqh~Jn.Motion' s Court on Augti$t '23',. 2016.andraske.d the .Coun' .to orderthat th~·
I.
wage ~~tb~
. ~~t
. . . . . . . . . . · - . . . -·- · - ·
to ;iq,900 ,p~r month ~n!i$tentwiij! IQ\$ .Court'~ Jµly Q,;29'.QOrd~.
.
-~he·rnot11n was ¥.I~tedand:etro-~~t1v1t~was~preserved. o~ September 12, 2016,a D1voree
Decree w.as.en.J~red
I
from wh1clnh1s .Norice of' _A.,ppeal
..
was filed.
:STATEl\t:IENT ORERRORS':COMPLAINED
- .
·OF :ON APPEAL
l.. . . . . . .
··,tfe"PtitHnes..thirt.~en'·( l3.) :~~or8.tn.her:Cbncis~S~~te~erit:·ofMakers.Complained 'of on
Appeal .. 'Tl he Court 6.n4.$' thaJJoµi:'(4):,p_f t;he·._issµ~s. .are waived as: .th.~y·w.~r~ OQ~ presetv~d.for
~ppeal.an~ will address these'flrst,
J'tO~qOJ:& numberedsix ((!);,;even (7)1 cighi.(8),,arul.f0urteert'(l4)4' all .complain .abour
e~o~:b'~:':~f e Masterin his R~pc;,rt and R~~ortunend.~tiQn made aft~r.(h~)~qu iJa~le Pfat.tjp~_tion
Jria.th~ld In ·QC,fob.:er ·of20J5.; Ifis. well established la.w· that hi 0i'der tr d_ur.ing ~rgi.iment to .allow:for meariingful judi¢ial.review. 'Furthermore, this claim.oferror
0
a:ft.a~~s !1:9r.eci.16-jl.ity jl,ii:lgment rrtitde~by the Masterand as· such is.a meritless claim as. credibiluydeterminatlons win
pot:~~}e.'le{~ecl-op a~peal;_ ;see;B.usse'v.Buss~;. 921 A2d 12~8 atJ 256: (Pa.Sl_!per. 1007);_ .Wopds v. ·Cicierski, 937
A2JJ I 103.:aU 105,.{pa,.Super.2007:)
howeverthe matters ~pecified'iri the. above J~fe.r.~m~ed. errors we;r~ norraised PY· Wife'.s:
Therefore, :~ny l:ssµ.es which' Wlfe faile"d totafse in .her timely ex~~ption~: to die: M~~t~I;,~ .t<~pQrt
and Recommendation ~r.~ w~iyed:.for appeal as..iliey'mlist b.e.:rais·ed .at lhe:first :°-ppQrtunity;
_AfeJ~gt.t.11:.Miil,g:er.,,'634 A2d 1057;:JQ.$6 .(l?:~v.s·~P.er. 19.87).
The Court will.next a.ddr.~ss Wffe'·s. claims.numbered twQ:(~}•. w.~e (~): a;t)g,f<>ur(4.),
Pistrjbutioi1 Trial .and Motion to Compel, The standard ofreview of anorder denying a motion
for ~ continuance Qr related.to discovery is abuse of 4iscreti'ort Baysmore Vi, Brownstein, 77'i
A.2<:l:'54., 5,1- (1?.aJtuper:2001 ), :Commonwe~(m :v. J}'qrtOP.J.;:144: f,\;3.d.13.9 (Pa.Super. '21()6) "An
abuse. of:dis~r~t.i!1n.:,f~. ITTQr.e than just an::ertol'in judgment and.orr a,pp~~l.. tb,e.Jr.i.~l. CQYJtwiff·n.ot:
&~ found to.have .abused its ~i~c;_r<;l(iQ,tbu.nless the record discloses 'that ;the-judgmeht-exei"cised
was; ri1at'.lifesllY;·\JJlt~M0.nab.lei·Ot.thetesuits [sic} ofpa.r:tJ~iJty, w:e)11,dfoe •. bias ot ill-will,"
'Baysmore. ;at 'J7. A~ iri'al courts' have: broad discretion in. det¢rm.ii:itog:.such. .requ_e$t~.Jb~ ml fog§
&h~ulcl' not be disturbed ,~y · an ·app~l.late -court.abaenragparencabuse,ofdis·cretion. Id:
'f:11.!~band is· th~ owner .ofChemADVJSQR., Ine., ~i:id, as Uie· largesi asset. of the marital'
estate iCW.1is, subje~flQ, mqch. l{tigation. Iri March of 40i5' Hu$ban~ provided ernai]
1
cpm.mynlqu.es. ·pettainht$ to,p.etenti~l,s.;d.~~- negotiaiions ,of:ChemAD VlSORin response to· Wif~'-:s
discpvety:requ~&fs.,,notjng that there· have .not- been ;any sales agreements ·Pr letters of:intent
signed byChe.ri'iADVIS.OI{f Thise. negotiatlons. o.eiw.een ChcniADViSQR ~!;!~iv.~~~-
,entities· w~i::~ subjec], lo' a· Non-Disclosure Agr.ee.mei;1f .(ND A.):.and. theref ore, Husband's discoyet)'
'responses :reda<;t~ .th~ 1J.~mes· :of the· prospective companies. AAd employees, pursuant.to that .
Agreement. When.Husband was q~estfol.ied about the. identities ofthese..compani~sduripg)js
5-See Excepp.9_ns:t~:Mastei','S:Reco~endatfon· and Ame'i)ij~q Rec(immeridaiiori fi)ed January 4._ 20l61
6'-- . • • . . ·, ,. .. .
Se~ WtfcfS:~0:tiori:toCompel;dat~ S~p~~m.b~r: 25, zp Hi, Docket #. 51.
5
Iulf 1, 2til5 de{'OsitiOn, liqsfialli!'·~. counsel dJ~ti:!! h.fotnot l\J '-··· In, t.ht$,ffiQtio.l'.l1~h~\-r.~q1,1.~~t~d tlr~t.Hti~bimd be Qr.cl~r~,;l i9 turn 9.v~r me
~!\UC$ lf·r~·~
.namesof µie· businesses that. wete· 'redacted, as: to allow ;Wi'.fe,to sti~poenttandlor .depose these
!JI: order toinvestigate.the. nature of:ihe:epn;pos~
tlie· Court.was made ~weµ:~' th,~~: Husband Was. np }ong~t $ll.:b.$C.t to, tll~ND.A .as to two (2). .of the
"Offers''. Ai ~um~t
·~ompaniel andjhatthose names h11d been provided to Wife1J.tiorto argµfo·ent.7 Soj~~t tQ th.~ No.n~DJ,$~.lc:>~u,r~ t\gre~m~Pl th~, (;;9tirt would
have required Husband to produce the name and did.not prohibit W,ifefrom .using this evidence
at trial fol ,y)We\i~tp~e s~{C(i,necessary, .. . .
A Motion· to.Continue the Equitable.Distribution Tria.l was presented on.the same.date
r~p!e~~nting: that additional time. would be needed In. li~tof the. discovery Wife- was· seeking: i'ri
. . .... I .' . . ., ' . . , -'
her:MotrTi to Compel. Disf:o.~~r,.y -~c;l'b~~~µs~ Wife w~s ;~µffetj.n.g from health: issues, The 'latter
. : ..
was unsufported by.·any attathed decumentatien. Inlight of tbe.Court'srulmgon the Motion to:
~ompe.Ltfwt:fe' sunsubstantiated.health Issues, 'the Court denied to confirm~. the· October trial
I
:6
bu'. extet the discpv!;ff ~wUJ11e and 'likewiseexteniled the due dale· fot. ~~l(aj •$9\!emen\S
m us .O.rd.~1rdate.tl September25. 201~.
·.
oJI ~be.r·- , . 91 20! s, Wlfe )>t¢s~teliis-.tlis.covety'responses and depO\,itiQnJesJ)mgny; Again,
I
the...Court ~~vi.i:ig:revi'ewcd.J:he;attache.d emailsand :4~a.r:~ilg argument from both si~es did not find
.tbat·this nrw -imormafion demonstrated,anythin1t mote than _prelimin;uy -ntgot}:atiQn~-·at ~~s,t. and
were n.Qf~Qna fide· offers ihatWoulcJ be r,~l.~v.tpJ. te a.business valuation. ~utthermote" this
informaticln. was :fo:W.i.f.e~s exelusive possession priorto di~ :dive>rceJHing: and .eonsequ·entfy
,~x~iiable rL h~t duriilg the entir.~:li_ttgation. Her late discovery w.as of her 'QW.P cr~~li<;>n_ ~d- tf.le
I .. .. " . . .
.Cotnt wa~IJ1Qt ,going to further. dela~ .trial~!! ~: .r~s1,1ltof'~er iack of dili~ehce. ;Cdnsistentwith this
C.ourt'·s otder on September '25;. 20l5 ,, Wife was not ptQh-Ipjt~cJ from presenting-this evidence· ·at
q\'!! ftjr·wtaie~er:~utpOie she (el!' ne~~Y' . Irifact, dtitill~· die su11\11l3\)Q11'to:the },!laster by .
Wife··~· c9,pstJ, the ~ontent: !1!:at,the case had
been.in liii,g~tion for.ever two; and .a b.!.\lf(Z
I .
iii)
. .
years, and that mos; of the d¢1ay was -~Ju:.i\:>.tJ.t.~l>Je: .
, .
to. Wff¢ ... Eviden~~,o.{:q¢i:-d.elayiriduded.courtotder$,r~q~lrJng b~rJQ.file herInventorj'; to.
. !'"1"i~,:ditM••r)'tt5g1-6o,E~,~jljlble·D,istiibi.illon Trial tn1ilscript.(Jafeq O~tQl>~ti8~ 20 l5
I . 7 ..
I
" case apptoached trial, A~ the:.tirne: tlw Q:5tittissued th~ :otd~ru,Ji9p·:cm.d. s.µppQit arrearages, . with an 'additional
:$9Z.S:~·3Qlpayable.l5y .tht:~mi of Pe.c~riibet-20f6, 'In liijhH>f:the vasr ~~~}) ~w.ardJQ 'Wifett was
not.an abµ~eof-dis.cret.ionto:,order.a p~yrn.~nt ~~he.dui~ for ine.balant~of arteaI'~$es, .M it
1
:
2
Bee:~9.Q~-~~fd~der date(! September?, ~~) 5.:, ~9~k¢rtt;49.,
.$,~e M~~tef S'.,R.ep,ort.and. Recommendation, l)Qc~e.t:it64. .
13
:S.~C! -~citei:~S. ~-e.~nd::Amen~l:d. ~P.Qrtaft.d: Recoriim.ertdaiion date~. August9' :2.Q:l(j•
.9
I
I
M{rving·9p, the Courfw.iU.address W.if~i,~· ~fabnJh~t,ilie: Court.erred 'in granting
I . .
H~~~'tPetitlort fqr S:_a( Rmm+di!llon. dated Augµ;t'9, 20i'licwhi¢h <;l!!tula~ Husband' s monthly ML obligation tO
be $~l.93r- . A$..a(OSµl~Husbartdasked_~e GO~'!O\_Sslle •W~ge ·~cb~~t~ ~6.ec( the.
'previous ipo.nthly APL: award of:$2Q~OOQ. The Court granted H:usband'.s Petmon agreeU11phat
II . .· . . .
since the:tc.~epd:qn,arid appeal period had riot,Y,eltQJ,i~d.,th~1~revjc;,11s award shouldremain in
.place, · (
'.th~, mafo, purpose of APLJs· to.ensure th;:i~. me:.ftnmc.1al .needsof the dependent, spouse .
. I . . .. · . . . . · · .
. are.met during litigation; $.thenk vi. Sthenk,-·88(fA.2d :633· (Pa.Super, ioo~). -·A.~ :tbe. 'parties
-· I. .. . . . . . - . ... . .' . ., . . . . • . .
agreed.to this-amount pendingequitable-distribution, by the InterimOrder dated April 8,.2013, 1t
was ,t¢asotl:lk for the Coµrt .!Q 11Ss(1111e t11at.$10;()(!0,P,er,ml!ll!h met ih¢rt~ of Wife, Even if,
.µpon revi~w and appli~_aJ~~)li ot theabuse pf discretion standard, th.~,Appell~t~:CQqit:believe,$
I
that tl.le. Trd i
Court erred, .arty eiT9r·,w.~s i:iar!J.lless; as re.froae.tivily: was preserved,
f ff~Js.·C.~;m¢i$.eStatement number·eleven,( Ll), :&h~ assigns error to, the Court's 'failure
In
«> ;,lll'ibQ, Husband with. s tiQ:Q, treated as- both ihcQin]; and a niWtal ;,.,,~t 8dhrer-\J•. Rohrer, 1 U
14
. .see P.~' 4, yte'.qj.i1taole•.[)1~lributio~ l'tial Tr;1_ns9J(?t 'd.at.~IJ· 0ct().b¢t 26~ 20 )5;
! 10
I
I
·:,,.
calculation ef the martialeit~teJ1~ :if-was included in Husband's2013 ,net disposable·'.income;
lo her 12th .assi'gnment,:Wif~ c;9n(~nq~ ·tharth:e Court.erredin awarding W:ife only 55% t5f
the .madta] estat~.• ;~rg•iiJ:rK that the· facts supported: an award l.lPW!rd~ of 100%. of the total estate,
In ~.uppor:t of her· at~umeht, Wif~ .conterrds that Husband's post./fi'eparation estate exceeds the
marital ~$t~te· and, thathis future earning·:···potentia] l~ on track to continue at the .same rate or
htgher. while, Wife is. v.n~Q.1pk1y~d iand suffers from health issues.
.
equitable distribution of marital pr~periy· is "Whether the trial .c;:9µ-11 'ijbu$~d its di'scr~tion: by a
:inis~pphcat-km of the. law orfailure to: f0,}low p1;oper Iegalproeedure." Biese V; Biese, ,C).19-A..!2d
892/895' (P.~~ Super, ,4QQ9).citing, Smith. v. .'.Smtih, .994 .A..icf :15\J 8,;(Pa:.S~uper. 2006). Such a
li_ghtly1Jd.
Title-23' ·§~$0.2(a) provides guidance: tcUn¢ courts iJ.1 determining. equitabledistnbutlorr D}'
pr9v1di.~g.the.followingi:eley~t fa.pt.ors for-consideration:
{).). The length ·ofthe, marriage,
(;2) AnY:Jiriot m~_n:I~ge ofeither·parly ..
(3}Th~·~ge.; h~alth. station', amount. andsources of'income. vocational skills,
~ropfoy~bilH:y;;·estate, 1iabilitiepm;d. needs. of each of the.;parties.
(~} The. contrifiutiort'l>y one p~y:to. the. education, ttaining:-Qr fo9.re~.~~-
eamihg pow~rQttherother:party; · ·
(5)'T4.~ 9pport.upi(y of each party :fQi:ft,i,t~re,~cqUi.$itionsof :c~pital :ass¢ts and
foco:rne.
(6) The sources :of income ofboth. patties, including;..but not'Iimitedto,
't'ne<,ifc,~J. retirement, irtslirartce. or ithe,;~~~n.efits. · ·
(7)The contribution or. di~s~pc)tion.of each -party ittthe-.acquis.tiqn.,
presetv.ation. d~pr~C.ia(ion:cj'r :al)iiredatiort of'the, Il)a.,tlJ!lf proper::t,y, inchlding'th~
contriP.Mtkm·of aparty.as homemaker; · ·
(t,n The value of the. prQperty,s¢t ap,~ to each party.
(9.) '!he: standard of Hv.u:ig: qf die;parlies established «luring the ;m~rrf~H!~··
11
'
ftQ) The ·econo.mic:c.itc:umstan~es ·efea~h party al. 'the time th¢ dtvision of
pr.qp~rty· i's ·t~ .pec.Qm'e;effective.
{l'O'..l) The Federal, State and local tax .ramifications ·4$S.®i~!~g with :~c.h lS~~t
lo. 'be dfv.i<;ied:, di.~trfbuted :or assigned'.,,which .rarnffications nee.d:notbe·
Im.medfate ~a certain, ·· _
(10~2 l The::¢"pense:6f sale; :~a¢;fet, or lrquid.a,tjon. as.s99.iat~d wiUi: ~- p~i¢µl~r
asset'~ \vhicih :exp~n.$¢ n.e~Qri9t ~~ .h:nit).eyth.~'.;p~ie,:; to the· marital.estate, and towards the.other's .educatien.
and tr.~info:g, ·~a in all cases.feund Hti'sband;,s t¢levanrtestim.(:)n"t to· be, more credible.
In-terms of their ~t.aµ~a,.rci ofHv.iiig.the' Master' found that the parties did: not. live· an
ostentanous · Jifestyl'e. Despite, their- wealjh, f.lµ&b.~4 ~es(ifr¢~ th~t.. ho).J.1 parties tpokc;,tr(} 0.ftne
house, ·which foch1ded the. shopping, cooking,
,....
,
cleaning. and yard work. JJ This was ·contr~xy. to
I
Wife, who: testified. to :,1.p9~H~~parati(>.n monthly budget of:approximately $3.S~·ooo which
i'n¢..iucled cos.ts:.111corl'sisterit With the lif~,sty{~ ~~!~PH~b~tl 4.uii_ngJh~; ten {1'0)_ -ye~ marriage •.' Sueh
expen$~S Included, among other things, payin,~ tht>usands ofdo}lars. for a mate assistant 'to travel'
from Flof.ida· :to, dhfo: twice :~ ffi9Qth, :a,nd'.paying_: $5,QO. p:eF month 'f!:>t .dogidaycare::setvitesYi
}'1,1~ermore; Husband was :alteaoy establisfrea in.);11$.- ~~,~~r PI.l.9Jttq W~_ir r.n~rr•lige :~d.
Wjfe did;not 'Work aft~rth.~.ft first year. ofmmfagf!; despite .the factthat .the:parties didnot have
any children., Thus, the· marital estate increased w.ougliJh~ ·efforts. of Husband ~4 by the
ti¢cisioil to l·i¥~, ~- r.c;.Jati~ely frugal Iifestyle, Although Wif~ maintains·.that herheusehold
tEquitable D.istributkmTria:J·Tr!!ri~:<:.r-ipJ d.at~ ·octobei:726;.20.Hi pgs:,ii7~219.,
1f>·Equitiible
DistribtitionTri!l.l. Tti!OSt.tiP.ttlatedQctober'.27,:iC)l'5. pgs. 7,Ja:76, 89-91; 108,~:120,
:12
......
{
contributions. and.earning po.(~I:i.t.i~i became 'more. limited. as .a.resulr ef her.health issues, this
testimQ:Q.y'WijS.-'tmsqpp9r.fe~ :byanymedi¢afexpert Pr.doctJ,r,n~nt~t.ion.,.:a:n~: con$i~te.d·only ef her
own d¢sctiptioii$ of her ~iim~n.t&lsymp.toms;.17 Furthermore, Wife' had
" .. .b~y.l'\..req~ivfag m.9~ihl¥
.
sµpport .o_f $2();000 since .Fe.btui!iy 201)., -~.d fastelid :of sazing 'te.J,tepare,'for her future, chose to·
·._i
spend' the money lo :~µppott ofa .lifestyle.much' more extravagant 'tbaJ1. th~t whkh. she Hved1 .
9W.-ing·the;inatrfage .. Again, W.ife.w~¬ foundtobe·cted1ble.
l~~IJ~.~ :o.fcredibility 'are. solely Within the prQvi_q~~:qf theJa;ctJindei\ 'in this case the
.Master; as, he/she ::was, 'in the'best positiQn to .m~e:thatassessWienL Such findings will not :p~·
.disturbedwhen supperted by the record. Words v, ·Qicierski, 937' A2d:JT03; UOS. (Pa.~up¢t
'2QQ7),. Cntldress v ..BQg_ution:siheme. as a whole, ·ifoi;: .dfv.ision aceomplished eW.nomie:justicefor both. parti~s. at1d
. Lastly, Viife. ~rgµes:~th~t the Courrened in its: deteiminaifonJ~arCh~rtiADVISOR is a:
.norf·m~it~lasset;. Title-23..§3'5.Dl(a).('.lefin.~sm~Ital'pro~rty·aS'"aU·propertY·acqOh'ed:by·either
• r- .. :; • •
11 Eqµit'l!Ql.~.QisttjlJutipii Trial Transcript-dated .Q~\tj\>~r¢7,:zp f~ 'pgii:: 12·1~ ..
13
l,
....
;-
I.
. I . ,
marriage;l 'T:~tle ·23 "§35QJ(~)(l).. 'Thus, the timirtt 6f':tne,.ae~ui&iti.on:9fap ;iss¢~,ti..e~:tlle "when"
8119. not tqe.·"how,? is the.determiningfactor when characterizing. art:a$set' as., maiital ornon-
. I -· . . . . . ·- -. .
t~
.marital. An(h-q,:iy v. A.nt!zo.nYi, 5-14 A:2d 91, -(Pa,Stjp~i:, l 986)
. R tlndisputed ~!tr!!II JM( Husbandentered iil!Q ~ ;1;urd;as~ ag,~gi\ for. . . . . . . .
Chem:AQ,YlSQR,0nJanuai:y2, 2001 more'thantwo (2).-years _pm:>r to marr1a~e; Pursuant to. the;
.agr~men{ H~;ban'any:a::.a.
m•i:i~l •+t, Blit her .:e1~nce gn these concepts and.factorsis misplaced