J-A18037-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RODNEY S. SHETTLE, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MICHELLE L. MYERS, :
:
Appellant : No. 1905 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered on October 16, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Civil Division, No. 2009-FC-1081-15; PACSES No. 258110994
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2015
Michelle L. Myers (“Wife”) appeals from the Order denying her
exceptions to the Master’s Supplemental Report and Recommendations.1
We affirm.
Rodney S. Shettle (“Husband”), born in 1959, and Wife, born in 1967,
were married on December 2, 1995, and separated on May 23, 2009. The
1
It is well settled that an equitable distribution order is interlocutory and not
appealable until entry of a divorce decree. See Wilson v. Wilson, 828 A.2d
376, 377 (Pa. Super. 2003). Here, Wife filed a Notice of Appeal prior to the
entry of a divorce decree. However, the trial court entered the Divorce
Decree on December 24, 2014. Thus, because the appeal was perfected
with the entry of the Divorce Decree, we will review Wife’s claims on appeal.
See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the
announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable
order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”);
see also Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248, 1253 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(stating that even though the divorce decree had not been entered, the
appeal was properly before the court because the decree was entered during
pendency of appeal).
J-A18037-15
parties had no children together, but Husband had two adult children from a
prior marriage. Husband and Wife are high school graduates with no
specialized job training. During the marriage, Husband worked for Mack
Truck as an assembler/disassembler, earning $24.56 per hour. Due to
health problems caused by work-related injuries, Husband became unable to
work and received $670 per week in workers’ compensation benefits. Wife
primarily worked for UPS as a truck driver, earning $32.65 per hour. Wife
also earned minimal income working part-time for Mt. Royal Auction and
running a resale business.
Husband filed a Divorce Complaint on June 26, 2009, which included
claims for equitable distribution of property, APL, counsel fees, costs, and
expenses. By court Order, Wife was directed to pay Husband monthly APL
of $97.88. On July 31, 2013, after a hearing, the Master filed a Report and
Recommendation that Husband receive 59% of the marital property. Both
Husband and Wife filed Exceptions to the Recommendation.
The trial court subsequently remanded the matter for a hearing,
addressing only Husband’s future earning capacity. The hearing was
conducted before the Master on April 25, 2014. At the hearing, Husband
testified to his extensive physical ailments. On April 28, 2014, the Master
filed a Supplemental Report and Recommendation, finding that Husband’s
earning capacity decreased and was equal to his workers’ compensation
benefit. The Master made no other changes to the Report and
-2-
J-A18037-15
Recommendation. In the interim, Husband petitioned for an increase in APL,
and on May 7, 2014, after a de novo hearing, the Master granted Husband
an increase of APL to $225.00 per month. Wife filed timely Exceptions to
the Supplemental Report and Recommendation, which the trial court denied.
Thereafter, Wife filed a Notice of Appeal.
On appeal, Wife raises the following questions for our review:
A. Is the distribution percentage awarded to Husband inequitable
and not supported by appropriate consideration of the factors in
section 3502 of the Divorce Code?
B. Did the [trial c]ourt err in not giving proper weight to Wife’s
greater contribution to the marital estate, in giving excessive
weight to Husband’s lower actual earnings, in failing to properly
evaluate Husband’s earning capacity, in reducing Husband’s
earning capacity, in failing to properly consider Husband’s larger
separate estate, likely inheritance, and two prior marriages, and
in excluding certain credit card debt assumed by Wife?
C. Did the [trial c]ourt err in awarding an increase in [APL]
because Husband failed to prove that his earning capacity had
changed, offered no evidence demonstrating a need for an
increase, and failed to prove his case at the de novo hearing?
Brief for Appellant at 2.
In reviewing an equitable distribution award, this Court’s standard of
review is as follows:
The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning such awards,
and we will overturn an award only for an abuse of that
discretion. To assess whether the trial court abused its
discretion, we must determine whether the trial court misapplied
the law or failed to follow proper legal procedure. Further, 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.
-3-
J-A18037-15
Our Supreme Court has described an abuse of discretion as
“[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a
conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment
exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the
record, discretion is abuse.” In determining the propriety of an
equitable distribution award, the court must consider the
distribution scheme as a whole.
Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 887 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).
Further, “a [M]aster’s [R]eport and [R]ecommendation, although only
advisory, is to be given the fullest consideration, particularly on the question
of credibility of witnesses, because the [M]aster has the opportunity to
observe and assess the behavior and demeanor of the parties.” Moran v.
Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Factors relevant in the distribution of marital property include the
following:
(1) The length of the marriage.
(2) Any prior marriage of either party.
(3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income,
vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of
each of the parties.
(4) The contribution by one party to the education, training or
increased earning power of the other party.
(5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of
capital assets and income.
(6) The sources of income of both parties, including, but not
limited to, medical, retirement, insurance, or other benefits.
(7) The contributions or dissipation of each party in the
acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the
marital property, including the contribution as a homemaker.
-4-
J-A18037-15
(8) The value of the property set apart to each party.
(9) The standard of living of the parties established during the
marriage.
(10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the
division of property is to become effective.
(10.1) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications associated
with each asset to be divided, distributed or assigned, which
ramifications need not be immediate and certain.
(10.2) The expense of sale, transfer or liquidation associated
with a particular asset, which expense need not be immediate
and certain.
(11) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any
dependent minor children.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a). “These factors require the trial court to consider
the relative economic positions of the parties and the nature of the parties’
relationship.” Gates v. Gates, 933 A.2d 102, 105 (Pa. Super. 2007). “The
section 3502 factors are not a simple formula, rather they serve as a
guideline for consideration.” Id. “The facts of a particular case mandate
how the section 3502 factors will be applied.” Id. Further, our Court cannot
reweigh the section 3502 factors in the absence of an abuse of discretion by
the trial court. Id. at 106.
We will address Wife’s first two claims together. Wife argues that the
distribution of 59% of the marital assets to Husband was inequitable and not
supported by the factors in section 3502. Brief for Appellant at 9. Wife
claims that the evidence does not support a finding that Husband would
-5-
J-A18037-15
need a larger portion to recover financially from the divorce. Id. at 10-11;
see also id. at 11 (arguing that the Master gave excessive weight to
Husband’s lower earnings and reduced earning capacity). Wife asserts that
the Master gave no weight to the fact that Wife contributed more to the
marital estate, and the case law supports giving Wife a greater share of the
marital estate because of her greater contribution. Id. at 12, 15-16. Wife
further asserts that Husband’s earning capacity is equal to her earning
capacity. Id. at 19-20. Wife also contends that the trial court erred
because the Master did not give proper weight to Husband’s separate estate,
Wife’s credit card debt, and Husband’s prior marriages. Id. at 20-24.
Our review of the record discloses that Husband testified that he has
undergone multiple surgeries, including two carpal tunnel surgeries on his
wrists and thirteen knee surgeries. N.T., 4/25/14, at 4, 11. Because of the
problems with his hands, Husband stated, he drops things, cannot pick up
anything small objects, and cannot write or use a computer. Id. at 10, 13-
14. Husband also testified that he has two herniated disks in his back and
neck that will require surgery in the future. Id. at 12-13. Husband testified
that after receiving physical therapy, the doctors believed there was nothing
else that they could do for him. Id. at 10. After his last knee surgery,
Husband stated, he returned to work, but that he now has many restrictions.
Id. at 6. According to Husband, he was to work for only fifteen minutes at a
time, and then he would have to take a break until his hands stopped
-6-
J-A18037-15
hurting. Id. at 8. Husband was not allowed to lift more than thirty pounds,
squat, bend, or be on his feet for more than two hours a day. Id. Husband
is on four different medications for pain that he takes every day. Id. at 11.
Based upon this evidence, the Master found that even though the
parties had the same educational background and training, Husband had a
lower earning capacity than Wife due to his health problems and age. Trial
Court Opinion, 10/16/14, at 7. The Master specifically determined that
Husband’s earnings would only be equal to his workers’ compensation
benefits. Id. The Master further found that Husband’s non-marital estate is
approximately $120,000 with Wife’s estate being approximately $79,000.
Master’s Report and Recommendation, 7/21/13, at 32; see also Trial Court
Opinion, 10/16/14, at 8.2 In reviewing these findings, the Master
additionally considered Husband’s prior divorces and child support as factors.
Master’s Report and Recommendation, 7/31/13, at 21-22; see also Trial
Court Opinion, 10/16/14, at 10. The Master also considered the marital
credit card debt accumulated by Wife, but determined that it would be unfair
to give Wife credit for that debt based on Wife’s inability to ascertain which
cards she had failed to maintain payments. Id. While the Master
considered Wife’s greater contribution to the marital estate, the Master
2
The Master did not include Wife’s Teamsters/UPS Tax Deferred Savings
Plan/401(k) Plan because Wife did not provide the value of the plan. The
trial court determined that the plan would most likely add value to Wife’s
estate. See Master’s Report and Recommendation, 7/31/13, at 32; see
also Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/14, at 8-9.
-7-
J-A18037-15
ultimately determined that, given Wife’s superior earnings and a longer
remaining work life, and Husband’s poor health, age, and inability to work,
her estate will most likely catch up or even surpass the value of Husband’s
estate. Id. at 6, 8. Based upon the evidence of record and the trial court’s
consideration of the section 3502 factors, we discern no abuse of discretion
in awarding a distribution of 59% to Husband. See Gates, 902 A.2d at 106
(stating that our Court cannot reweigh the section 3502 factors in the
absence of an abuse of discretion).3
In her third claim, Wife argues that the trial court erred in increasing
the APL because there was no medical evidence to support the
determination that Husband’s earning capacity has been reduced, and that
his earning capacity is equal to his workers’ compensation benefit. Brief for
Appellant at 24, 27.
3
Wife cites to Mercatell v. Mercatell, 854 A.2d 609 (Pa. Super. 2004), to
support her claim that she is entitled to a higher percentage of the marital
assets. Brief for Appellant at 13-14. In Mercatell, the Superior Court
upheld an equitable distribution of 60% of marital assets to Wife because
Wife had contributed more to the marital estate, and husband was
voluntarily underemployed. Mercatell, 854 A.2d at 611-12. Contrary to
Mercatell, Husband was not voluntarily underemployed, and the trial court
found that his lower contribution to the marital estate was not any fault of
his own. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/14, at 5. Moreover, Wife’s citation
to two Court of Common Pleas cases to support her contention does not
provide her relief, as Court of Common Pleas cases are not binding authority
on this Court. See Hirsch v. EPL Techs, Inc. 910 A.2d 84, 89 n.6 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (stating that decisions of the Court of Common Pleas are not
binding precedent).
-8-
J-A18037-15
“[T]he determination of the amount to be awarded, whether of
alimony or [APL], rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Absent an
abuse of that discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s
award.” Spink v. Spink, 619 A.2d 277, 278 (Pa. Super. 1992).
As noted above, Husband testified that his health problems prevented
him from being able to do his job. See N.T., 4/25/14, at 6, 8. The Master
found Husband’s testimony to be credible and that, due to his injuries, he
would have no additional income other than his worker’s compensation
benefits. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/14, at 18; see also Moran, 839
A.2d at 1095 (stating that full consideration is given to the Master’s report
on the credibility of witnesses because the Master can assess the behavior
and demeanor of the parties). The Master had the discretion to accept
Husband’s claim for diminished earning capacity, even without medical
evidence. See Moran, 839 A.2d at 1095. The record supports the
increased award of APL to Husband based on his reduced earning capacity,
and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/7/2015
-9-
Shettle, R. v. Myers, M.
Combined Opinion