J. S53034/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DORIS PULLETT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
CHARLES PULLETT, : No. 3260 EDA 2016
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2016,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court Division at No. June Term, 2006, No. 8419
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2017
Charles Pullett (“Husband”) appeals the order of the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County that ordered him to pay Doris Pullett (“Wife”)
$48,405.38 which represented Wife’s share of equitable distribution; to pay
Wife’s present counsel $10,481.25 for counsel fees, costs, and expenses; to
pay alimony to Wife in the amount of $1,000 per month for four years or
until the death of either party, or upon the remarriage or cohabitation of
Wife; and to obtain an insurance policy on his life designating Wife as
beneficiary for a period terminating with the fulfillment of his alimony
obligations. We quash.
The trial court recounted the following facts and procedural history:
[T]he parties were married on December 30, 1989.
They had three children, two of whom are currently
in their 30’s and one of whom is in his 20’s.
J. S53034/17
Husband alone contributed financially to the family,
working continuously as a truck driver for various
solid waste hauling entities. For the first half of
2006, Husband’s gross pay was $37,548.13. Wife
remained at home, raising the children and running
the household. During the marriage, Husband had
two retirement accounts: 1) a 401(k); and 2) an
IRA annuity. Husband received funds from a union
settlement, the majority of which the parties agree
to be marital property. In addition, the parties had a
checking account and a savings account. All
financial correspondence was sent to Husband’s
mother’s home and not to the marital residence;
Wife was not privy to the ongoing financial status of
the accounts. The parties never owned the marital
residence, but rented the entire time they lived
together as a family. Nor did they own any other
real property.
Husband testified that the standard of living
during the marriage consisted of the family living
together and his taking care of them. The family
went on a vacation while Husband worked. There
never was more than $5000 in savings. Wife
testified that Husband “paid the bills” and that she
and the children went on one family vacation.
Husband testified the parties continued to live
together as long as they did as a married couple
because he felt that he had obligations to Wife. Wife
testified that during the marriage Husband went out
a “lot” and that he was “seeing someone else.” Wife
also testified the [sic] Husband was verbally abusive
and at times was physically abusive.
After separation, Wife obtained employment as
a care assistant at a senior living facility, where she
remained so employed until she was laid off in
February 2016. At the time of termination, Wife
earned approximately $30,577 per year. Wife’s
maximum entitlement to unemployment
compensation benefits for the period Feb. 14, 2016
through February 11, 2017 is $8,258. Wife had
received post-separation support from Husband of
-2-
J. S53034/17
$1,420 per month (Wife and one child) and currently
receives $1050 per month (Wife only). Wife has a
post-separation 401(k) account, whose value she
approximated to be $1000, in which she was not
fully vested at the time of the trial.
The documentary and testimonial evidence
established the following values for the four primary
marital assets: 1) Husband’s 401(k) account valued
at $23,105.63 as of 7/1/07, the closest date to the
time of separation supplied by Husband,
2) Husband’s IRA account valued at $45,000 as of
3/31/06, 3) union settlement of $11,410 (pre-tax),
and 4) Wells Fargo checking account balance of
approximately $3,000.
The salient procedural events in the course of
this litigation, as gleaned from the docket report, are
as follows:
June 7, 2006 - Complaint in divorce filed
by Wife.
July 14, 2006 - Answer and counterclaim
filed by Husband.
....
June 12, 2012 - Order approving grounds
for divorce.
....
June 15, 2015 - Master’s report filed.
....
July 6, 2015 - Husband’s praecipe for
trial de novo.
....
Sept. 19, 2016 - Trial de novo
conducted and Order filed.
In his concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal, filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),
Husband raises 17 discrete issues.
Trial court opinion, 1/10/17 at 1-4 (footnote and citations to the record
omitted).
-3-
J. S53034/17
Before stating the issues raised by appellant on appeal, this court
notes that the trial court’s listing of the salient procedural events in the
course of this litigation did not mention the filing of the divorce decree. A
review of the record reveals that no divorce decree was ever filed. In an
order dated June 21, 2012, the trial court held that a divorce decree would
be entered following resolution by the Permanent Master of all claims related
to equitable distribution. After the Permanent Master filed his report,
appellant praeciped for a trial de novo. As a result, the claims for equitable
resolution were not resolved until after the trial court heard the matter. On
September 19, 2016, the trial court entered the equitable distribution order
from which Husband now appeals. No divorce decree, however, was
entered.
It is well-settled law in this Commonwealth that a pre-divorce decree
that distributes marital property is interlocutory and cannot be reviewed
until it has been rendered final by entry of a divorce decree. See Wilson v.
Wilson, 828 A.2d 376 (Pa.Super. 2003).
As there is no divorce decree, there is no final appealable order.
Accordingly, this court must quash appellant’s appeal.
Appeal quashed.
-4-
J. S53034/17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/25/2017
-5-
Pullett, D. v. Pullett, C.
Combined Opinion