Beury, L. v. Beury, K.
Beury, L. v. Beury, K. No. 1112 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Married 1989; 24-year marriage; no children together. Wife (56) was a lifelong homemaker with no postsecondary education and multiple serious medical conditions; physician opined she is indefinitely unfit for employment. Husband (57) worked as a laborer ($19/hr) and received a $1,250/month annuity from his deceased first wife.
- Parties’ primary marital asset: the marital residence (appraised ≈ $79,000). Other assets: personal property (~$18,745) and Husband’s 401(k) (~$6,300–$10,000 depending on date). Wife also jointly owns a pre-marriage Ashland residence with her sister, which the Master found unsuitable for Wife to occupy.
- Parties separated January 2014. Wife remained in the marital residence with Husband’s adult daughter, Sarah, who paid no rent. Husband moved out.
- Master recommended awarding the marital residence to Wife, Husband keep his 401(k), Husband pay APL then $1,000/month alimony, and Husband pay half of Wife’s attorney fees. Trial court adopted Master’s recommendations but modified the residence award: Wife gets title but must pay Husband $250/month rent while living there and must pay Husband $28,870 from net proceeds if she sells or upon her death if residence not sold.
- Husband appealed, arguing the property distribution (roughly 90/10) was inequitable, alimony should be terminated, and he should not pay half of Wife’s counsel fees given the property split.
Issues
| Issue | Beury (Husband) Argument | Beury (Wife) / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable distribution was abusive (alleged 90/10 split) | Award is inequitable; parties similar in age/education/health; Wife could live in her pre-marriage Ashland house so marital residence shouldn’t be awarded to her | Wife is medically unemployable, financially dependent, needs housing; Ashland residence found unsuitable and cannot be compelled; court adjusted award with rent and lump-sum protection for Husband | Affirmed: distribution not an abuse of discretion; court’s modifications to protect Husband’s interest were appropriate |
| Whether alimony ($1,000/mo) should be terminated given distribution | Alimony unnecessary because Wife received most assets and APL; Sarah’s income could help | Wife cannot work, will lose health insurance, faces medical expenses and house upkeep; distribution plus rent obligation does not meet her needs | Affirmed: alimony appropriate to meet Wife’s reasonable needs and achieve economic justice |
| Whether Husband should pay half of Wife’s attorney fees (~$2,694) | Wife received substantial assets and alimony; Husband cannot afford additional fee award | Fee award aims to prevent financial disadvantage to Wife in litigating divorce; court considered parties’ resources and need | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding counsel fees based on need and payor ability |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneeman v. Schneeman, 615 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Super. 1992) (discusses fair rental credit in equitable distribution)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for equitable distribution)
- Drake v. Drake, 725 A.2d 717 (Pa. 1999) (trial court authority to divide marital property based on equities)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 586 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 1991) (equitable distribution need not be equal)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deference to master on credibility findings)
- Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 2004) (purpose and factors for alimony awards)
- Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standards for awarding counsel fees in divorce)
- Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court will not usurp factfinder in fee decisions)