Brubaker v. Brubaker
201 A.3d 180
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- James and Susan Brubaker married in 1997, separated in 2014, and share custody of four minor children; divorce decree entered October 23, 2017 (appeal from master's R&R).
- Husband (James) developed a large real-estate venture (the "VERDE project"); project required heavy upfront borrowing and was underwater at hearing; Husband is day-to-day manager and holds a one‑third interest.
- Wife left full-time work early in the marriage, contributed to early phases of the VERDE project (naming, design, support) and performed homemaking/childcare.
- Master valued Husband’s initial partnership contribution at $515,152 (based on a 2011 partnership agreement) and recommended equitable distribution payments to Wife, alimony $1,500/month for 10 years, and $20,000 toward Wife’s counsel fees.
- Trial court adopted the master’s recommendations; Husband appealed, contesting valuation of VERDE, failure to consider tax/liquidation costs, payment schedule affordability, alimony award, and counsel fees.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of VERDE project for equitable distribution | Trial court erred assigning $515,152 value though experts agreed liabilities exceeded value | Agreed partnership figure compensates Wife for marital contributions to a long‑term project | Affirmed: court acted within discretion to rely on partners’ agreed value to compensate Wife for pre‑separation marital contributions |
| Consideration of tax/liquidation consequences (23 Pa.C.S. §3502(a)(10.1),(10.2)) | Trial court failed to consider tax/expense consequences if Husband sold interest at assigned value | No required proof presented by Husband at trial; master rejected lack‑of‑evidence claim | Affirmed: master rejected claim for lack of evidence; Husband could have presented alternative proof and did not justify reopening record |
| Whether distribution schedule exceeds Husband’s ability to pay | Payment deadlines ($100,000 in 12 months; $111,743 in 36 months) are unaffordable given Husband’s cash flow and illiquid assets | Master found some of Husband’s expense claims inflated and Husband has greater resources than Wife | Affirmed: Husband did not substantiate inability to pay or provide controlling legal support |
| Alimony award ($1,500/mo for 10 years) | Amount/duration unreasonable; master miscalculated Husband’s net income and ignored support obligations | Wife needs transitional support given reduced earning capacity, lack of benefits, and lower standard of living | Affirmed: master considered §3701(b) factors, Husband’s income/support obligations, and Wife’s needs; award reasonable and necessary |
| Counsel fees ($20,000 to Wife) | Wife’s discovery conduct and APL payments negate fee award; Husband challenges reasonableness | Wife incurred substantial fees; she depleted retirement funds to pay fees and remains at financial disadvantage | Affirmed: master found Wife’s fees reasonable and need established; award within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Diamond, 519 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 1987) (post‑separation improvements may create a new nonmarital asset if construction occurred after separation)
- Butler v. Butler, 663 A.2d 148 (Pa. 1995) (fixed buyout amounts in partnership agreements can control valuation when they reflect substantive rights)
- McCabe v. McCabe, 575 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1990) (partnership formula in agreement is preeminent in valuing a partner’s interest when it reflects realizable rights)
- Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial courts must consider tax consequences of distribution when relevant; valuation and credibility are for factfinder)
- Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654 (Pa. Super. 2010) (tax consequences of liquidation need not depend on likelihood of sale)
- Powell v. Powell, 577 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial court erred by failing to consider tax consequences of awarding stock requiring liquidation)
- White v. White, 555 A.2d 1299 (Pa. Super. 1989) (failure to consider tax consequences where equitable distribution likely requires company liquidation is error)
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court has discretion in valuation method and may rely on its own methods)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (valuation date should best effectuate economic justice; often near distribution date)
- Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2007) (counsel fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion; fees intended to place parties on parity)