Childress v. Bogosian
12 A.3d 448
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Husband and Wife married in 1998, separated in 2004, no children; divorce action filed in 2005; master issued ED and support reports; final decree and support order issued November 20, 2009, affirming in part and denying in part master’s recommendations.
- Master valued marital estate, determined Bay Landing and Berwyn properties’ appreciation, and considered Husband’s Vanguard accounts and a pre-marital diamond ring in ED; APL determined and modified with downward deviation and later continued until final decree.
- Court adopted master’s ED distribution (45/55, Wife:Husband, with Bay Landing 40/60 to Wife/Husband) and extended APL payments beyond April 2007, then terminated concurrent with final decree; Husband was found in contempt for APL noncompliance.
- Husband appealed on multiple grounds including property valuation, post-separation contributions, donative ring ownership, application of 3502 factors, APL reinstatement, and contempt findings.
- This Court affirmed the divorce decree and the APL order, reviewing for abuse of discretion and credibility determinations, and noting the master’s findings supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Berwyn property appreciation value | Husband contends Berwyn value at acquisition should reflect inheritance; challenges appraiser credibility. | Wife’s appraiser credibility favored; trial court did not err in adopting master’s valuation. | No error; credibility and valuation supported by record; no marital consideration of misconduct. |
| Bay Landing property appreciation | Husband argues post-separation expenditures and renovations were funded non-maritally; seeks greater non-marital credit. | Court found expenditures largely marital due to traceability issues; cannot overcome presumption. | No reversible error; proper burden and findings support 60/40 in Husband’s favor for Bay Landing’s non-marital value. |
| Vanguard accounts post-separation credit under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(a)(1) | Master miscalculated Vanguard marital value and failed to credit post-separation contributions per § 3501(a)(1). | Court used evidence and standard applying post-separation contributions with depreciation; method supported by record. | No error; court’s method reasonable and consistent with law; equitable result sustained. |
| Donative ring ownership (pre-marital gift to Wife) | Ring was given on loan or to Wife during relationship; donative intent contested. | Credibility determinations supported Wife’s ownership as separate property. | No error; credibility findings support ring as Wife’s separate property. |
| Equitable distribution factors and overall award | Disparity favored Wife due to premarital/wife’s contributions; argues for greater weight to Husband. | Court properly weighed § 3502 factors; not an abuse of discretion; substantial assets premarital in Husband. | No abuse; distribution scheme affirmed as just in light of total equities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court has broad discretion in equitable distribution)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for ED awards; misapplication of law requires reversal)
- Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 2005) (APL considerations; living with boyfriend does not automatically end APL)
- Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2009) (courts may adopt credible valuations and evidence; no abuse of discretion)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 543 A.2d 534 (Pa. 1988) (valuation methodology; reliance on credible appraisals permitted)
- Mackalica v. Mackalica, 716 A.2d 653 (Pa. Super. 1998) (burden of proof in tracing nonmarital funds; preponderance standard)
- Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2009) (remand on premarital contributions to property valuation; equity of distribution)
- Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860 A.2d 1056 (Pa. Super. 2004) (APL focuses on need and ability to pay; change in circumstances governs modification)
- Hyle v. Hyle, 868 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2005) (contempt standard; present ability to comply; coercive enforcement)