Ciardi, A. v. Ciardi, K.
Ciardi, A. v. Ciardi, K. No. 351 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Albert and Kimberly Ciardi married in 1995, separated in 2009, and have three children; Kimberly has not worked outside the home since 1995.
- Husband (Albert) is an attorney who owns two firms: sole owner of Ciardi & Ciardi, PC (Philadelphia) and 50% owner of Ciardi, Ciardi & Astin, PC (Delaware).
- Parties agreed generally to a 60% (Wife) / 40% (Husband) split of marital assets but disputed allocation of Husband’s business interests.
- The master recommended Wife receive 50% of Husband’s Philadelphia firm interest and 30% of his Delaware firm interest, plus limited alimony and counsel fee contributions.
- Trial court sustained Husband’s objection that the master failed to account for tax consequences; the court applied a conservative 30% tax to Husband’s business interests, reduced Wife’s equitable distribution award accordingly, and adjusted for proceeds Wife received from sale of the marital home.
- Wife appealed; Husband discontinued his appeal. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court, finding Wife waived one claim and rejecting her remaining challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly credited Husband twice for sale proceeds of marital home | Wife: trial court double-credited Husband—distributed his share then again treated that amount as owed to him | Husband: Wife failed to preserve this specific objection below; distribution was properly accounted for | Waived for appellate review; Wife’s Rule 1925(b) statement too vague to preserve the precise claim |
| Whether trial court erred by assessing tax consequences against Husband’s business interests | Wife: tax consequences were miscalculated or improperly applied against amounts awarded to her | Trial court: master failed to account for taxes; court applied conservative 30% tax to business valuations and adjusted awards | Court upheld 30% tax assessment and corresponding reduction of Wife’s award as within discretion |
| Whether percentages of business interests awarded to Wife were inequitable | Wife: the master’s and trial court’s percentages undervalued her share given the 60/40 asset split | Trial court: percentages (50% of Philadelphia firm; 30% of Delaware firm) reflect factors like post-separation enhancement and overall equitable distribution | Court affirmed adoption of master’s recommended percentages as reasonable and supported by record |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in overall equitable distribution | Wife: sought a larger award and higher payment schedule than court ordered | Trial court: considered statutory factors, master’s findings, credibility, and distribution scheme as a whole | No abuse of discretion; appellate court defers to trial court’s factual findings and equitable judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to raise issue below or in Rule 1925(b) can constitute waiver)
- Brody v. Brody, 758 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellate briefs must develop arguments; undeveloped issues are waived)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for equitable distribution; deference to trial court and master)
- Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Super. 1997) (no simple formula for dividing marital property; facts govern distribution)
- Taper v. Taper, 939 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 2007) (courts attempt equitable, not necessarily equal, property division and consider statutory factors)