Ciardi, A. v. Ciardi, K.
Ciardi, A. v. Ciardi, K. No. 351 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Married 1995, separated 2009; three children; Husband is an attorney who owns two firms (100% of Ciardi & Ciardi, PC in Philadelphia; 50% of Ciardi, Ciardi & Astin in Delaware); Wife stayed home since 1995.
- Parties stipulated to split most marital assets 60% to Wife / 40% to Husband, but disputed valuation and distribution of Husband’s business interests.
- A master valued the firms (CC and CCA), recommended Wife receive 50% of CC and 30% of CCA, and recommended limited declining-term alimony and $10,000 counsel fee award to Wife.
- Trial court sustained Husband’s objection to the master’s failure to apply tax effects, applied a conservative 30% tax reduction to business values, adjusted Wife’s equitable distribution downward, and adopted the master’s percentage splits and alimony scheme; trial court also disbursed home-sale proceeds and adjusted awards accordingly.
- Wife appealed only the trial court’s tax adjustment and a claimed double-credit for the marital-home proceeds; the court found the double-credit claim waived for inadequate preservation and affirmed the decree on remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband/Wife as applicable) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife preserved challenge that trial court double‑credited Husband for marital-home proceeds | Wife: trial court effectively credited Husband twice—disbursed his share then credited same amount again | Husband: Wife failed to raise specific objection below; issue waived | Waived: Rule 1925(b) statement too vague; claim not preserved for appeal |
| Whether trial court erred by applying a tax adjustment to business valuations (tax effect on accounts receivable) | Husband: master should have reduced receivables for taxes; expert opined ~50% after-tax reduction | Wife: master reasonably rejected tax adjustment as unquantified and based on speculative assumptions | Trial court not in error to account for taxes; applied conservative 30% tax adjustment to business values and reduced awards accordingly; affirmed |
| Whether percentage split of firms (50% of CC; 30% of CCA to Wife) was equitable | Wife: should receive 60% of both firms per the overall 60/40 split | Husband: differing treatment of CCA justified because CCA formed shortly before separation and enhanced by post‑separation efforts | Affirmed: trial court adopted master’s analysis applying §3502 factors and found splits fair and equitable |
| Whether alimony recommendation was improper/punitive | Husband: combined obligations (equitable distribution schedule, child support, alimony) impose unjust burden | Wife: alimony necessary to address monthly shortfall despite large equitable award | Affirmed: limited, declining three‑year alimony upheld as appropriate secondary remedy; overall scheme not punitive |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review and master’s report considerations in equitable distribution)
- Butler v. Butler, 663 A.2d 148 (Pa. 1995) (business-value factors for equitable distribution)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 543 A.2d 534 (Pa. Super. 1988) (valuation date reasonably proximate to distribution date)
- Taper v. Taper, 939 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 2007) (decision that equitable division is fact‑specific and courts split property equitably not necessarily equally)
- Mercatell v. Mercatell, 854 A.2d 609 (Pa. Super. 2004) (equitable distribution does not presume equal division)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (preservation requirement for appellate review of equitable distribution objections)
- Brody v. Brody, 758 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellate waiver for undeveloped arguments in briefs)