Ciardi, K. v. Ciardi, A.
2568 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Married in 1995; separated 2009; three children. Husband is an attorney and owner/part-owner of two law firms; Wife did not work outside the home since 1995.
- Parties agreed to divide marital assets roughly 60% to Wife, 40% to Husband, but disagreed on valuation/distribution of Husband’s law firms.
- Master awarded Wife percentages of the firms and recommended limited-term alimony and counsel fees; trial court adjusted business valuations (assessed taxes) and reduced Wife’s equitable-distribution award to $782,447.
- Wife received a $30,000 lump sum, monthly payments totaling $16,857 per month (alimony + distribution installments), and $464,000 from sale of the marital residence — about $696,000 in 2015–2016 proceeds.
- Wife sought continuation of alimony pendente lite (APL) during her appeal; trial court denied APL, finding Wife’s receipts sufficiently equalized resources; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APL must continue automatically during a non-discretionary appeal | Continuation of APL is an automatic/absolute right on non-discretionary appeal; no inquiry into changed finances | APL is discretionary and may be terminated if recipient acquires assets/income that equalize resources | Court held APL is not automatic; trial court may terminate APL when recipient has acquired sufficient assets/income; affirmed termination here |
Key Cases Cited
- Prol v. Prol, 840 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (dependent spouse entitled to support during appeal because of absolute right to appeal from divorce decree)
- Brody v. Brody, 758 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2000) (APL may be terminated where recipient acquired assets/income that equalize parties' ability to litigate)
- DeMasi v. DeMasi, 597 A.2d 101 (Pa. Super. 1991) (APL based on need to equalize financial resources to pursue divorce)
- Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860 A.2d 1056 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for APL awards and continuation during appeal)
- Nemoto v. Nemoto, 620 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 1993) (APL is not a matter of right; termination appropriate when recipient has adequate assets/income)
- Wayda v. Wayda, 576 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Super. 1990) (orders for APL supported by competent evidence will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion)