Clouser, K. v. Clouser, M.
258 MDA 2024
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Karen and Mark Clouser, both in their mid-60s, divorced after 25 years of marriage and both raised claims regarding equitable distribution and alimony.
- Karen is totally disabled, receives social security, and has not worked in over 12 years; Mark is employed as a truck driver and does not anticipate retirement soon.
- A Divorce Hearing Officer (DHO) recommended a 55%/45% split of marital assets in favor of Karen and $1,100/month alimony to her for 10 years.
- Both parties filed exceptions to the DHO’s recommendations, raising issues about asset distribution, alimony amount and duration, alleged post-separation asset handling, and credits for occupancy of the marital home.
- The trial court adopted the DHO’s recommendations with minor clarifications and both parties appealed the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution percentage | Karen argued she should receive a higher share than 55% due to her disability and contributions. | Mark argued 55% (or less) was fair given his status as primary earner and other contributions. | 55/45 split in favor of Karen affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Alimony amount and duration | Karen sought indefinite alimony at a higher amount and requested life insurance to secure the award. | Mark argued for less/no alimony, shorter duration, and no security via life insurance. | $1,100/month for 10 years affirmed; security not required. |
| Credit for fair rental value of marital home | Mark argued he should get credit for Karen’s exclusive use after separation. | Karen argued the PFA order excluding Mark precluded such a claim. | Court found PFA order was valid defense; no rental value credit. |
| Valuation of personal property retained by Karen | Mark claimed Karen retained personal property not included in division. | Karen argued the items retained had no value or were not marital. | DHO’s $0 valuation for property retained by Karen affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Martin, 320 A.3d 113 (Pa. Super. 2024) (equitable distribution and alimony standards)
- Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2009) (rental value and PFA orders)
- Cook v. Cook, 186 A.3d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2018) (alimony standards)
- Teribery v. Teribery, 516 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1986) (alimony and contingencies)