Cook, R. v. Cook, D.
186 A.3d 1015
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Ronald and Deborah Cook married in 1986, separated in 2013, and divorced following a trial court equitable distribution order dated March 2017. They have one adult (emancipated) child.
- The marital estate was valued at $638,567; the trial court awarded Wife 55% of the marital estate ($351,212) and Husband 45% ($287,355); proceeds of the marital residence were split 50/50.
- Husband earned roughly $160k/year as a journalist; Wife earned roughly $44–46k/year as a state income-maintenance worker and was older and closer to retirement.
- Husband paid alimony pendente lite (APL) of $2,300/month during litigation; Wife requested ongoing/alimony and a modification of APL.
- A Master issued a report; parties filed exceptions; the trial court adopted parts of the Master’s report. Wife appealed, arguing errors on alimony, APL calculation, distribution percentages, and counsel fees. The Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Award of post-divorce alimony | Wife: §3701 factors (age, limited earning capacity, homemaker contributions, modest award) support long-term alimony | Husband: Wife has appropriate employment; equitable distribution + her retirement assets meet needs | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no alimony awarded to Wife (affirmed) |
| 2. Modification/calculation of alimony pendente lite (APL) | Wife: Court should use 2015 actual incomes and account for mortgage deviation and unreimbursed medicals; Master used early-2016 paystubs | Husband: Paystub projections supported existing APL (difference ~$1.57) | Superior Court: Master and trial court abused discretion by using fewer than six months of income per Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a); remanded for proper six-month-based income calculation; mortgage/medical claim waived on appeal |
| 3. Equitable distribution percentages (55% wife /45% husband; 50% residence proceeds) | Wife: Given marriage length, homemaker contribution, age and lower future earning potential, she should receive 60% | Husband: Trial court’s split accounts for incomes, retirement assets, future acquisition opportunities | Distribution affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in 55/45 split (affirmed) |
| 4. Counsel fees (denial to Wife; award to Husband) | Wife: Trial court should have awarded her counsel fees because of income disparity | Husband: Sought fees in petition; trial court found Wife’s conduct (withholding info, conduct re: marital residence) caused unnecessary fees; sanctionable under 42 Pa.C.S. §2503(7) | Wife’s request for fees waived (not preserved); award of $2,500 to Husband upheld as supported by record (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercatell v. Mercatell, 854 A.2d 609 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may equitably divide marital property as circumstances require)
- Smith v. Smith, 749 A.2d 921 (Pa. Super. 2000) (awards of alimony, counsel fees, and property distribution reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 2004) (alimony is secondary remedy; equitable distribution first)
- Lawson v. Lawson, 940 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court must consider statutory alimony factors in §3701)
- Mazzei v. Mazzei, 480 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 1984) (alimony fashioned to bridge until employment or skill acquisition)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (masters’ credibility findings merit fullest consideration)
- Bonds v. Bonds, 689 A.2d 275 (Pa. Super. 1997) (42 Pa.C.S. §2503(7) permits counsel fees as sanction for dilatory/obdurate/vexatious conduct)
- Litmans v. Litmans, 673 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 1996) (APL amount within trial court discretion; may be modified for changed circumstances)