Domiano, K. v. Domiano, D.
2001 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- David R. Domiano (Husband) and Kimberly A. Domiano (Wife) married in 1990; two children. Husband received the land for the marital home from his mother in 1992.
- Wife filed for divorce in 2004; a Master was appointed in 2007 and held an equitable distribution hearing on August 26, 2010.
- The Master issued a Report and Recommendation on April 17, 2013 (over 2½ years after the hearing); Husband filed 47 exceptions and sought further proceedings and interlocutory appeals; remand hearings occurred and the Master issued a supplemental report in March 2015.
- The trial court denied Husband’s exceptions (except five remanded, later denied) and adopted the Master’s findings; final divorce decree entered October 15, 2015; Husband appealed.
- Husband’s principal claims: (1) Master’s report was untimely under Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55-2; (2) denial of due process by limiting his testimony; (3) incorrect ownership and valuation findings for multiple properties and credits.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found no reversible prejudice from the report delay, rejected the due-process and valuation challenges (crediting the Master’s credibility determinations and discretionary valuation choices), and treated certain asserted errors as waived for Rule 1925/Rule 1920.55-2 failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Domiano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Master’s report under Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55-2 | Court/Master not at fault; no prejudice shown | Delay (32 months) violated rule and prejudiced Husband because values could have changed; remand for new hearing | No relief — delay noted but no showing of prejudice; court may disregard procedural defects that do not affect substantial rights (Pa.R.C.P. 126) |
| Denial/limitation of Husband’s testimony (Due process) | Master repeatedly advised Husband of right to present evidence; record shows opportunity to testify | Master limited Husband’s testimony despite assurances, causing prejudice | No relief — Husband failed to identify specific blocked testimony/evidence; record supports Master’s handling and credibility findings |
| Ownership/valuation of various properties (multiple parcels, billboards, business interest) | Master’s accepted evidence and appraisals supported valuations | Husband contends many parcels not owned by him, valuations based on Wife’s estimates, double-counting, no deeds or rental proof, and credits owed (taxes, insurance, rental value) | No relief — Master’s credibility and valuation choices are discretionary; where only one valuation offered, court may adopt it; minor math duplication de minimis relative to estate |
| Credits for taxes/insurance and fair rental value of marital home | Court considered parties’ contributions and expenses; rental credit not mandatory | Husband sought credits for taxes/insurance paid and fair rental value for Wife’s exclusive occupancy | No relief — court/master discretion; fair rental credit is discretionary and Husband did not prove entitlement or prejudice; overall distribution equitable |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for equitable distribution and abuse of discretion)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (weight to be given master’s credibility findings)
- Drake v. Drake, 725 A.2d 717 (Pa. 1999) (Division must consider §3502(a) factors)
- Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court will not reweigh statutory factors; look at distribution as a whole)
- Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2009) (use of property value at time of master’s hearing when separation-to-hearing delay exists)
- Lawson v. Lawson, 940 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 2007) (must file exceptions to preserve challenge to master’s report)
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court may rely on estimates/appraisals and accept all/part/none of valuation evidence)
- Litmans v. Litmans, 673 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 1996) (court may adopt uncontradicted valuation evidence)
- Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Super. 1997) (fair rental value credit principles and offsets for maintenance expenses)
- Middleton v. Middleton, 812 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. 2002) (fair rental value credit is discretionary; not mandatory)