Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi
100 A.3d 587
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Divorce action initiated in 2004 with protracted litigation including equitable distribution, custody, contempt, and multiple modification petitions; Master issued a report recommending equal distribution and awarding Wife counsel fees.
- On August 22, 2011 the parties entered an Agreed Order remanding equitable distribution to the Master but stating the Master’s decision on remand would be binding and entered as a judgment lien; Husband reserved appellate rights to Superior Court for legal issues and waived the right to stay enforcement pending appeal.
- A second Master hearing occurred December 17, 2012; Master’s February 6, 2013 Report recommended judgment for Wife (~$30,382.50, including $5,000 in attorneys’ fees).
- Trial court held the Agreed Order bound the parties and incorporated the Master’s recommendation into the final decree; Husband’s exceptions and motion for reconsideration were denied.
- Husband appealed, raising three issues: (1) whether he waived the right to file exceptions under the Agreed Order; (2) whether counsel fees awarded under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5339 (Child Custody Act) were proper; (3) whether the marital residence should have been valued at distribution (2013) rather than separation (2004).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Saidi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Agreed Order waived Husband’s right to take exceptions to Master’s Report | Agreed Order is valid and binds parties; Master’s decision on remand was to be final and entered as judgment lien | Agreed Order is unenforceable; he retained right to take exceptions and appeal | Court: Agreed Order valid and binding; Husband waived right to exceptions under that order; claim dismissed |
| 2. Whether counsel fees awarded under Child Custody Act §5339 were appropriate | Wife: §5339 authorizes fees where other party’s conduct is obdurate, vexatious, repetitive, or in bad faith | Husband: his multiple custody petitions were legitimate and not sufficiently repetitive or vexatious to warrant fees | Court: Reversed fee award — trial court abused discretion; Husband’s filings addressed varied, legitimate custody issues and did not show required repetitive/vexatious conduct |
| 3. Proper valuation date for marital residence (separation vs. distribution) | Wife: (implicit) apply Master’s valuation at date of separation per procedures agreed/remanded | Husband: valuation should reflect 2013 (distribution) given market decline since 2004 | Held: Issue waived on appeal for failure to timely and properly preserve in Rule 1925(b); court did not reach merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 620 A.2d 1161 (Pa. Super. 1993) (agreements to resolve disputes outside full judicial determination are generally favored; arbitration analogies)
- Karkaria v. Karkaria, 592 A.2d 64 (Pa. Super. 1991) (party who acquiesced in an order may not later challenge it)
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (standard of review for counsel-fee awards: abuse of discretion)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (limits on counsel-fee awards; focus on conduct warranting sanction)
- In re Barnes Foundation, 74 A.3d 129 (Pa. Super. 2013) (vexatious litigation defined as suits without legal or factual grounds intended to annoy)