Duncan, K. v. Duncan, L.
Duncan, K. v. Duncan, L. No. 1521 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 26, 2017Background
- Parties married in 2001, separated in 2011; no children. Husband filed for divorce in 2012; Wife counterclaimed seeking divorce, equitable distribution, alimony, support, and counsel fees.
- A hearing master conducted hearings and issued a Report & Recommendation in February 2016; the trial court adopted much of the master’s report and entered a divorce decree and equitable distribution order in September 2016 (modified slightly on reconsideration).
- Major contested financial items: mortgage and HELOC payments and withdrawals post-separation; credit for Wife’s post-separation mortgage payments from premarital CDs; valuation of Wife’s jewelry; requests for alimony and counsel fees.
- Trial court credited Husband with rent-equivalent for possession of the marital home and credited him for HELOC payments exceeding his HELOC draws, resulting in an offset in his favor.
- Trial court declined to award alimony or counsel fees to Wife, noting she had received post-separation support for three years, had not improved earning capacity, and had made a large loan to Husband; equitable distribution payments were conditioned on Husband’s payment of support arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for mortgage & HELOC payments after separation | Wife: payments were joint obligations; she should get 50% credit for Husband’s post-separation mortgage/HELOC payments | Husband: entitled to rent credit and full credit for payments he made given Wife had possession | Court: No abuse of discretion — awarded Husband rent-equivalent (half the monthly payments) and credited his HELOC payments as found by master |
| HELOC withdrawals and offsets | Wife: Husband withdrew $9,436.92 post-separation and was improperly credited twice; she should be reimbursed | Husband: payments he made on HELOC exceeded his withdrawals; master’s offset calculation is correct | Court: Affirmed master/trial court factual finding — Husband’s payments exceeded withdrawals; credit of $3,434.44 proper |
| Credit to Wife for post-separation mortgage payments from premarital CDs | Wife: she paid $8,498 post-separation and should receive credit | Husband: no mandatory credit; overall distributive scheme is equitable | Court: Issue waived for lack of developed argument; alternatively within court’s discretion to deny credit |
| Valuation of jewelry | Wife: court erred in averaging purchase price and private-party value | Husband: court may rely on submitted appraisals and choose valuation method | Court: Affirmed — court may accept, reject, or average evidence; valuation not an abuse of discretion |
| Alimony request | Wife: disparity in incomes warrants alimony; court failed to properly weigh statutory factors | Husband: Wife received post-separation support, has assets/loaned funds, and did not pursue earning capacity | Court: Denial affirmed — court considered statutory factors and found alimony unnecessary |
| Counsel fees | Wife: seeks $7,177 in attorney’s fees | Husband: fees not automatic; Wife must show actual need | Court: Denied — Wife failed to establish need; no abuse of discretion |
| Overall economic justice under Divorce Code | Wife: distribution saddles her with obligations she cannot pay; scheme fails to effectuate economic justice | Husband: master and trial court considered Section 3502 factors; distribution is equitable | Court: Affirmed — trial court properly considered statutory factors and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court has broad discretion in equitable distribution)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion review in equitable distribution)
- Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882 (Pa. Super. 2005) (definition of abuse of discretion and when appellate reversal is warranted)
- Trembach v. Trembach, 615 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1992) (dispossessed spouse may receive credit for fair rental value)
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court may rely on inventories, purchase records, and appraisals for property valuation)
- Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Super. 2003) (purpose and standards for awarding alimony)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 822 A.2d 824 (Pa. Super. 2003) (factors to consider in awarding alimony)
- Korn v. Epstein, 727 A.2d 1130 (Pa. Super. 1999) (failure to develop argument or cite authority waives issue on appeal)
- Schneeman v. Schneeman, 420 Pa. Super. 65 (Pa. Super. 1992) (post-separation mortgage payments not automatically credited if overall scheme is equitable)
- Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Super. 1997) (Section 3502 factors provide flexible framework; no fixed formula for dividing marital property)