Ezzeldin, S. v. Ezzeldin, M.
1495 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 27, 2017Background
- Sarwat Ezzeldin (Husband) and Magda Ezzeldin (Wife) married in 1977; divorce and equitable distribution action began in 2007 after Husband became disabled (2006) and Wife later had a stroke (2012).
- Master conducted multiple hearings (2011–2014); master’s report filed December 3, 2015 after a 15‑month delay from close of record; trial court adopted the report and granted divorce; Husband appealed.
- Marital assets identified included: Baldwin, NY marital residence (Wife sole occupant post‑separation); Hawley, PA residence (sold post‑hearings); real estate in Cannes, France (sold 2011); vacation property in Egypt; retirement accounts; vehicles; and personal property. Master valued total marital property at $1,120,375 and recommended a 50/50 split, with Wife owing Husband certain credits.
- Key contested issues on appeal: timeliness of master’s report under Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55‑2; admissibility/qualification of an Egyptian attorney’s telephonic testimony about Egyptian title; valuation and marital status of Egyptian property; currency/conversion of credits for payments related to Cannes property; valuation/equity of Hawley residence given post‑hearing sale; rental value credits for Baldwin residence; and valuation of Wife’s retirement assets.
- Trial court affirmed most of the master’s findings, but the appellate court reversed and remanded only to adjust the equitable distribution to reflect that the Hawley residence had no equity at distribution date; all other rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of master’s report (Pa.R.C.P. 1920.55‑2) | Report filed 15 months late; violation prejudiced Husband and merits relief. | Delay acknowledged but Husband failed to promptly seek remedy; retrial would waste resources. | No relief: Husband’s delay in seeking relief and lack of prejudice (except for Hawley equity issue) preclude remedy. |
| Admissibility/qualification of telephonic Egyptian expert (Mr. Yanni) | Expert not properly disclosed; unqualified for opinion; no good cause for telephonic testimony. | Yanni qualified in Egyptian real estate law; parties had agreed to telephonic testimony; good cause shown. | Yanni was qualified; telephone testimony permitted; master’s credibility finding upheld. |
| Marital status and valuation of Egyptian property | Husband asserted he transferred it to his sister and valued it far less. | Wife introduced mortgage applications and Egyptian records showing title remained in Husband’s name and Husband’s own prior valuation (200,000 Euros). | Property was marital; master permissibly relied on Husband’s mortgage applications to value it at 200,000 Euros (converted to USD). |
| Cannes credit currency conversion ($39,000 vs. €39,000) | Credit should be €39,000 converted to USD at prevailing rate (larger USD amount). | Wife testified Husband sent $39,000 USD via Egypt for exchange; record supports $39,000 USD. | Master credited $39,000 USD based on Wife’s testimony; appellate court affirmed. |
| Hawley residence equity (valuation date) | Assigned $100,000 equity per master; later sale showed no profit so equity = $0. Husband says date‑of‑distribution value should control. | Master had used earlier valuation; Wife had made contributions and disputed rental claims. | Court held date‑of‑distribution value controls; actual post‑hearing sale showing no equity requires recalculation — award reversed/remanded on this point. |
| Rental credit for Baldwin (Wife occupied) | Husband sought fair rental credit for his one‑half interest due to Wife’s exclusive possession. | Wife paid most upkeep, taxes (mostly), and made repairs; Husband had constructive possession of Hawley and received offset. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying rental credit to Husband given offsetting facts; appellate court affirmed. |
| Valuation of Wife’s retirement assets | Husband argued asset growth post‑separation favored Wife or annuity omitted. | Wife provided statements showing declines; annuity from Transatlantic included in distribution. | Court found no error; Husband failed to show growth or omitted annuity; appellate court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review and deference to master on credibility in equitable distribution)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (masters’ credibility assessments to be given fullest consideration)
- Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 5 A.3d 212 (Pa. 2010) (expert qualification under Pa.R.E. 702 — any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge suffices)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may adopt valuation evidence submitted by parties; no fixed valuation method in Divorce Code)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (date of distribution typically controls valuation to effectuate economic justice)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 543 A.2d 534 (Pa. 1988) (Supreme Court guidance favoring date‑of‑distribution valuation)
- Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 385 (Pa. Super. 2009) (framework and limits for awarding rental credit in equitable distribution)