Harvey, C. v. Harvey, R.
167 A.3d 6
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Parties purchased the house on June 29, 1993, shortly before marrying; deed named them as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- They executed a valid prenuptial (antenuptial) agreement on September 2, 1993 that generally waived marital/equitable-distribution claims and required gifts to be in writing.
- On September 24, 2002 the parties refinanced and executed a new deed listing them as "Richard H. Harvey, Sr. and Carol J. Harvey, husband and wife" (tenancy by the entireties). The refinance/deed change was done to obtain the loan and to reflect Wife's married name.
- During the marriage both parties paid 50% of mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities; Wife had executed and later satisfied a judgment note to Husband for her share of the original down payment.
- Wife filed for divorce and sought a determination whether the 2002 deed created a gift to the marital estate (making the residence marital property). The trial court found it was marital property; the master recommended a 50/50 split; the trial judge later ordered a 60/40 split to Wife; Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2002 deed converting title to tenancy by the entireties made the residence marital property subject to equitable distribution | Wife: the deed created a gift to the marital estate, making the residence marital property | Husband: the deed was executed solely to satisfy the bank/refinance and thus lacked donative intent; antenuptial agreement precludes treating the home as marital property | Court: Vacated trial court's finding that the 2002 deed created a gift; found joint pre-marital ownership plus stipulated evidence rebutted presumption of a mutual gift, so the original order treating it as marital property was vacated |
| Whether a 60%/40% split (favoring Wife) of escrowed sale proceeds was an appropriate equitable distribution | Wife: sought greater share based on relative assets and standard-of-living considerations | Husband: argued 50/50 is proper because both contributed equally to purchase and expenses and the house was the sole marital asset | Court: Vacated 60/40 order and remanded for an order awarding each party 50% of escrowed proceeds (affirming decree of divorce but vacating the equitable-distribution orders) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabad v. Fessenden, 825 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 2003) (antenuptial agreements are contractually interpreted; courts ascertain parties' intent and construe ambiguities against drafter)
- Holmes Estate, 200 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1964) (presumption that placing property in spouses' names creates an estate by the entireties and a gift; clear and convincing evidence required to rebut)
- Lowry v. Lowry, 544 A.2d 972 (Pa. Super. 1988) (financial benefit from a transfer can support donative intent; placing separate property in joint names raises presumption of a gift)
- Madden v. Gosztonyi Sav. & Tr. Co., 200 A. 624 (Pa. 1938) (tenancy by the entireties resembles joint tenancy: each spouse owns the whole with survivorship, differing in alienability)
- Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate review of equitable distribution requires deference to trial court; reversal only for abuse of discretion)