Hess, R. v. Hess, J.
212 A.3d 520
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Judy L. Hess (Wife) appealed the trial court's July 20, 2018 Divorce Decree distributing marital assets after a 17‑year marriage that ended in 2016.
- Husband (Rodney S. Hess) is retired from PennDOT and receives a SERS pension in pay status since 2013, plus Social Security and part‑time wages; Wife works as a pharmacy technician with lower earnings.
- Marital estate was modest: an unencumbered residence valued at $101,000, some vehicles, minimal debt, and retirement benefits including the SERS pension.
- A Special Master recommended a 53%–47% split favoring Wife and an equal (50/50) split of the SERS pension; Husband filed exceptions.
- The trial court rejected the Master on the pension, instead ordering overall 55%–45% in Husband’s favor for non‑pension assets and a 65%–35% split of the SERS pension favoring Husband.
- Wife appealed, arguing the court misapplied the law by excluding SERS pension income (double‑dipping) and by improperly weighing Section 3502 factors and disregarding the Master’s recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not treating Husband's SERS pension (in pay status) as income when calculating equitable distribution percentages | The Master's inclusion of SERS pension as income was proper; excluding it understates Husband's income and favored Husband | Including pension income would constitute "double dipping" because the pension is marital property subject to distribution; pension should not be counted as income for distribution calculations | Court affirmed trial court: exclusion of pension income was permissible to avoid double dipping and was within trial court's discretion |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by rejecting the Special Master's recommendations and misweighing Section 3502 factors (including part‑time income, residence possession, and contributions) | Trial court failed to account for Husband's part‑time income, Wife's sole/variable income, Wife's contributions, and that Husband retained the marital home | Trial court properly applied Section 3502 factors, weighed evidence, and exercised permissible discretion in assigning different percentages to pension vs. other assets | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court's weighing of factors and overall distribution supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Brubaker v. Brubaker, 201 A.3d 180 (Pa. Super. 2018) (standards for abuse of discretion in equitable distribution)
- Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2017) (abuse of discretion definition and reversal standard)
- Hayward v. Hayward, 868 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2005) (objective of equitable distribution and review of distribution as a whole)
- Mundy v. Mundy, 151 A.3d 230 (Pa. Super. 2016) (evaluate distribution scheme in its entirety)
- Harvey v. Harvey, 167 A.3d 6 (Pa. Super. 2017) (do not reverse based on a single factor; review overall Section 3502 application)
- Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirement to consider Section 3502 factors)
- Wang v. Feng, 888 A.3d 882 (Pa. Super. 2005) (no fixed formula; method derived from case facts)
- Miller v. Miller, 783 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. 2001) (assets awarded in equitable distribution should not be counted as income for support)
- Rohrer v. Rohrer, 715 A.2d 463 (Pa. Super. 1998) (disfavoring double dipping between support and distribution)
- Berry v. Berry, 898 A.3d 1100 (Pa. Super. 2006) (treating partnership accrual account as marital property and not income)