Jones, D. v. Jones, E.
Jones, D. v. Jones, E. No. 1519 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 21, 2017Background
- David A. Jones (Husband) and Elaine K. Jones (Wife, now Buchanan) married in 1974; separated 2011; Husband filed for divorce in October 2011.
- A family law master issued recommendations in 2014 on divorce, equitable distribution, alimony (12 years), and fees; both parties filed exceptions.
- Trial court (Oct. 20, 2014) granted Husband an impermissible credit: deducting alimony pendente lite (APL) payments from Wife’s post‑divorce alimony; otherwise upheld the 12‑year alimony after applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b).
- This Court (June 20, 2016) vacated the APL credit as an abuse of discretion and remanded for proceedings limited to determining whether removal of that credit altered equitable distribution.
- On remand the trial court reaffirmed the alimony award (without the APL credit) and made no changes to equitable distribution; Husband appealed, arguing the 12‑year award was inequitable and that § 3701(b) factors were misapplied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by affirming a 12‑year post‑divorce alimony award | Alimony term is inequitable; court failed to adequately consider his income, age, and desire to retire so he can stop paying sooner | Remand was limited to whether removal of the APL credit altered equitable distribution; trial court properly reaffirmed the award after applying § 3701(b) | Affirmed. Husband cannot relitigate general equitability on remand; remand scope was limited and alimony remained equitable |
| Whether the trial court failed to properly consider and apply 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b) factors | Trial court misweighed and omitted consideration of certain statutory factors, producing an improper award | Trial court had already applied § 3701(b) and found award equitable independent of APL credit; no basis to reopen the full alimony inquiry on remand | Held: No reversible error. The court did not err within the limited remand; Husband’s arguments are repeat of matters he could have appealed earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Quaker State Oil Ref. Co. v. Talbot, 185 A. 586 (Pa. 1936) (where remand is limited, lower court may decide only specified issues)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 94 A.3d 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (remand limited to defined issues bars relitigation beyond scope)
- Agostinelli v. Edwards, 98 A.3d 695 (Pa. Super. 2014) (requires strict compliance with appellate mandate on remand)
- Mahonski v. Engel, 145 A.3d 175 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discussing limits on Rule 1925(b) statements and dismissal for bad‑faith or non‑concise filings)