M.S.P. v. W.P., III, 3336 EDA 2015

Background:

Wife filed for divorce in 2007 and sought equitable distribution; a master held a hearing in Nov. 2014 and issued a report in Jan. 2015.
Wife filed a timely request for a de novo hearing (styled as "exceptions") and the court scheduled a two-day protracted (de novo) hearing for Oct. 19–20, 2015.
Wife changed counsel multiple times; her most recent counsel (Musi) appeared on Oct. 19, 2015 but Wife did not appear and counsel said he was unprepared and sought to withdraw.
The court permitted counsel to withdraw, deemed Wife "not ready without satisfactory excuse" under Pa.R.C.P. 218, dismissed her request for a de novo hearing, and entered the master's report as the final equitable distribution order.
Wife filed a motion for reconsideration claiming hospitalization for severe depression/anxiety; she did not attach medical records to that motion and had not notified the court or counsel before the hearing.
Husband moved to quash the appeal and seek sanctions for briefing/record deficiencies; the Superior Court denied quashal and sanctions and affirmed the divorce decree.

Issues:

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Wife's de novo demand and entering the master's report as final when Wife failed to appear	Wife says she had a satisfactory excuse (hospitalization for severe depression/anxiety) and the court should have continued or heard the de novo trial	Husband contends Wife failed to appear without satisfactory excuse despite having notice and prior denials of continuance; Rule 218 permits dismissal	Court affirmed: Wife was "not ready without satisfactory excuse" under Pa.R.C.P. 218(c); dismissal and entry of the master's report were not an abuse of discretion
Whether the court erred by permitting Wife's counsel to withdraw at the Oct. 19 hearing	Wife contends withdrawal was premature and she reasonably expected counsel to remain until the scheduled show-cause hearing; she contests counsel's preparation	Husband notes counsel explained lack of communication/cooperation and Wife had previously agreed (conditionally) to withdrawal; counsel sought leave to withdraw	Court found withdrawal permissive and even if premature, it was irrelevant because neither Wife nor counsel was prepared; no relief granted
Whether Husband's motion to quash the appeal and for sanctions should be granted for defects in Wife's pro se brief and reproduced record	Wife argued pro se filings should be liberally construed and later retained counsel; she sought to supplement/seal medical records	Husband argued brief lacked legal support and the reproduced record improperly included medical docs not in certified record, meriting quash and sanctions	Superior Court denied quashal and sanctions: pro se brief was sufficient for review and Husband failed to show dilatory/vexatious conduct; improperly included medical docs were struck from reproduced record

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Wilson, 828 A.2d 376 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pre-divorce equitable distribution orders are interlocutory until entry of divorce decree)
Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc., 912 A.2d 329 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court may quash appeal for substantial nonconformity with appellate rules)
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2006) (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but no special benefits)
Faison v. Turner, 858 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2004) (review of Rule 218 dismissals is for abuse of discretion based on case facts)
Pavie v. Pavie, 606 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1992) (de novo hearing requires presentation of evidence and recorded proceedings — distinguished where Rule 1920.55-3 applies)
Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)
Kropf v. Kropf, 24 A.3d 405 (Pa. 2011) (divorce procedure defaults to civil rules when divorce rules are silent)
Tosi v. Kizis, 85 A.3d 585 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)