Masserrat, M. v. Masserrat, E.
Masserrat, M. v. Masserrat, E. No. 186 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 27, 2017Background
- Husband (Esmaeel) and Wife (Mehrnosh) separated in October 2006 after ~21 years of marriage; both are Iranian citizens and later proceeded pro se at various times. Two adult children; long, complex divorce and equitable-distribution litigation spanning 2006–2015.
- Multiple assets were frozen by court orders in 2007; parties had joint TD Ameritrade accounts, a marital residence, and retirement plans subject to QDROs.
- Divorce Master conducted multi-day hearings (2009) and issued reports (July 15, 2011; Feb. 2, 2015); the trial court adopted and adjusted the Master’s recommendations and entered final equitable-distribution orders in 2012, 2015, and a final decree Dec. 18, 2015.
- Key disputed items on appeal: valuation of a joint Ameritrade stock/options account (Husband claims it was nearly worthless at separation), a $62,000 credit to Wife for mortgage/home-equity payments, fair‑rental credit to Husband while excluded from the home, the 2015 appraisal of the marital home, and valuation of Persian carpets/personal property.
- A Protection from Abuse (PFA) order (agreed final PFA) excluded Husband from the marital residence from Oct. 25, 2006 until May 2, 2010; the court treated that exclusion as an equitable defense to rental-credit claims.
- The trial court gave great weight to the Master’s credibility findings, declined to reopen long‑litigated evidence, adopted an updated court‑appointed appraisal (March 2015), and approved distribution: Wife 55% / Husband 45% of net equity if sold (or buyout mechanics), with Wife required to pay Husband a set sum if she retained the home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Masserrat) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of joint Ameritrade account (assigned $25,000) | Master/trial may credit Husband’s statements and adopt $25,000 as fair estimate | Account was worth ~$49 at separation; Master/trial relied on hearsay/mis-transcription and should accept documentary statements showing near-zero value | Court affirmed: Master/trial did not abuse discretion; Husband failed to timely produce contemporaneous documentation and Master credited Husband’s in-court statements; valuation stands |
| $62,000 credit to Wife for paying down home‑equity loan | Credit reflects Wife’s post‑separation reductions to the loan; using separation‑date loan balance plus updated FMV effectuates economic justice | Husband says credit double‑counts because he paid mortgage deviation/support and preserved estate; should not get this result without offset | Court affirmed: home‑equity loan was marital debt; Master’s approach using separation‑date balance and current FMV was within discretion and aimed at equitable justice |
| Fair rental credit to Husband while excluded from house (PFA period) | Wife entitled to offset for payments; overall scheme remains equitable if rental credit denied | Husband sought rental credit for being dispossessed and for taxes he paid; argues PFA-based exclusion was unsubstantiated | Court affirmed denial of rental credit for PFA period: agreed final PFA excluding Husband was an equitable defense; court also found overall distribution scheme equitable and sufficient to address contributions/taxes |
| Appraisal process and right to challenge (2015 court‑appointed appraisal) | Court‑appointed updated appraisal was appropriate; Wife presented it and trial relied on current valuation | Husband objected to appraisal done in his absence, claimed it was ~$100k below market and he was denied opportunity to purchase at appraised price | Court affirmed: Husband had prior chances and time to obtain an independent appraisal, failed to do so; reliance on neutral court‑appointed appraiser was not an abuse of discretion |
| Valuation of personal property (Persian carpets) | Master/trial found evidence as to quantity/value uncredible; awarded modest credit ($2,500) | Husband claimed ~12–14 valuable Persian carpets worth ~$50,000 and offered an expert and witnesses | Court affirmed: Master’s credibility findings (discounting Husband’s expert and inconsistent testimony) were supported; no abuse of discretion in low valuation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court has broad discretion in equitable distribution)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate standard: reverse only for abuse of discretion or misapplication of law)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts must consider distribution scheme as a whole; masters’ reports receive full consideration on credibility)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (masters’ credibility findings are entitled to great weight)
- Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PFA‑based exclusion can be an equitable defense to rental‑credit claims)