McGinley, M. v. Philpott, P.
McGinley, M. v. Philpott, P. No. 1251 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Parties married March 11, 2013; separated ~5 months later; Wife filed for divorce Sept. 10, 2013. Marriage lasted under five months.
- Wife (radiologist) sought divorce and equitable distribution; Husband (self-reported work in real estate/contracting/consulting) counterclaimed for spousal support, APL, and alimony. Husband proceeded pro se at Master’s hearing.
- Lackawanna County previously denied Husband spousal support/APL; Luzerne court concluded those issues were barred by res judicata and/or not properly before it.
- A Master held a multi-hour hearing, issued findings on income, assets, and credibility: Wife’s income and asset evidence found credible; Husband was evasive about income and presented little corroborating evidence.
- Master valued marital assets, assigned 52% of marital estate to Husband and 48% to Wife, and recommended Husband pay an equalization payment of $3,973.28 to Wife; trial court adopted the Master’s report and entered decree in divorce.
- Husband appealed pro se raising numerous objections; Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in equitable distribution and affirming procedural rulings on spousal support/APL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McGinley) | Defendant's Argument (Philpott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband is entitled to spousal support / APL | Argued Husband’s support claims were previously adjudicated (Lackawanna) and not before Luzerne | Sought APL/spousal support (raised in prior Lackawanna action) | Denied as procedurally barred by res judicata; Luzerne adopted Lackawanna outcome and/or held Husband not entitled given short marriage and his earning capacity |
| Adequacy of discovery / opportunity to present evidence | Wife produced requested discovery and documents before hearing | Husband claimed inadequate time/discovery prejudiced his ability to prove assets/income | Court found discovery adequate; Husband failed to subpoena or present corroborating evidence and had opportunity to verify Wife’s records |
| Valuation and inclusion of specific assets in equitable distribution (vehicle, bank increases, partnership interest, wedding bands) | Wife submitted documentation and testimony supporting valuations; Master accepted her evidence | Husband contested valuations, claimed withheld evidence, disputed calculations, and offered limited/uncorroborated valuations | Court upheld Master’s credibility determinations and valuations; excluded wedding bands for lack of credible proof; accepted vehicle/trust/bank valuations supported by record |
| Treatment of Wife’s pre-marital furniture retained by Husband | Treated increase/depreciation and Husband’s retention as compensable where Husband took/used furniture during separation | Husband argued furniture was nonmarital and plaintiff didn’t make sufficient effort to reclaim it | Court treated furniture as nonmarital property with depreciation value assigned to Husband because he removed and retained it; awarded compensation accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for equitable distribution and deference to trial court/master credibility findings)
- Raines v. Raines, 149 A.3d 375 (Pa. Super. 2016) (masters may hear ancillary economic claims after divorce grounds established)
- In re N.A., 116 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2015) (res judicata prevents relitigation of same issues between same parties)
- Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court may accept all, some, or none of testimony in valuing marital property)
- Taper v. Taper, 939 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 2007) (equitable—not necessarily equal—division guided by §3502 factors)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (master is appropriate factfinder to assess witness credibility in divorce proceedings)
- Arcure v. Arcure, 281 A.2d 694 (Pa. Super. 1971) (weight of testimony and deference to master’s report)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 543 A.2d 534 (Pa. 1988) (use current/trial value when valuing marital assets)
- Aletto v. Aletto, 537 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 1988) (trial court’s discretion to accept or reject testimony on value)
- Bold v. Bold, 516 A.2d 741 (Pa. Super. 1986) (value determinations may rest solely on party testimony when supported by credibility findings)