Morgante, S. v. Morgante, K.
119 A.3d 382
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Samuel (Husband) and Kelly Morgante (Wife) married in 1987, separated in 2010; divorce decree entered January 14, 2014. Husband is a retired Navy service member receiving disposable retired pay and $871/month VA disability pay.
- Master valued the marital portion of Husband’s disposable retired pay at $1,090,539.94 and determined Wife’s share (after offsets) as $567,201.26 (47.652% of present value).
- Master originally awarded Wife a fixed monthly payment ($911.11) of her share; the trial court modified that to a percentage-based award to preserve COLAs but added an indemnification obligation requiring Husband to make up any reduction in Wife’s share (e.g., if Husband elects VA waiver).
- Husband challenged (1) the indemnity/guarantee as conflicting with federal law (USFSPA/Mansell), (2) the valuation/distribution method for the military pay, (3) an equal protection/supremacy-clause violation, and (4) the Master’s credibility finding about a gold ring.
- The trial court affirmed most of the Master’s valuation and distribution methodology, corrected the fixed-dollar error to a percentage award, retained an indemnity clause obligating Husband to make up shortfalls from other assets or income, and found the ring non-marital.
- Superior Court affirmed the trial court: upheld coverture-fraction valuation and percentage distribution, rejected constitutional and preemption challenges to the indemnity clause as applied, and affirmed the ring’s non-marital characterization (though on different evidentiary reasoning).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court improperly ordered Husband to indemnify Wife/guarantee monthly amount if disposable retired pay is reduced (e.g., VA waiver) | Indemnity circumvents Mansell/USFSPA by effectively forcing Wife to receive part of VA disability; court cannot impose such protection absent agreement | Indemnity is an equitable enforcement method to effectuate the marital award; it does not subject VA disability to distribution or prevent Husband from electing VA benefits | Affirmed. Court may order Husband to use retired pay and other assets to satisfy equitable-distribution obligation; indemnity does not make VA payments marital or preempt federal law as applied here |
| Whether valuation/distribution method of military retirement complied with 23 Pa.C.S. §3501(c)(1) (coverture fraction) | Trial court should have followed statutory coverture fraction and allocate only marital portion accordingly; challenge to calculation | Master used coverture fraction to determine marital share and present value; trial court reviewed and accepted that methodology | Affirmed. Master and trial court applied coverture fraction and statutory scheme for defined-benefit plan valuation |
| Whether trial court violated Equal Protection and Supremacy Clauses by protecting Wife over Husband (guaranteeing Wife lifetime benefit) | Indemnity treats similarly situated persons differently and impermissibly burdens Husband while granting Wife continued benefit, contravening federal supremacy | Trial court fashioned equitable remedy within its discretion; award considered whole distribution and did not impinge VA benefits; no constitutional violation shown | Affirmed. No equal protection or supremacy violation in the distribution scheme viewed as a whole; speculation about future deprivation insufficient |
| Whether Master’s credibility finding on a 14K ring (awarded non-marital) was unsupported | Wife did not testify about the ring; Master relied on counsel proffer; Husband’s unrebutted testimony showed pre-marital ownership | Wife/trial court relied on Master’s credibility findings and later review of transcripts to support non-marital finding | Mixed. Superior Court concluded Master’s ownership credibility basis was unsupported, but Husband’s testimony nevertheless supports the alternate ground — the ring is non-marital — so the ultimate result stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1989) (state courts may not treat military retired pay waived for VA disability as divisible marital property)
- Martin v. Martin, 561 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 1989) (Pennsylvania law preempted to extent it allows division of VA-waived retirement pay)
- Major v. Major, 518 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1986) (military disposable retired pay is marital property subject to division)
- Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for equitable distribution; deference to trial court/master)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (deference to master’s credibility findings)
- Drake v. Drake, 725 A.2d 717 (Pa. 1999) (trial court has broad authority to divide awards as equities require)
- Goodemote v. Goodemote, 44 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (VA disability funds themselves are not marital, but investment gains from deposited disability funds may be marital)