Raines, D. v. Raines, J.
149 A.3d 375
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Dawn and Johnny Raines married in 2006, acquired multiple homes during the marriage, and separated in April 2010; Dawn filed for divorce April 13, 2010.
- A master was appointed to decide equitable distribution of marital property; he recommended Husband keep the Maryland and Pennsylvania properties and ordered a cash adjustment to Wife (~$134,076 net).
- The trial court confirmed the master’s Report and Recommendation on July 10, 2014 but did not enter a separate judgment against Husband for the cash adjustment.
- Husband failed to pay within 90 days; Wife sought contempt and judgment; the court denied contempt and refused to enter judgment; Husband attempted to sell the Maryland property to raise funds.
- At closing (Feb 20, 2015) Husband paid two interest sums Wife claimed: (1) interest per the master’s 90-day clause (~$3,063) and (2) “PA statutory interest” (~$5,138); Husband sued for return of the statutory interest.
- The trial court granted Husband’s petition for special relief, ordering Wife to repay the statutory interest; Wife appealed arguing § 8101 post-judgment interest applied from the date the court confirmed the master’s report.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8101 (post-judgment interest) automatically applies to an equitable-distribution award confirmed by order | § 8101 applies from date of the court order confirming the master’s report; that order is a judgment for § 8101 purposes | § 8101 applies to judgments; the confirmed equitable-distribution order was not a judgment and thus § 8101 does not automatically apply | The court held § 8101 does not automatically apply; an order confirming equitable distribution is not necessarily a judgment for § 8101 purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 865 A.2d 878 (Pa. Super. 2004) (applied § 8101 to arbitration-based marital award where parties had arrangements outside court)
- Osial v. Cook, 803 A.2d 209 (Pa. Super. 2002) (held right to judgment interest under § 8101 applies in divorce proceedings when judgment entered)
- Musko v. Musko, 714 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 1998) (applied § 8101 to divorce award where lower court entered judgment)
- Lockley v. CSX Transp. Inc., 66 A.3d 322 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explained purpose of post-judgment interest: compensate delay and discourage appeals)
- Hutchison ex rel. Hutchison v. Luddy, 946 A.2d 744 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discussed post-judgment interest principles)