Schultz, R. v. Schultz, S.
184 A.3d 168
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Ronald (61) and Suzette Schultz (56) married in 1984, separated in December 2009; one emancipated daughter; both employed in pharmaceuticals.
- Husband filed for divorce in 2009; case transferred to Delaware County where the marital home was located.
- After extensive hearings on economic claims, the trial court (Jan. 26, 2017) found Husband net monthly income $15,941 and Wife $10,409, denied alimony, and awarded Wife 55% / Husband 45% of the marital estate (directing specific asset allocations and QDROs for pensions).
- Trial court noted alleged dissipation by Husband but declined to “recoup” expenditures; stated it considered dissipation and other Section 3502 factors in reaching the 55/45 split.
- Wife’s petitions for contempt (discovery noncompliance) and for reconsideration were denied; final divorce decree entered March 8, 2017; Wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution — application of §3502 factors and statement of reasons | Trial court failed to identify weight of §3502 factors or explain basis for 55/45 split; remand required | Trial court reviewed all §3502 factors, considered dissipation and contributions, and provided reasons as required by §3506 | Affirmed: court sufficiently considered factors and set forth reasons; no abuse of discretion |
| Dissipation of $4.4M | Husband dissipated marital assets for paramours; trial court ignored dissipation evidence | Trial court considered dissipation and stated it gave ‘‘considerable consideration’’ but will not ‘‘recoup’’ unilateral expenditures beyond equitable division | Affirmed: trial court considered dissipation and the record supports its exercise of discretion |
| Artwork valuation/division | Trial court omitted stated artwork values and failed to divide per stipulated values — remand requested | Parties stipulated appraisals; each party retained artwork in possession; trial court order listed that Wife owes Husband for appraisal | Affirmed: values were stipulated/placed on record; omission in order was waived on appeal and property division followed stipulation |
| 401(k) valuation and expert evidence | Trial court accepted full 401(k) value ($959,376) without reliable expert; denied motion to supplement or appoint court expert | Wife’s expert admitted errors; no reliable contrary evidence; Husband’s position that entire account is marital was supported | Affirmed: trial court refused unreliable report, accepted available evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Severance payment (Teva) — marital property? | Payment was made before separation and should be marital property | Severance was paid in exchange for a post-termination non-compete (future restraint), thus not marital under statute and case law | Affirmed: severance was for future non-compete and not marital property |
| Valuation of bank/brokerage accounts and personalty stipulations | Trial court ignored stipulations and misvalued accounts and vehicles | Trial court correctly listed many account values and credited evidence; some challenges not preserved in Rule 1925(b) | Affirmed: preserved challenges lack merit; trial court’s valuations within discretion |
| Alimony | Wife needed alimony based on statutory §3701(b) factors | Trial court found Wife has sufficient net income and received >$3.8M in distribution; alimony unnecessary | Affirmed: trial court considered §3701 factors and reasonably denied alimony |
| Counsel fees | Wife sought fees for extended litigation and discovery resistance by Husband | Trial court found Wife had income and large asset share so not at financial disadvantage; some claimed fees unrelated to divorce | Affirmed: denial of counsel fees was within discretion |
| Contempt for discovery noncompliance | Wife claimed Husband violated May 16, 2013 order and should be held in contempt | Trial court found Husband substantially complied; many requests were duplicative or harassing; Wife sometimes already possessed documents | Affirmed: denial of contempt supported by record; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standards for appellate review of equitable distribution and trial court discretion)
- Sternlicht v. Sternlicht, 822 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial court’s credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Ressler v. Ressler, 644 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (§3502 factors are guidelines; list not exhaustive)
- Powell v. Powell, 577 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial court must examine §3502 factors and not presume 50/50)
- Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (purpose and standards for awarding alimony)
- Berry v. Berry, 898 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (analysis whether severance pay is marital or replacement of post-separation earnings)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (equitable distribution should effectuate economic justice)
- Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (counsel-fee awards where protracted litigation caused by conduct)
- Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- MacDougall v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for contempt and trial court discretion)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa.) (deference where factual findings supported and alternative result possible)