Schultz v. Schultz
70 A.3d 826
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Wife appeals from the denial of contempt regarding the May 3, 2011 order on marital property.
- Husband and Wife were married in 1984; divorce filed in 2009 and transferred to Delaware County in 2010.
- May 3, 2011 order restricted dissipation of marital assets, required accounting, appraisal, and addressed severance pay and real estate sale proceeds.
- June 22, 2011 Wife sought contempt; March 8, 2012 trial court denied contempt, allowed $100,000 withdrawal as an equitable distribution advance, and froze accounts.
- Appeal challenges: (a) finality/appealability of the March 8, 2012 order, (b) propriety of the $100,000 withdrawal, (c) treatment of Husband’s severance pay as marital property; Court quashes appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the March 8, 2012 order appealable? | Wife argues denial of contempt divests compliance rights under earlier order. | Husband contends no final order; order relates to discovery and is interlocutory. | Order is interlocutory; not appealable. |
| Was the $100,000 withdrawal as an advance on equitable distribution proper to be reviewed on appeal? | Wife contends abuse of discretion and improper access to marital assets. | Husband cites Section 3502(f) allowing interim distributions; issues of distribution not final yet, so not reviewable. | Not reviewable on appeal; anticipatory distribution pending final order. |
| Was Husband’s severance pay properly treated as marital property subject to distribution? | Severance pay should be marital property and subject to equitable distribution. | Court did not clearly decide; ruling was cryptic and review is premature. | Review premature; no final determination in record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Basham v. Basham, 713 A.2d 673 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appealability of contempt-related refusals clarified as dependent on final order)
- Commonwealth v. Guardiani, 310 A.2d 422 (Pa. Super. 1973) (finality requirement for contempt-denial rulings; exceptions noted)
- Davidyan v. Davidyan, 3 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1939) (contempt appeal permitted where enforcing earlier final decree)
- Braunschweiger’s Estate, 185 A. 753 (Pa. 1936) (distribution mandates and related contempt actions)
- State Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania v. Morrison, 120 A. 769 (Pa. 1923) (limitations on contempt appeals; denial of relief tied to decree enforcement)
- Manbeck v. Manbeck, 489 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 1985) (equitable distribution issues not reviewable on appeal absent final order)