Smith, S. v. Smith, C.
Smith, S. v. Smith, C. No. 190 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Christopher and Susan Smith married 1984, separated 2014; divorce and equitable distribution proceedings followed; trial court entered final divorce decree and equitable distribution on Sept. 15, 2015.
- Special Masters recommended 50/50 division of Husband’s SERS pension via QDRO with Husband electing the survivor annuity option; trial court adopted recommendations and awarded Wife APL (alimony pendente lite) earlier.
- Post-decree dispute arose over QDRO language—specifically the meaning of “survivor annuity option” and whether Wife’s proposed QDRO complied with the equitable-distribution order.
- At a June 9, 2016 hearing the court excluded SERS correspondence as hearsay and recessed for expert testimony to interpret the survivor annuity term; Wife presented Mark Altschuler as an unrebutted pension expert at the December 2, 2016 hearing.
- Trial court compelled Husband to sign Wife’s proposed QDRO (costs split equally), denied Husband’s competing QDRO and denied recusal; Superior Court affirmed those orders and quashed a separate appeal that had been withdrawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of SERS correspondence at hearing | N/A (Wife objected to hearsay) | Letter from SERS counsel should be admitted to show substantive pension acceptance | Court excluded letter as hearsay for truth; allowed only sequence-of-events inquiry; Superior Court found exclusion proper |
| 2. Continuance and need for expert testimony | N/A | Court abused discretion by recessing and continuing hearing | Court properly recessed, required expert testimony because term was a term of art; continuance not an abuse |
| 3. Admission and weight of Wife’s expert (Altschuler) | Expert competent and credible to interpret survivor annuity and prepare QDRO | Husband argued expert testimony was improper/hearsay and challenged credibility | Expert testimony admissible; trial court’s credibility finding supported; Superior Court declined to disturb it |
| 4. Proper interpretation/application of “survivor annuity option” in QDRO | Wife’s QDRO correctly reflects survivor annuity (Wife retains estate rights; survivor treatment applies in pay status) | Husband argued survivor option should cause Wife’s share to revert to him if she predeceased him at any time | Court accepted Wife’s expert interpretation and ordered Husband to sign Wife’s QDRO; Superior Court found no error and that award effectuated economic justice |
| 5. Award of Alimony Pendente Lite (APL) — need and amount | APL properly awarded under Guidelines after a threshold showing of need | Husband argued Wife lacked financial need and APL should not have been awarded or should be reduced | Trial court held some showing of financial need is required; found Wife met that threshold and applied Support Guidelines to award $1,178/month; Superior Court affirmed APL analysis |
| 6. Recusal of Judge Charles | N/A | Husband claimed judicial bias and sought disqualification | Recusal denied; no evidence of bias; Superior Court found no abuse of discretion in refusing recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Calibeo v. Calibeo, 663 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. 1995) (APL orders are interlocutory until economic claims resolved)
- Sprague v. Walter, 656 A.2d 80 (Pa. Super. 1995) (affidavits offered for their truth are inadmissible hearsay)
- Botkin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 907 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 2006) (expert report without testimony is hearsay)
- Hayward v. Hayward, 868 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2005) (equitable-distribution reviewed for abuse of discretion and viewed as a whole)
- McCoy v. McCoy, 888 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for equitable distribution; abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abuse of discretion requires misapplication of law or manifest unreasonableness)
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court weighs credibility; appellate court defers if supported by record)
- Miller v. Miller, 617 A.2d 375 (Pa. Super. 1992) (where party had opportunity to present expert valuation but did not, court may accept opponent’s expert)
- DeMasi v. DeMasi, 597 A.2d 101 (Pa. Super. 1991) (APL focuses on the obligee’s ability to defend/prosecute the litigation; addresses temporary support during litigation)