Tecce, T. v. Hally, J.
106 A.3d 728
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Wife filed a 2008 Complaint in Divorce seeking no-fault divorce, equitable distribution, and alimony; Husband consented under the Divorce Code; a 2010 hearing officer report culminated in a 2011 order; a 2013 divorce decree was entered; Wife sought enforcement in 2013 to secure alimony, deed transfer, and other relief; the 2014 enforcement hearing was deficient but both sides presented argument without sworn testimony; the trial court imposed limited cooperation for sale, found a verbal health-insurance/ alimony exchange, and denied other relief; Wife appealed arguing due-process and evidentiary flaws; the court affirmed despite the flawed hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the enforcement hearing violated due process by lacking sworn testimony and cross-examination | Wife contends the hearing was fundamentally flawed | Husband argues there was waiver and no objection preserved the issue | No, but the issue is waived due to lack of preservation |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding an enforceable verbal agreement | Wife challenges credibility without sworn testimony | Husband asserts the agreement was established by unsworn statements | Held that such findings lack support given unsworn, non-testimonial record |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in relying on unsworn statements to deny relief | Wife argues insufficient evidence to support denial | Husband argues evidence was adequate to support court’s findings | Held that without sworn testimony, credibility determinations are unsupported |
| Whether waiver principles require affirmance despite the trial court's procedural flaws | Wife maintains waiver should not foreclose relief | Waiver applies and requires affirmance | Held that waiver applies and affirmed the order under waiver doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Superintendent of State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, 212 Pa. Super. 422 (Pa. Super. 1968) (testimony without an oath is meaningless; due process in testimony)
- M.O. v. F.W., 42 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2012) (necessity of sworn testimony and cross-examination for credibility)
- Cranford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (credibility testing through cross-examination; testimonial reliability)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juvenile due process; sworn testimony and cross-examination requirements)
- Green v. Green, 69 A.3d 282 (Pa. Super. 2013) (issue preservation and waiver rules in appellate review)
- Wenham Transp., Inc. v. Radio Const. Co., 190 Pa. Super. 504 (Pa. Super. 1959) (waiver of objections regarding deposition oaths when not raised timely)