Trapasso, H. v. Trapasso, J., 293 EDA 2021

Parties married in 2004 and separated in 2013; no children. Wife is a medical writer and sole owner/employee of Rite Idea earning ~ $390,000+ at hearing; Husband is an oncologist earning ~ $500,000+ and owned an interest in Urology Specialists of the Lehigh Valley (USLV) acquired before marriage.
The parties stipulated USLV interest values: $52,695 (date of marriage) and $236,734 (date of separation); by the equitable distribution hearing the USLV interest was effectively $0 and Husband paid an additional $125,000 in connection with the sale/wind‑down.
The master adopted valuation evidence and recommended offsets and allocations; the trial court adopted the master’s report (with modifications) and later entered a divorce decree on March 17, 2021.
Trial court treated the decrease in Husband’s USLV pre‑marital asset as $52,695 (the date‑of‑marriage value) and offset that against increases in other nonmarital assets; it also adopted the master’s valuations for marital portions of other assets.
Trial court awarded Wife alimony pendente lite (APL) for 30 months totaling $75,660; Husband appealed challenging the USLV valuation/offset, the treatment of post‑separation growth on nonmarital assets, and the APL award.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
1) Proper start date and amount of decrease in value for Husband’s pre‑marital USLV interest under 23 Pa.C.S. §3501(a.1)	Use date‑of‑separation value ($236,734) and include $125,000 payment → total loss ≈ $361,734 to offset other gains	§3501(a.1) requires using date‑of‑marriage as start date → maximum loss = $52,695	Court upheld master/trial court: use date‑of‑marriage; credited master’s credibility findings; decrease limited to $52,695.
2) Whether post‑separation growth may be included in calculating the marital portion of nonmarital assets	Trial court should cut off increases at date of separation and not include post‑separation growth	Husband failed to provide necessary historical statements; expert couldn’t compute alternate figures; valuations excluding post‑separation growth were reasonable	Court affirmed: §3501(a.1) permits measuring to separation or to hearing date (whichever gives lesser increase); trial court did not abuse discretion in accepting the master/Wife’s valuations.
3) Award of alimony pendente lite (APL) to Wife despite her high income	Wife earned substantial income (sometimes higher than Husband) and did not prove “need”; APL award unjustified	Guideline support amount is presumed correct; burden falls on opponent to prove guideline unjust or inappropriate	Court affirmed APL: record supported guideline calculation; Husband failed to meet burden to justify deviation.

Goodwin v. Goodwin, 244 A.3d 453 (Pa. Super. 2020) (standard of review and deference to master’s credibility findings)
Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court may accept all, part, or none of valuation evidence and may adopt the only valuation offered)
Mundy v. Mundy, 151 A.3d 230 (Pa. Super. 2016) (methodology for asset valuation must account for total value)
Strauss v. Strauss, 27 A.3d 233 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors for APL: ability to pay, petitioner’s separate estate/income, parties’ circumstances)
Ileiwat v. Labadi, 233 A.3d 853 (Pa. Super. 2020) (guideline support amount is presumed correct; opponent must show it is unjust or inappropriate)