Trotman, S. v. Trotman, D.
209 MDA 2021
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 16, 2021Background
- Donna (Wife) and Scott Trotman (Husband) married in 2000, separated in October 2017; Husband filed for divorce in October 2017. A Master was appointed to hear equitable distribution and (later) alimony.
- The Master’s reports recommended the marital home be sold and proceeds divided 60% to Wife / 40% to Husband; other assets (401(k)/pension, vehicles, furnishings) were allocated and certain debts charged to sale proceeds.
- Wife initially failed to follow local rules to appoint the Master on alimony/counsel fees but the trial court later allowed appointment; supplemental hearings on alimony were held and the Master recommended alimony of $527.18/month until November 1, 2021.
- Evidence: Wife is disabled (physician verification indicating disability from May 18, 2020 to June 1, 2021), has limited income (child support and the alimony ordered), an earning capacity the Master found at $1,100/month; parties’ home was in foreclosure and neither could afford the mortgage.
- Wife filed exceptions to the Master’s amended report and appealed the trial court’s January 12, 2021 order; she argued (1) the court erred by ordering sale of the marital residence instead of awarding it to her, (2) the court failed to consider her debts, and (3) the alimony award amount/duration was inadequate.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found the property issues waived (Wife had agreed to sale and/or failed to preserve/develop arguments) and held the alimony award was supported by consideration of statutory factors and not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering sale of the marital residence rather than awarding it to Wife | Wife: Court should have awarded the house to Wife so she could continue to live there | Husband/Trial Ct: Parties had agreed to sell the home; neither can afford mortgage; Master recommended sale | Waived/affirmed — Wife previously agreed to sale at Master’s hearing; issue deemed waived and sale order affirmed |
| Whether the court failed to consider Wife’s debts in equitable distribution | Wife: As a disabled person with no income, she should not be held equally responsible for marital debts (some incurred after separation) | Husband/Trial Ct: Debts were allocated by Master and distributed; Wife failed to develop or cite authority for challenge | Waived — appellate argument undeveloped and unsupported; claim not preserved for review |
| Whether alimony amount and duration were inadequate | Wife: Award insufficient to meet reasonable needs given disability and lack of income; trial court failed to properly apply §3701(b) factors | Husband/Trial Ct: Master and trial court considered statutory factors (including Wife’s disability, needs, duration of marriage, parties’ incomes) and fixed temporary alimony; modification is available if disability continues | Affirmed — trial court considered statutory factors, did not abuse discretion; $527.18/month until Nov. 1, 2021 upheld (modification permitted on changed circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Cook, 186 A.3d 1015 (Pa.Super. 2018) (discusses alimony as secondary remedy and necessity to apply statutory factors)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa.Super. 2013) (appellate court may affirm on alternate grounds)
- Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc) (failure to develop argument on appeal may result in waiver under appellate rules)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006) (issues not appropriately developed or supported by authority are waived)
- Chapman-Rolle v. Rolle, 893 A.2d 770 (Pa.Super. 2006) (failure to cite authority for an argument constitutes waiver)