Valora, G. v. Valora, W., 241 MDA 2016

William Valora and Gail Valora divorced in 2013; their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) treated Gail’s PSERS defined‑benefit pension by using a marital‑portion calculation that the parties agreed had a marital value of $23,488.69. The divorce decree incorporated the MSA.
After the decree, William’s counsel obtained an actuary valuation showing a present value of $117,689 for the same PSERS marital interest and moved to vacate the decree alleging fraud/non‑disclosure.
The trial court held hearings, concluded Gail and her counsel did not commit fraud or conceal information, and denied the petition to open the divorce decree under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332 (extrinsic fraud claim).
William filed a notice of appeal by fax on the 30th day after the order; the prothonotary later docketed it as received after the appeal period. The Superior Court treated the appeal as timely because the certified docket did not clearly show Rule 236 notice of entry.
On the merits, the Superior Court reviewed whether Appellant proved extrinsic fraud sufficient to vacate a divorce decree and affirmed the trial court’s denial.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is timely	Counsel faxed notice on day 30 and contends prothonotary authorized fax filing	Rules require mailing/hand delivery; fax is not authorized; but docketing/notice issues made appeal timely	Appeal treated as timely (court applied doctrine of "regard as done what should have been done")
Whether judge reassignment/recusal required	Objected to Judge Salisbury as former member of appellee’s firm and contends reassignment tainted proceedings	Judge Salisbury left the firm long ago; no recusal motion made	No recusal error; issue waived and not pursued further
Whether trial court could consider petition after Judge Miller’s prior ruling	Argues merits were already before court and should have been addressed	Trial court’s authority depended on showing extrinsic fraud under § 3332; no fraud shown	Court properly declined further relief after finding no extrinsic fraud
Whether appellee committed extrinsic fraud by failing to disclose true present value of PSERS or explain need for an actuary	William says Gail/counsel knowingly withheld valuation and that counsel’s failure to advise hiring an actuary prevented a fair hearing	Gail provided the PSERS information available; appellant and his counsel failed to investigate present value; attorney error is not extrinsic fraud	Extrinsic fraud not proven; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to vacate

Cubano v. Sheehan, 146 A.3d 791 (Pa. Super. 2016) (untimely appeal where counsel relied on prohibited filing method supports quash)
Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (entry date of order tied to prothonotary’s Rule 236 notice)
Ratarsky v. Ratarsky, 557 A.2d 23 (Pa. Super. 1989) (attorney’s failure to investigate asset value is not extrinsic fraud imputable to opposing party)
Fenstermaker v. Fenstermaker, 502 A.2d 185 (Pa. Super. 1985) (definition and examples of extrinsic vs. intrinsic fraud)
Danz v. Danz, 947 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 2008) (order denying motion to open divorce decree is final and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kozel v. Kozel, 97 A.3d 767 (Pa. Super. 2014) (action under § 3505 for undisclosed assets is distinct from § 3332 petition)