Case Information
*708 Circulated 08/12/2025 09:52 AM *688 Circulated 08/12/2025 09:52 AM *1 J-A17038-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
MARGARET A. CIKOVIC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BERNARD K. CIKOVIC :
: Appellant : No. 70 WDA 2025 Appeal from the Decree Entered January 8, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Civil Division at No: CV 2021-4243 BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: September 9, 2025
Bernard K. Cikovic (Husband) appeals from the divorce decree which
finalized the resolution of the parties’ respective economic claims. After
careful review, we affirm.
BACKGROUND Husband and Margaret A. Cikovic (Wife) were married for 29 years; they
married in February 1992 and separated in July 2021. The trial court
explained:
Two children were born of this marriage, both of whom are adults.
[Wife] resides in Florida. She was born on June 17, 1960. She is
employed as a flight attendant for American Airlines and has been
employed since 1986. Husband resides in Florida as well,
although he currently has exclusive possession of the marital
property [in] Burgettstown, PA (hereinafter the Cikovic Family
Farm or Farm ” ). Husband grew up in the farmhouse at the
Cikovic Family Farm. He was born on November 12, 1952. He
was employed in the personal financial consulting field but is now
retired.
After the parties’ separation date of July 14, 2021, Wife initially
retained exclusive possession of the [Farm] pursuant to an
agreement reached by the parties at a [petition from abuse (PFA)]
proceeding. A [c]onsent [o]rder was entered on July 14, 2021, in
which the parties agreed to Wife [’s] having sole and exclusive
possession of the [Farm]. … Wife exercised exclusive possession
of the marital residence from the date of separation until May 17,
2022. Husband paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance
payments during the period of time that Wife had exclusive
possession … . Husband spent approximately $23,000 relating to
Cikovic Family Farm expenses … while Wife had exclusive
possession.
The parties entered into oil and gas lease agreements during their
marriage regarding the Cikovic Family Farm. A [q]uitclaim [d]eed
was executed on June 27, 2011, tha t conveyed Wife’s oil, gas and
mineral rights (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “OGM
rights”) to Husband. Wife was not aware of what she was signing
because Husband handled all marital financial issues. Husband
created an LLC called “Jefferson Resources, LLC” and transferred
his interest in the OGM rights to Jefferson Resources, LLC in April
of 2013. Husband unilaterally sold the OGM rights relating to the
Cikovic Family Farm to a third party in April of 2021 for
approximately $717,000. The proceeds from the sale were
deposited into a Jefferson Resources, LLC account and
subsequently transferred to Schwab Account (x3561).
On July 6, 2021, Husband transferred $400,000 to each of [the
parties’] two children (totaling $800,000) from Schwab account
(x3561). The transfer of $800,000 in marital funds occurred
approximately one week after the parties physically separated
following a dispute at the residence on or about June 30, 2021.
The transfer of $800,000 to the parties children was primarily
funded by the sale of the OGM rights for $717,000.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 1/22/25, at 3-5 (citations and footnotes omitted).
On July 6, 2021, Wife filed a complaint for divorce and raised claims for
equitable distribution, alimony, and counsel fees/expenses. Shortly after, the
trial court granted the parties’ request to receive $50,000 each as an advance
distribution of the marital estate. Order, 8/9/21. On December 28, 2021, the
court authorized a second $50,000 distribution from their respective IRA
accounts as an advance to equitable distribution. ” Order, 12/28/21. On March
2, 2022, Husband filed a petition raising claims for alimony pendente lite ,
alimony, and exclusive possession of the Farm. On July 15, 2022, the trial
court appointed a Divorce Hearing Officer (DHO) to hear testimony and return
the record and a transcript of the testimony to the [c]ourt, together with a
report and recommendations concerning the [parti es’] claims. ” Order,
7/15/22.
The DHO held hearings on February 21-22, 2023, and issued a 70-page
report and recommendation (First Report and Recommendation) on June 23,
2023. The First Report and Recommendation included an index with headings
and sub-headings referencing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
recommended distribution of marital property. See First Report and
Recommendation at 1-70. The DHO noted that the parties’ main dispute
concerned “Husband[’s] transferring $400,000 to each of his children (total
$800,000) from a Schwab investment account on July 6, 2021. Id. at 5. The
DHO discussed the evidence and law, including the statutes and factors
pertaining to equitable distribution and alimony. at 59-68 (DHO
addressing 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 3502(a) and 3701(b)).
The DHO did not recommend that either party receive alimony, alimony
pendente lite , or counsel fees/expenses. at 53. With regard to equitable
distribution, the DHO found that Husband had dissipated the marital estate by
transferring $800,000 to the parties’ children . Thus, the DHO concluded
Husband “should be charged with receiving $800,000 of the marital estate.”
Id. at 39. Adding back the $800,000, the DHO calculated the “total value of
marital assets [to be] $2,329,290.” Id. at 50. The DHO determined the net
value of the Farm was $163,634, and recommended that each party be
awarded an equal share of $81,817. Id. at 51. The DHO further
recommended that “remaining valued assets [be] distributed 52% to Husband
and 48% to Wife based upon the evidence and in consideration of the
[statutory] factors [regarding equitable distribution in] Section 3502 of the
Divorce Code. ” Id. at 51. In total, the DHO recommended that Husband
receive assets valued at $1,229,468, and that Wife receive assets valued at
$1,099,822. at 53. Husband’s recommended award included the Farm;
it also included a portion of proceeds from the sale of oil and gas rights that
Husband initially deposited with Jefferson Resources, LLC, transferred to
Schwab Account x3561, and ultimately transferred to the parties’ children. at 55. Wife’s recommended award was comprised primarily of investment
and retirement accounts. Id. Both parties filed exceptions.
The trial court explained:
Oral argument was held on September 19, 2023. On October 12,
2023, th[e c]ourt issued an [o]rder denying Husband ’ s exceptions
in … entirety[,] and granting Wife ’ s sole exception. The case was
remanded back to [the] DHO … for additional proceedings to determine if it is necessary to redistribute the Chase Account No.
xx0021, Bank of America Account No. xx7471, Bank of America
Account No. xx1889, and the marital residence located at [the
Farm] to effectuate the financial distributions as set forth in the
[DHO s] Report and Recommendation .
On November 28, 2023, the first Remand Hearing was held before
[the] DHO[,] who issued a Remand Report and Recommendation
dated December 11, 2023. Husband filed [e]xceptions to [the]
DHO ’ s Remand Report and Recommendation on December 28,
2023. The [trial c]ourt, after oral argument, entered an [o]rder
dated April 9, 2024, denying all of Husband ’ s exceptions except
for Husband’s E xceptions No. 11 and 13. The case was once again
remanded to the DHO … to 1) determine if Husband paid
$18,000.00 to the Internal Revenue Service for the [p]arties ’ joint
tax obligations and 2) determine if Husband shall be given an
offset for any marital expenses paid by Husband during Wife’s
period of exclusive possession of the Cikovic Family Farm.
On June 4, 2024, a second Remand Hearing was held before [the]
DHO[, who] issued a Second Remand Report and
Recommendation dated June 25, 2024. Husband filed
[e]xceptions to the [DHO’s] Second Remand Report and
Recommendation dated June 25, 2024 … . Oral argument was held
September 25, 2024, and th[e c]ourt entered its Memorandum
and Order on October 22, 2024. The [c]ourt denied all [but one]
of Husband ’ s exceptions and adopted the [DHO ’s] Second Remand
Report and Recommendation apart from Exception No. 7. The
[c]ourt granted Husband ’ s Exception No. 7 and struck language
from the DHO s recommended order regarding pre-judgment
interest .
TCO at 9-11.
The trial court adopted the DHO’s First Report and Recommendation,
and the Remand Report and Recommendation dated December 11, 2023,
which were incorporated with the Second Remand Report and
Recommendation. at 1 n.1. The court further observed:
Husband testified that the transfer of $400,000 to each of the
children was done to 1) help both children pay off their student
loans and 2) provide each child with a $300,000 deposit so they
could purchase their homes .” Husband testified that there was
no other motivation for him to make that payment[,] as his
motivation was so that he would be consistent with his desire to
wind down his business, pay bills, and pay the children. Husband
testified that this plan was discussed with Wife. The testimony
presented at trial differed as to the intended purchase of a home.
Wife testified that she, along with Husband and their two children,
were actively looking at prospective houses together with the
intent of having all four names on the title to the real property.
Wife further testified that there was no agreement to use marital
funds to purchase a residence solely for the children and she
would not have agreed to transfer $800,000 to the adult children.
Husband testified that the parties and the children had
conversations around the dinner table regarding the plan to sell
the OGM royalties and give the proceeds to the children as their
inheritance. Husband explained that he, Wife and the children
discussed this plan ad nauseam . Husband transferred the
$800,000 to the children with the understanding that the children
would use the funds to pay off school loans and purchase homes .”
The parties ’ son testified that the parents entered into an
agreement with the children to give each of them $400,000 after
the sale of the OGM rights. Wife received no consideration for the
transfer of the $800,000 to the children.
Both children testified that approximately $600,000 of the
$800,000 was used as a nonrefundable down payment on the
purchase of a single home in Connecticut with a purchase price of
approximately $1,500,000. Both children refused to answer
questions regarding the details of the property that was
purchased. The parties ’ son was not willing to disclose the address
of the home. [He] testified that the purchase of the home involved
a life estate but did not disclose the owner ’ s identity. [T]he
parties ’ daughter also testified that the down payment was
irrevocable. The children did not consult Wife or Husband
regarding this purchase.
Wife testified that she contributed approximately $215,000 of
non-marital monies to the marriage through the sale of her non-
marital Grayson Bankshares, Inc. stock at Husband ’ s behest in
September of 2009. Husband inherited an undetermined amount
of money from his father when his father passed. The inherited
funds were held in a joint account owned by Husband and his
father, and subsequently converted into Schwab Account (x3561)
in Husband ’ s name after his father died.
Husband voluntarily retired June 30, 2021. Wife testified that she
was not aware of Husband s retirement. At the time of the initial
hearing, Wife wanted to retire, as she has a severe cyst on [her]
spine and two disc problems in [her] lower back. Husband
thought Wife wanted to continue to work. Also on June 30, 2021,
Husband paid himself $40,000 by a personal check. On July 1,
2021, Husband withdrew $2,200.00 from the Bank of America
Account No. xx7471.
The record evidence demonstrates that Husband paid $18,000.00
to the Internal Revenue Service on July 23, 2021, which was
approximately nine (9) days after the parties separated. Husband
asserts that the payment was for estimated quarterly income
taxes. at 5-7 (citations omitted).
Husband filed a notice of appeal from the October 22, 2024
Memorandum and Order on November 18, 2024. However, the appeal was
quashed because no divorce decree had been entered. See, e.g., Fried v.
Fried
,
only after the entry of a final decree). A divorce decree was entered on
January 8, 2025, and Husband filed the underlying appeal on January 9, 2025.
ISSUES Husband presents ten questions for review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
clear error(s) of law in concluding that [Husband’s] transfer of
$800,000 dollars for the benefit of the parties children constituted
a dissipation of the marital estate?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
clear error(s) of law in including the $800,000 in the marital estate
and charging it against [Husband] as an advance on equitable
distribution?
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed
error(s) of law, and committed clear and unmistakable accounting
errors by charging [Husband] with an advance on equitable
distribution for proceeds that were simply transferred from one
account to another?
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or committed
error(s) of law in charging [Husband] with receiving advances on
equitable distribution for proceeds that were spent on joint marital
obligations?
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or committed
a clear error of law in ordering a distribution of 91% ($984,879)
of the marital estate available for distribution to [Wife]?
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
error(s) of law in its analysis, findings, and conclusion that
[Husband] was not entitled to alimony?
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
error(s) of law in its analysis, findings, and conclusion that the
Schwab Account (x3561) constituted a marital asset and/or had
any marital component?
8. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
error(s) of law in its analysis, findings, and conclusion that
[Husband] is not entitled to a weighted distribution of the
proceeds of the sale of oil, gas, and mineral rights?
9. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
error(s) of law in its analysis, findings, and conclusion that
[Husband] had no cognizable claim to [Wife’s] airline benefits?
10. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed
error(s) of law in rejecting [Husband’s] claim for reimbursement
in the amount of Twenty-Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety-
Six Dollars and Twelve Cents ($23,196.12) of mortgage, utility,
and upkeep expenses on marital property during [Wife’s]
exclusive possession [of the Farm]?
Husband’s Brief at 5 -7. [1]
DISCUSSION We review Husband’s issues for an abuse of discretion. This Court has
explained:
____________________________________________
[1] Husband’s ten issues are related to and subsumed in the eight issues he
raised with the trial court in his concise statement.
Our standard of review when assessing the propriety of an order
effectuating the equitable distribution of marital property is
whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of
the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure. We do not
lightly find an abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of
clear and convincing evidence. This Court will not find an abuse
of discretion unless the law has been overridden or misapplied or
the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the
result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the
evidence in the certified record. In determining the propriety of
an equitable distribution award, courts must consider the
distribution scheme as a whole. We measure the circumstances
of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice
between the parties and achieving a just determination of their
property rights.
Jagnow v. Jagnow , 258 A.3d 468, 471 – 72 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation
omitted). It is the province of the trial court to weigh evidence and decide
credibility, and this Court will not reverse credibility determinations so long
as they are supported by the evidence. Childress v. Bogosian , 12 A.3d
448, 455 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). In addition, a DHO’s report
and recommendation, although only advisory, is to be given the fullest
consideration, particularly on the question of credibility of witnesses, because
the [DHO] has the opportunity to observe and assess the behavior and
demeanor of the parti es.” [2] at 456 (citations omitted).
Most of Husband’s issues relate to the characterization of assets — most
notably, the $800,000 transferred to the parties’ children — as marital
property. The Divorce Code defines marital property as “all property acquired
____________________________________________
[2] The trial court described the D HO’s First Report and Recommendation as
“exhaustive.” TCO at 14. The trial court has also provided a comprehensive
analysis of the parties’ claims . at 1-41.
by either party during the marriage.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(a). The statute
“presumes that property acquired during marriage is ‘ marital. ’” Yuhas v.
Yuhas
,
presumption, the party asserting that property acquired during the marriage
is not marital must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
property is not marital. Lowry v Lowry , 544 A.2d 972, 978 (Pa. Super.
1988). Section 3501 of the Divorce Code provides definitions for non-marital
property.
Here, Husband asserts:
In this case, the trial court granted [Wife’s ] request to include the
$800,000 in the valuation of the marital estate and to charge
[Husband] with receiving the $800,000 as an advance on
equitable distribution. This distribution had the effect of granting
[Wife] virtually 100% of the liquid assets in the marital estate.
[Husband] maintains that the trial court s distribution was punitive
rather than equitable.
Husband’s Brief at 35.
In his first and second issues, Husband claims the trial court erred in
finding that he dissipated $800,000 from the marital estate, and argues that
Wife was required “ to prove dissipation beyond a preponderance of the
evidence. at 21. He contends the court improperly required him “ to
prove the elements of ‘a legally bi nding agreement regarding an alleged plan
to distribute $400,000 to each of the parties’ two emancipated children.’”
According to Husband, the DHO and the trial court acknowledged [Husband
had no intent] to deprive [Wife] of a fair share of the marital estate. ” Id.
In his third and fourth issues, Husband continues to argue that the trial
court erred in reflexively charging [him] $800,000 as if he had received it as
an advance. ” Id. at 22. He claims he was improperly credited with receiving
more than $1,000,000 in advanced equitable distribution. Husband states:
[T]he DHO and trial court engaged in clear and unmistakable
accounting errors in charging [Husband] with receiving
$1,032,883 in advances, which included $77,074.38 which were
just transfers between accounts that were counted once when
they left one account and again when they arrived in another. The
trial court also charged [Husband] with receiving an advance of
$50,000 when [he] actually paid this money to [Wife] pursuant to
[a c]ourt [o]rder.
Id.
In his fifth issue, Husband claims that by crediting him with receiving
more than $1,000,000 in advance of equitable distribution, the trial court
abused its discretion by awarding 91% of the marital estate to Wife. Id. at
48. Husband asserts that the trial court “confiscated [his] retirement savings
and left [him] with monthly debt obligations that exceed his income.” Id. at
50-51.
Husband ’s sixth issue also pertains to monies credited to him as part of
equitable distribution. He claims the trial court erred by denying him alimony
because he “w ill be unable to meet his reasonable needs in accordance with
even the most meager existence, let alone the lifestyle to which he has
become accustomed. at 52. Husband states that the court s refusal to
award alimony highlights the inequity of the distribution scheme in its
entirety. ” at 55.
In his remaining four issues, Husband assails the trial court’s
characterization and distribution of: Schwab account x3561; proceeds from
the sale of the Farm’s oil, gas and mineral rights; Wife’s employee-related
airline benefits; and $23,196.12 Husband paid in expenses for the Farm when
it was occupied exclusively by Wife. [3] See id. at 55-65.
Wife disputes all of Husband’s claims , and asks that this Court affirm
the decision of the lower court, thereby confirming the June 25, 2024 Second
Remand Report and Recommendation issued by [the DHO], which
incorporated the [First] Report [and] Recommendation and the December 11,
2023 Remand Report and Recommendation. ” Wife’s Brief at 9. Wife
maintains that, without question, neither the DHO nor trial court abused
their discretion. We agree.
Much of Husband’s argument relates to credibility determinations. This
Court may not disturb credibility findings when they are supported by the
evidence.
Childress
,
court’s factual findings and legal reasons for rejecting Husband’s issues . The
court discussed the applicable law pertaining to equitable distribution and
alimony, and specifically discussed Section 3501 of the Divorce Code
regarding non-marital property. See TCO at 25-28.
Notably, the trial court expressed “disagree[ment] with Husband’s
contention that the $800,000, which Husband unilaterally transferred to the
____________________________________________
[3] Wife had exclusive possession of the Farm for 10½ months from July 2021
to May 2022. See TCO at 4.
parties’ children , was Husband’s sole and separate property. Id. at 24. The
court explained:
The record evidence demonstrates that Wife ’s name was added as
a titled owner of the Cikovic [F]amily [F]arm in February of 1999,
during the parties ’ marriage, when the parties re-financed
Husband ’ s existing mortgage relating to the property. … Husband
clearly benefitted from Wife ’ s ownership as entireties of the real
property. Furthermore, Husband and Wife maintained this type
of property ownership for 22 years and refinanced the mortgage
on the property on one or two additional occasions during this
period of time. A significant mortgage balance remains attached
to the property of which Wife is an obligor.
Id. at 24 (citations omitted).
The court also observed:
The record evidence demonstrates that on July 6, 2021, Husband
caused to be wired from a Schwab investment account (titled in
his name, No. xxxx3561) $400,000 to each of his emancipated
children. The $800,000 was transferred by Husband from the
Schwab investment account approximately a week after the
parties physically separated but eight days before July 14, 2023,
the determined legal date of separation. at 13 (citation omitted). The court stated that it gave “great weight” to
the DHO’s credibility determinations because the DHO “heard the testimony
and observed the witnesses’ demeanor on the witness stand at the hearing.” at 20. The court relayed:
During Husband ’ s testimony , he was at times vague in his
description of Wife ’ s involvement. He spoke in general terms
about the discussions for the use of the [$800,000] funds being
done at the dinner table or other times. When asked several times
on direct about Wife s understanding of this being an agreed upon
use of the funds, he at first gave the somewhat vague response
akin to we all discussed it ,” but did say at one point that it was
discussed with Wife.
Wife clearly and unequivocally testified that there was no
agreement to use these funds for a residence solely for the
children and, that in no uncertain terms, she would never have
agreed to transfer $800,000 to her adult children. at 14 (citing DHO’s Report and Recommendation, 6/23/23, at 8-10). Thus,
the court found “insufficient credible evidence in the record to establish that
Wife agreed to give $800,000 in marital funds to her adult children.” at
21 (underline in original).
The trial court has provided a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of
Husband’s issue s. After hearing oral argument, and reviewing the record,
briefs, and applicable law, we agree that Husband s issues do not merit relief.
The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in resolving the parties’
economic claims. As our review aligns with that of the trial court, we adopt
its opinion as our own. The parties shall include a copy of the January 22,
2025 opinion in the event of future filings relating to equitable distribution.
Decree affirmed.
9/9/2025