Kodenkandeth, J. v. Kodenkandeth, M.

J-A19012-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JOHN KODENKANDETH, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

MARY F. KODENKANDETH,

Appellee No. 1082 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Decree Entered June 11, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): FD07-1796-004

JOHN F. KODENKANDETH, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

MARY F. KODENKANDETH,

Appellant No. 1092 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Decree Entered June 11, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): FD-07-001796-004

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 05, 2014

John Kodenkandeth (Husband) and Mary F. Kodenkandeth (Wife) each acting pro se filed cross-appeals after the decree in divorce was entered on ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A19012-14

June 11, 2013. Both parties raise numerous issues related to the equitable distribution of the marital estate, which was essentially set forth in a trial court order dated January 22, 2013, after a one-day trial was held on December 7, 2012. Following our review, we affirm.1

The parties were married on July 11, 1971, and separated on April 20, 2010. Husband filed a complaint in divorce on June 9, 2010, which led to extensive litigation over the ensuing years. Now, on appeal, Husband raises six issues with a total of ten sub-issues. Meanwhile, Wife raises fourteen issues for our review.

Generally, in addressing the types of issues raised in this appeal, we are guided by the following:

Our standard of review in assessing the propriety of a marital property distribution is whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow Harasym v. Harasym, 418 Pa. Super. 486, 614 discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear Zollars v. Zollars, 397 Pa. Super. 204, 579 A.2d 1328, 1330 (Pa. Super. 1990), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 603, 589 A.2d 693 (1991).

Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a), when fashioning equitable distribution awards, the trial court must consider: the length of the marriage; any prior marriages; age, health, skills, and employability of the parties; sources of income and needs of the parties; contributions of one party to the increased earning power of the other party; opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of assets or income; contribution or dissipation of ____________________________________________

1 This Court consolidated sua sponte -appeals by order dated July 18, 2013.

-2-

J-A19012-14

each party to the acquisition, depreciation or appreciation [of] marital property[;] value of each party's separate property[;] standard of living established during the marriage; economic circumstances of each party and whether the party will be serving as custodian of any dependent children. 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1-11). The weight to be given to these statutory factors depends on the facts of each case and is within the court's discretion. Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368, 1376 (Pa. Super. 1997) (en banc).

Mercatell v. Mercatell, 854 A.2d 609, 611 (Pa. Super. 2004).

Id. We also measure the circumstances of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties and achieving a just determination of

Hayward v. Hayward, 868 A.2d 554, 559 (Pa. Super. 2005).

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough and well-reasoned analysis provided by the Honorable Kathryn Hens-Greco of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in her opinion, dated September 13, 2013. We conclude that Judge Hens-Greco considered the statutory factors as they applied to the facts of this case and correctly disposed of the issues presented by both parties.

-3-

J-A19012-14

Accordingly, we adopt her opinion as our own and affirm the decree on that basis.2, 3

Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/5/2014 ____________________________________________ 2

the math error involving the sum of $6,026. 3 We note that in June of 2014, Husband filed an application to strike and a -appeal. In light of our review and our adoption

application as moot.

-4-c M Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM c t / 0 1 25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM l d 09/02/2014 11 25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM l d 09/02/2014 11 25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM Circulated 09/02/2014 11:25 AM