Dsida, A. v. Esposito, H.

J-A12034-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ANDREW J. DSIDA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

HEATHER J. ESPOSITO

Appellant No. 1480 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Decree September 12, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): F.D. 13-006046-001

BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and RANSOM, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2017

Appellant, Heather J. Esposito, appeals from the divorce decree entered on September 12, 2016. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case. As the trial court explained:

The parties married on June 14, 2003 and on January 9, 2013, the stipulated date of separation (DOS), the Plaintiff, hereinafter Husband, filed a divorce complaint. [Appellant] filed claims for economic relief and began receiving $20,000[.00] per month in support pursuant to an interim order entered on April 8, 2013 and the issue was deferred to equitable distribution for final resolution. . . .

[A] judicial conciliation on equitable distribution was held on June 18, 2014. By consent order dated August 28, 2014[,] the parties stipulated to the DOS and the second conciliation and hearing regarding the DOS were cancelled. . ..

J-A12034-17

For a little over four [] months there was no action on the case until Husband filed a praecipe for a judicial conciliation on equitable distribution which was held on February 17, 2015. A second conciliation was scheduled for May 19, 2015 and at the request of [Appellant,] it was continued until July 14, 2015 based on her argument that Husband had not turned over discovery in a timely manner. . . .

On the day of the conciliation[, Appellant] was unprepared [because she had] discharged her attorney who had been representing her for over two [] years. She desired new counsel and requested another continuance of the judicial conciliation. The request was denied but [Appellant’s] counsel was permitted to withdraw and the case was ordered to the Master for trial on the pending economic claims. . . .

A three [] day trial was scheduled to take place on [October 26, 27, and 28, 2015] before Master Chester Beattie. In September [] 2015[,] a series of motions were presented to the [trial] court regarding discovery and requests for [a] continuance. . . .

The Master’s report and recommendation was issued on December 15, 2015[,] followed by an amended report and recommendation on December 30, 2015. [Appellant] and Husband filed timely exceptions and cross-exceptions [], and after briefs and argument [the trial] court entered an order on July 6, 2016[,] remanding the [case to the Master for] the single issue of the calculation of Husband’s 2015 monthly income. . . . Husband’s exception to the Master’s alimony pendent lite (APL) award was granted and it was ordered that [Appellant] was to receive monthly support consistent with the April 8, 2013 interim order pending exceptions and final order. All other exceptions and cross- exceptions were denied. . . .

On August 8, 2016, Master Beattie issued his second amended report and recommendation wherein Husband’s 2015 monthly income was recalculated resulting in a monthly APL award of $91,938.52 to [Appellant]. Prior to the order becoming final, a wage attachment was issued for this new support award. Husband petitioned in [motions] [c]ourt on August 23, 2016 and asked the court to order

-2-

J-A12034-17

that the wage attachment be reset to $20,000[.00] per month consistent with [the trial] court’s July 6, 2016 order. The motion was granted and retroactivity was preserved. On September 12, 2016[,] a divorce decree was entered from which [Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal].

Trial Court Opinion, 12/22/16, at 2-4 (internal footnotes and some internal capitalization omitted).

Appellant raises four claims on appeal:

[1.] Whether the [trial] court committed errors of law and abuses of discretion in not compelling full discovery once [Husband] admitted that full disclosures were not contractually prohibited as had been represented to the court, contrary to the [trial] court’s order, with full discovery having not been produced with only [17] days until the Master’s hearing?

[2.] Whether the [trial] court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding [Appellant] only 55% of the marital estate when Husband earned in excess of at least 135 times [Appellant’s] imputed earning capacity and Husband’s non- marital estate had increased to be almost equal to that of the marital estate between the date of separation and the Master’s hearing in less than three years?

[3.] Whether the trial court committed abuses of discretion in not awarding Appellant rehabilitative alimony and reinstating APL during the appeal?

[4.] Whether the [trial] court committed abuses of discretion in not awarding Appellant counsel fees, costs, and expenses?

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (some internal capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Mark V. Tranquilli. We conclude that there has been no error in this case and that Judge Tranquilli’s opinion, entered on

-3-

J-A12034-17

December 22, 2016, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Tranquilli’s thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Tranquilli’s opinion.

Decree affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/22/2017

-4-

Circulated 05/23/2017 12:59 PM

:JN. :r-11'.E COURT Of':C()~:¥.(:).fiLPLEAS-OFALLE(HIE~Y cottNtY~ J~ltNN.S){LVANIA. - -· - FAMILYD.I.ViSlO~t .

NQ.; P.D .. 13-006046-0:ll PLAINTiFF' .·· , , . . . ~-. : . . #.1480 'SUPERIOR'COURT . . . ·WDA . . .. . . . . 2016,.

Vs,.. .O.PINION'BY: ....... - .· '··: JIEAtHERJ. ...... - . . . . ESPOSITO •. ,.. . .... . , :

J(J])GE MARK Y~· TRANQUILLI

COPIES· . ..... . SEN!TTQi ·. ... . . .

CQt]NSEL_FORPLAINTIFF:

).it~i-g~e.f P.. J'qy. ::es.q~ .McCarthy, McDona1d;Schuloetg .&Joy 535:SmithfiekI·Stre~t ·· · · .Bq1J~ ~~(J: '{Ieilcy. Qli Y.¢r Btiildi~g Pittsburgh, ··, PA 15222 . •'

-Rob~rt L. Garber, Esq. 355: Fifth Avenue · Suite 605 :eai:kJ~µiidJ~g · r-bt$burgh\ P.A f5.242~2407 ·(.", ·~ LLl ":,::,:· .u, . ··...... ... -s·uPERIOR' . .. . .... . . . COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. ·-

--u. ,,: ·.· .. ~. . . ... -.J (!..;; PROTHON.OTA:RY u .... · u..: C'~ . . GRAN1SmBt 3:10 . . . . - ' ..... ,.1sufrE - ...,.. .. eoo . .... .. ~i PI'i'TSBlJRGH'·PA _,, ... _.. . .. ,. . ,'" 15219 " ~

:lN T:IIE COP.RT OF COMMON::PL'EAS OF ALLE.GllE'l'fY. ·CQ.tJNTV; :PENNS.:Yi.-VAN.IA ;F\~N.lltX Ji.lVIS'ION . . . .. AND.REWJ; DSIDA N..O.·. f.J).. (3.:()06()46-0.11 •· soeeRmR co.tJRT. #t4so WDA ·2016. PLAINTIFF,

v« .HEATHERJ'. ESPOSiTO~-

DEFENDANT· .. . . -·· .,.

OPINION

Decembe't er, 2016 TheDefendant,' h~rein.~ri~r'Wffe,.appeais from the:Piv_orce: Decree-entered on Se.pt~mber i2,-., 2016., . .A Nonce of Appeal ...~ . w.as: filed. on October .3-,.. 201Q: and-on .. O~\Qper fl, . ;ZQ i6 Wife· wa~:

orderedto file ~:C.~ncis~-Statement of Matters.Complained of.on A:Ppeal. .A concise stat~ment Was filed oh October 31,. ·2Qt6 ,Wh~r~iQ:W,'jfe. GQmp{ajns·of.,d)irteen,( l3Jertprs. The Court will.

addresa themin the opirrion.that follows.

RELEVANT msTOR:Y ·'

The-parties: mM-ti.J ~moJ.ij_Qe .Vh .2003 and .on· January 9 •. ·201 J~; the-stipulated date :of

.~ep_afijti6.il (DOS)I the. Plaintiff, .hereinafter Husbanq,JiJ~g ~ ;Di\'~~~e Co.m.p.faf()t, Wife :fiJ~d . , claims for ecommii.c .r~ifof:anCii 'began' reeeivi{lg $20;0001-,et month In.S-\ipporr puts\iant to· an . :Interim;Order·eh:tered on.April 8, i? 1.3 30(1.th.~ issue. ~~s: deferred to· equitable. 41s.tribtition;for ·Jin~l J-'.~~9!~tJ~l.l, The:pas~ was or~gµialty :*ssi's.ne·cl to, the Honorable' William Ward. and .after-re- ·

i.

sssignmen; to this .Court, ajudtdal conclliationon equitable· distribution was held (mJu.n~ -1'8·, .

2014.1 By Consent Order. dated A'1gu,st:i.8., '20i4 tti~:p~i;t.i~~ stipu.l~~eg tQ the DOS .and :tne , :second conciliation and hearing;r~iatdb)g the DOS ·were ·call~elle(l fer a little· over four (4): rrfomh.~. 'th~rewl;!S no- ~cti~:m orrthe \ case until Husband 'filed .a praecipe for. a judi_cia.I. c9qciila:t.lo1t .

on .equuable distribution which .was.held on. Fet,ru~1y-17.~ :2015 •. A second conciliatiortwas ..

scheduled for May, 19\ 20'.15 and .afthe:request .ofWife·inyas continued, t1ntil Julyl4~ ·2015. based on her ~.rgµJl1:~0.J #1at Husband had.no] turn,ed: over-discovery · in, a timely·Q'lanner,l 'On (Q.~ diiy 0£

the·con:cili~tioil Wife was u.nprepared havint dischat.Md:het attom~y who .bad been.representing'

her.for over ~WO (2) yea.r& .. Sh~, desired new ceunsel and.requested ;~o~er,cQnt,1p.µ;u.1<:;~ .9fth~

judicial conciliation. · The: te<tuest was denied but °\Yife~,s· eounsel.was permitted to withdraw .and 'th~· case was-ordered to'the Masierfor"ttial .on ;die,;pendin~ .economie claims·? .A three (@) .day

'ttiatwas scheduled :tg, t~e place.on October Z6~,: 27:ih' an.d;28m:~ 20-15 before' N.last~r Chesrnr Beattie. InSepteinher;t>f'20t5 a series ,qf motions were, presented Jq the CQ~rt teg~diiig:

di'~~ov~ry @d ;r.:equests,Cor,continuance which will he: addressed 'in further detailbelow as the

ruli'qgs are sUbJtict :- ·. to.the present ~PP¢~( .· Ih.~ Mii~t~t's ,R~port andJ~~comme11thJtiQn ,wa.s'i:ss.'1ed on:O.ec:ember 1'.5~ 2015 followed by ,attAmenoed.Rep.o.it and· Rec6mmeiid.ation oitP..e.c~mber 30,

..tots;. W,jfe ;an,d, .aui])a.¹¹.d: fiied timely excep'tions· and cress-exceptions ·respectiveix~. 'and after· ~ . . briefs and :iltgumeiitthis :Court entered w,Orcier qnJi.ily 6.;,.20-l~J:em~ditig.th~ sipgie }~$.U~, of ~ll~t;@i~µi~tion'.qf Husband's 20J~ -m~nthly;incotiie,back.'to the Master. Husband's exception.to

.the Master's alim.()nype_114.en,t~·iire :(APLYaw.ard was: granted..and' it w~s,or(lered .tl:iat Wife wasto

receive.monthly :s:upport"cohsistent·w.itlt the April 8, -20.13 .Interirn :9rder _pending exceptions and 0

1 :ay;Conserit Qrijer-:dated M~y _49., _2.QJ4·th~ ls~"'~: reganiing the,<fa~e .of:sepata4on·was,adcledl<) the:c~r.iciliaJjon, See Or~er,d~t¢4 May.J}, iciis.:,. . . 2 ' . . . 3 See Ordfl_i:~ ·(ia.wd Jiily :14:/20 f:S: -Mo.tiori'fot-dontinuaµce of Equitable D'istiibution Conciliation: Petition for Will\~~~! ·ot ~ppear,anc~~ . <Jr~¢r e>f Court(b.ocket #42).

.3 ;

final order,I All· other exceptions. . and.:cross'°\exceptrons. . . were denied. On.Aug·· ost'.8', 2016; Master 8,l!~~(ie, is,u.ed. his Se~end: Amended.Repori,and· Recommendation whereirr+lusbarrd's' 2015.' ·-1 .• .. . . .. . '. ... .. . ... , - .. . . monthty in.c9m,· WW! r~c.alc.lJ.l.at~d resulting iIJ a monthly APL ,aw~d,: of. $91 ~9J~~5.2 tQ Wife, 1Priot· to Je Order becoming:fi.hal, ·a wag¢ attachmentwasjssuea for. this new support 'award.

ijusband l.e.titiqh~Jn.Motion' s Court on Augti$t '23',. 2016.andraske.d the .Coun' .to orderthat th~· I. wage ~~tb~ . ~~t . . . . . . . . . . · - . . . -·- · - · to ;iq,900 ,p~r month ~n!i$tentwiij! IQ\$ .Court'~ Jµly Q,;29'.QOrd~. . -~he·rnot11n was ¥.I~tedand:etro-~~t1v1t~was~preserved. o~ September 12, 2016,a D1voree

Decree w.as.en.J~red I from wh1clnh1s .Norice of' _A.,ppeal .. was filed.

:STATEl\t:IENT ORERRORS':COMPLAINED - . ·OF :ON APPEAL

l.. . . . . . . ··,tfe"PtitHnes..thirt.~en'·( l3.) :~~or8.tn.her:Cbncis~S~~te~erit:·ofMakers.Complained 'of on

Appeal .. 'Tl he Court 6.n4.$' thaJJoµi:'(4):,p_f t;he·._issµ~s. .are waived as: .th.~y·w.~r~ OQ~ presetv~d.for ~ppeal.an~ will address these'flrst, J'tO~qOJ:& numberedsix ((!);,;even (7)1 cighi.(8),,arul.f0urteert'(l4)4' all .complain .abour

e~o~:b'~:':~f e Masterin his R~pc;,rt and R~~ortunend.~tiQn made aft~r.(h~)~qu iJa~le Pfat.tjp~_tion

Jria.th~ld In ·QC,fob.:er ·of20J5.; Ifis. well established la.w· that hi 0i'der t<t~resetve issues. foi. appeal. - I ... . .. - -- - - - - relating to ~~M~~t~r.',s Report i); party)nt-1sf6l'e exceptions. Pa.JtA;P:. 302(~~;.MeArd.1¢. y;_. - McArdle; 619 A2d.1116 (Pa.Super. l996); S~/J(l$.thm.~a, V,. S~bQstl.qndli, '8.76. A.24 4Jl (Pa.S~p~r; 200$);. Ar: evidenced .by in the-1:iistory·abo.ve, 'both _partiesifiled.exceptioi:ls. from this R.·~port;,

I ~t:;i::~::;:i;~~;~=t~~':i~~·..;;~'!i":!ili~;.:::~1~~~,,~,~ ac~o111p~~Ji,i:ig b,ti~f<:>r d_ur.ing ~rgi.iment to .allow:for meariingful judi¢ial.review. 'Furthermore, this claim.oferror 0

a:ft.a~~s !1:9r.eci.16-jl.ity jl,ii:lgment rrtitde~by the Masterand as· such is.a meritless claim as. credibiluydeterminatlons win pot:~~}e.'le{~ecl-op a~peal;_ ;see;B.usse'v.Buss~;. 921 A2d 12~8 atJ 256: (Pa.Sl_!per. 1007);_ .Wopds v. ·Cicierski, 937 A2JJ I 103.:aU 105,.{pa,.Super.2007:)

howeverthe matters ~pecified'iri the. above J~fe.r.~m~ed. errors we;r~ norraised PY· Wife'.s: Therefore, :~ny l:ssµ.es which' Wlfe faile"d totafse in .her timely ex~~ption~: to die: M~~t~I;,~ .t<~pQrt

and Recommendation ~r.~ w~iyed:.for appeal as..iliey'mlist b.e.:rais·ed .at lhe:first :°-ppQrtunity; _AfeJ~gt.t.11:.Miil,g:er.,,'634 A2d 1057;:JQ.$6 .(l?:~v.s·~P.er. 19.87).

The Court will.next a.ddr.~ss Wffe'·s. claims.numbered twQ:(~}•. w.~e (~): a;t)g,f<>ur(4.), Pistrjbutioi1 Trial .and Motion to Compel, The standard ofreview of anorder denying a motion

for ~ continuance Qr related.to discovery is abuse of 4iscreti'ort Baysmore Vi, Brownstein, 77'i A.2<:l:'54., 5,1- (1?.aJtuper:2001 ), :Commonwe~(m :v. J}'qrtOP.J.;:144: f,\;3.d.13.9 (Pa.Super. '21()6) "An

abuse. of:dis~r~t.i!1n.:,f~. ITTQr.e than just an::ertol'in judgment and.orr a,pp~~l.. tb,e.Jr.i.~l. CQYJtwiff·n.ot:

&~ found to.have .abused its ~i~c;_r<;l(iQ,tbu.nless the record discloses 'that ;the-judgmeht-exei"cised was; ri1at'.lifesllY;·\JJlt~M0.nab.lei·Ot.thetesuits [sic} ofpa.r:tJ~iJty, w:e)11,dfoe •. bias ot ill-will,"

'Baysmore. ;at 'J7. A~ iri'al courts' have: broad discretion in. det¢rm.ii:itog:.such. .requ_e$t~.Jb~ ml fog§

&h~ulcl' not be disturbed ,~y · an ·app~l.late -court.abaenragparencabuse,ofdis·cretion. Id: 'f:11.!~band is· th~ owner .ofChemADVJSQR., Ine., ~i:id, as Uie· largesi asset. of the marital' estate iCW.1is, subje~flQ, mqch. l{tigation. Iri March of 40i5' Hu$ban~ provided ernai] 1

cpm.mynlqu.es. ·pettainht$ to,p.etenti~l,s.;d.~~- negotiaiions ,of:ChemAD VlSORin response to· Wif~'-:s discpvety:requ~&fs.,,notjng that there· have .not- been ;any sales agreements ·Pr letters of:intent signed byChe.ri'iADVIS.OI{f Thise. negotiatlons. o.eiw.een ChcniADViSQR ~<i. lt1e \>!;!~iv.~~~-,entities· w~i::~ subjec], lo' a· Non-Disclosure Agr.ee.mei;1f .(ND A.):.and. theref ore, Husband's discoyet)' 'responses :reda<;t~ .th~ 1J.~mes· :of the· prospective companies. AAd employees, pursuant.to that . Agreement. When.Husband was q~estfol.ied about the. identities ofthese..compani~sduripg)js

5-See Excepp.9_ns:t~:Mastei','S:Reco~endatfon· and Ame'i)ij~q Rec(immeridaiiori fi)ed January 4._ 20l61 6'-- . • • . . ·, ,. .. . Se~ WtfcfS:~0:tiori:toCompel;dat~ S~p~~m.b~r: 25, zp Hi, Docket #. 51.

Iulf 1, 2til5 de{'OsitiOn, liqsfialli!'·~. counsel dJ~ti:!! h.fotnot l\J <C$l!Q!ld .Qn th~:~~ls ohlie confidentiality.· agz;'~ement. ,On Sept~mber 25,'.2015,: fully;si,c(6) months aftetteceivii:\g the ·<!i.l!!lQY~Jim4 also.nearly three. 0). months.after Husband's deposition; \Vifo,p,;esent~ .a lv!Oliim I .- .. . . - -, .., . . . -· to:Compef Disc9v~r>'-··· In, t.ht$,ffiQtio.l'.l1~h~\-r.~q1,1.~~t~d tlr~t.Hti~bimd be Qr.cl~r~,;l i9 turn 9.v~r me

~!\UC$ lf·r~·~ .namesof µie· businesses that. wete· 'redacted, as: to allow ;Wi'.fe,to sti~poenttandlor .depose these

!JI: order toinvestigate.the. nature of:ihe:epn;pos~

tlie· Court.was made ~weµ:~' th,~~: Husband Was. np }ong~t $ll.:b.$C.t to, tll~ND.A .as to two (2). .of the "Offers''. Ai ~um~t

·~ompaniel andjhatthose names h11d been provided to Wife1J.tiorto argµfo·ent.7 So<afth'.e'.time:of I.. . . .. . . ... . .. ... .- . .. . . afjlumentjif• was :~ki!lll the W'\11~ ofMh\r<;I; enti\y 1111d altbo.ug!l.. Ute parties 1111.~ lawyershad

, signed.a .·con.fitlentfafity. agreement as well. the Courtwas: not·pi:~sente<l w..ith anyJMsis to find . ~tthe +fi~li\y ap~(s!g~~ by the·pmti~ ~mped lhe'.NDA signed between

CfieitiADrISOR .and a :third:p~y,.Tti.~ Co,q~ ,gerii~cl.- Wiff:.~ mot.i911:·fiIJ..di~g ·ro~tHµsbarid ;had

rnade . completerespenses I . .· tc Wife 'imcompliance with the NDA;. artd:irt any. ;event it was:dear to

the Qoµrt,jtl7:a~ the, 'comrounfC,atio~s. did. n'()trise·}o level of legitimate offers. Tlt¢ Court 'neted. on, ' . . the Order that had· Husband not been ~1,1l;>j~~t tQ th.~ No.n~DJ,$~.lc:>~u,r~ t\gre~m~Pl th~, (;;9tirt would

have required Husband to produce the name and did.not prohibit W,ifefrom .using this evidence at trial fol ,y)We\i~tp~e s~{C(i,necessary, .. . .

A Motion· to.Continue the Equitable.Distribution Tria.l was presented on.the same.date

r~p!e~~nting: that additional time. would be needed In. li~tof the. discovery Wife- was· seeking: i'ri . . .... I .' . . ., ' . . , -' her:MotrTi to Compel. Disf:o.~~r,.y -~c;l'b~~~µs~ Wife w~s ;~µffetj.n.g from health: issues, The 'latter . : .. was unsufported by.·any attathed decumentatien. Inlight of tbe.Court'srulmgon the Motion to: ~ompe.Ltfwt:fe' sunsubstantiated.health Issues, 'the Court denied to confirm~. the· October trial

I :6

bu'. extet the discpv!;ff ~wUJ11e and 'likewiseexteniled the due dale· fot. ~~l(aj •$9\!emen\S m us .O.rd.~1rdate.tl September25. 201~.

·. oJI ~be.r·- , . 91 20! s, Wlfe )>t¢s~te<l.it second ivfoiiQn .IQ Com\ilil¢ w!)e(eiit she, argµe<) . -· . -· ·- .·.. . ·- . ·.. -. .... _·-. . . . . . . thatfhe; Master's ..hearing'sl1Q1,1Jd'be ., . delayed· due'io .; newly .,, discevered evidence -, lI.1·'W:1{e'·l!l· :fytotJPn

she .sHited .that she. teirieVed· emails,f.(Qrtl a· ¢.om,p_uter that had been :in.her .exdusiVe ~pbssession;

thatfevealed ! ihat: J,lu$band;had.d'iscussiens with:inpr.e . . than the thr~e-H} . about the-sale of . entities' .. I , . , . QbemAD}.'-lSORfa·contra.4ic0.Qn. tC>liis-.tlis.covety'responses and depO\,itiQnJesJ)mgny; Again, I the...Court ~~vi.i:ig:revi'ewcd.J:he;attache.d emailsand :4~a.r:~ilg argument from both si~es did not find

.tbat·this nrw -imormafion demonstrated,anythin1t mote than _prelimin;uy -ntgot}:atiQn~-·at ~~s,t. and were n.Qf~Qna fide· offers ihatWoulcJ be r,~l.~v.tpJ. te a.business valuation. ~utthermote" this informaticln. was :fo:W.i.f.e~s exelusive possession priorto di~ :dive>rceJHing: and .eonsequ·entfy

,~x~iiable rL h~t duriilg the entir.~:li_ttgation. Her late discovery w.as of her 'QW.P cr~~li<;>n_ ~d- tf.le I .. .. " . . . .Cotnt wa~IJ1Qt ,going to further. dela~ .trial~!! ~: .r~s1,1ltof'~er iack of dili~ehce. ;Cdnsistentwith this

C.ourt'·s otder on September '25;. 20l5 ,, Wife was not ptQh-Ipjt~cJ from presenting-this evidence· ·at

q\'!! ftjr·wtaie~er:~utpOie she (el!' ne~~Y' . Irifact, dtitill~· die su11\11l3\)Q11'to:the },!laster by . Wife··~· c9,pstJ, the ~ontent:<if.these:em~ifs. w~~' raised, wher:ein headmitted that ¢ommunic~ti9ils- did.not mf nlie ,act;ep~(eve[s of.busmess evaluAtiQrt\o: ql\lli(fy them ·~s off.,;..; ~tit thatfhe :M.M:t~;r :~o~.ld consider'.thert1: an(J·d:raw ·.~nJhference;therefroriithat abou:r.th~ ·:vilµ~,.of ChemADllsdR.8

. Un~1y1ng, tile ¢<lpi:t' s 111ihigs 'on these motions II/as. 'iw 'l'Qgni_Zl!l\q> !1!:at,the case had

been.in liii,g~tion for.ever two; and .a b.!.\lf(Z I . iii) . . years, and that mos; of the d¢1ay was -~Ju:.i\:>.tJ.t.~l>Je: . , . to. Wff¢ ... Eviden~~,o.{:q¢i:-d.elayiriduded.courtotder$,r~q~lrJng b~rJQ.file herInventorj'; to.

. !'"1"i~,:ditM••r)'tt<i ii~jieatfor ii' 9~pQsitil!!II and te permit the· replacement of her ~@sei as tb.0 ~'see;Pr~s>5g1-6o,E~,~jljlble·D,istiibi.illon Trial tn1ilscript.(Jafeq O~tQl>~ti8~ 20 l5 I . 7 .. I

" case apptoached trial, A~ the:.tirne: tlw Q:5tittissued th~ :otd~r<m :s·~pte_mber 25r2015' tequirirt~;"

bet to a,ppear:fotacleposition:, W1{e h.~d; beenunder 0 artobligati'onto r~~c~~ule '@un.fi.nJshed. · depositi~n .thatb.egan 'in June :2015; However, .she failed, to -eooper are 'ih.schedulin~ anotli¢r <;i~t~, and.when it was .finil~t'y -r~~9l}:eduled. three, (3) months. f~tei:.qn, $e,pt~niher· l'.6)· 20.15-,. tQ coincide

w•tb.Hus..band.~s:.thitd,d~positi9n,,sh~·(aUe.d.to appear, resulting .in, lfi~· Ord.¢.r.. i~~.1:i.~d. on :s.~ptember 25,. 20 tS·reqyidn,g: her a:ppearanee :(?rily w~~ks,;prlortQ the M;ister'tJtiaL 9 Thus; abse~t'f.:m~rg~pt.

,petinit:4IJY(unher.defay-, ·':·

. Furtliermor~ •. it.ls. impP.rlant ie note ·rhat. Wife, 1nib.~r c;Qn.ds~_statement, argues 'lliat' these :de.Qi:d$· prejudiced 'her.artrial :1;,e~~Y.s¢.1t.prevented her~fr<;irt fully developing-a Pl.!$,iJltS..~ valuation

·of Husband'$ company, however at trial;: Wif~,c'.hos~ to, ~nteF into :a stfRulation as to the value-ef ·.c11.em.APVISOR. to H~r,air~.eQient. to. this ..stipulation is:in~pp9s1fo·.t9 the: claims- laid out.in the

Based o.n. these facts and consi'deratfon~,:th~: Court. did not abuse: its: discretion.irr denying, W1t:e's .motions and. its, rulings ~hc:mid' be.affirmed, ,

in/W.ifeis: fifth issue.on. apR~~l she asslgns-errert9 tlie.,Q$urt-'·s foilµffHP award :fo~r counserfees, c.Q,~ts: oo;d: expenses'. The :standarq otr.eview fer-an award-or-denial. of counsel.fees

fa abuse ofdisoretion. Bl!-~~e- .v. _p~ssef921 ..A.2d 1248 (Pa,Sup¢r, .2007}., Titfe 2313701 permits

the C.ourtiQ :graJlttbi~ . need.t-:hased:i:erief,. Cpnsid.e.r:a.tfons include the panf:s ~bjlity·tq'pay~ •. '

·btslher . .. 'of the service~ Jtpd ID<rprpp:e.rty financial. resources; the. v.alue '· received :in equitable ·-

.9 ·:see Husband's MQ(ip-i;i to.Gi)mpe:i.,Peposfrion (Docker # 52)· , . "0- See Pg., 4, :401-'20.i. of..Eqiiitable Distributlon ·Tdart~~1#c;ript ~ate.d :Qciolier i6, '2015. The paities,s(ipula,te~ t9,th.'¢. ·vaiue ()f,ChemADYISOR ~nifW.ife reserved the right,t9,c;iff~f lWte~tiinoiiy-retevantto its. value' and:pres~rvihg . '.Husband~s·ri~~ t910ff¢.tt~bUt!ilL. · · · ., · , · · · · · ·

.

the. instant case. do not support the award' <if c9µ.i1~elJ~~~!. expenses and cpsts ·to: Wife~ Since· April. zo JJ· Wif~ had- been recei~ini '$20~000. permonth '.in.ARLJµ1d.,~m S~p,temb~r _9.. ~01.5

teteiv.ed a.:$400,0()0 :aqvt\n'~~ . p~yc:tbli dir~ctly·,fo-her .attotfiey.... i I Additionally, .·_ .. as ,pait'ofth~: d.istdq.ution_:@fthemarital estate, 'Wife w~$ · to recelve a 's~gnfficant cash.award, :spe.cific.Iilly,

$2,0'56;2i5, :of which. $1,13,0;.924 Was'.ma<l¢ ,pa~able within, ntn~tX (~Q)days· of the. 'elltry of the

divorce: decree.12· Wife ~i~Q received a Iump sum cash. payment .. of:$743,193. against the .. support :·

arrears set. at.$ t79.6~275.62-artd.is·p~i~;t:$45~000 R~nnonth until the· amount is. paid. in full/3 The·

-considerabfo ~~h-~warci~· to Wife;n¢gate anY possible nee.d and therefote itwas ptgper to ~~n.:y-

.hes 1;e..q1J.es.t See~Fitipatf.ickv, Pitzpqtrf(:k,. $47 A:zd:3:62 (Pa.Super/l98.8).

Thls segues Jpto:Wife':s claim that the. Master erred in not.awarding her s.upp.on

arrearages as a lum.p sum. Iti&,wfthi.n the.broaddiscretlon of'the-coun todetermine an

:apprqpria.t~ payment.schedule fots:ttppoit ,~~~s·. Krehs. .\!, Krebs-,:94,4.A.-2.d 7.68_,777 (Pa.SO:eer: :2068), citi~g- Z(eJ'$Jer r; He'(-rnitki, 612 A:2d' l380',, i:l84~t~8S (P.J1{Sµper-.;i99~). It.1s:n6( disputed

\Ji~t Husband has consi:derable we~lcl.i as the-ownerof Cfi~mADVI~OR, but i~,is importantto

look at th~, equitct.bl~ distribution :Otdet.as ·~ wh,9.J(r wh~IJ f;l~t~@.ini.ng 'if ·a p~y,ment.~chedule 'is. appropriate :and i.ts ¢ff~¢t.~· on both pay.ee .and .the payoi'. · .. Within J)i,{lety',(90) 4~Y$ ,of bo.th';tire ,,.

M~~t~r;·~Recommendation.and ' Report, :and Second R~coinm~ndaiion.and Report, . Wife,was·. to. receive'.t,ear(y. $2.,000.,000· po liars in asset. distril>u,Ji9p·:cm.d. s.µppQit arrearages, . with an 'additional :$9Z.S:~·3Qlpayable.l5y .tht:~mi of Pe.c~riibet-20f6, 'In liijhH>f:the vasr ~~~}) ~w.ardJQ 'Wifett was not.an abµ~eof-dis.cret.ionto:,order.a p~yrn.~nt ~~he.dui~ for ine.balant~of arteaI'~$es, .M it

1 : 2 Bee:~9.Q~-~~fd~der date(! September?, ~~) 5.:, ~9~k¢rtt;49., .$,~e M~~tef S'.,R.ep,ort.and. Recommendation, l)Qc~e.t:it64. . 13 :S.~C! -~citei:~S. ~-e.~nd::Amen~l:d. ~P.Qrtaft.d: Recoriim.ertdaiion date~. August9' :2.Q:l(j• .9

I I M{rving·9p, the Courfw.iU.address W.if~i,~· ~fabnJh~t,ilie: Court.erred 'in granting I . . H~~~'tPetitlort fqr S:_a( R<li~M/mJO~Y ~e~ente li!e ,~te4 Augµ.sl 2J, ~O~~- Sajd. Pe.t1t1on· ·explained that a new wage ,attachment had issued after the Master's Second. Report .and

Rect>mm+di!llon. dated Augµ;t'9, 20i'licwhi¢h <;l!!tula~ Husband' s monthly ML obligation tO

be $~l.93r- . A$..a(OSµl~Husbartdasked_~e GO~'!O\_Sslle •W~ge ·~cb~~t~ ~6.ec( the. 'previous ipo.nthly APL: award of:$2Q~OOQ. The Court granted H:usband'.s Petmon agreeU11phat II . .· . . . since the:tc.~epd:qn,arid appeal period had riot,Y,eltQJ,i~d.,th~1~revjc;,11s award shouldremain in

.place, · (

'.th~, mafo, purpose of APLJs· to.ensure th;:i~. me:.ftnmc.1al .needsof the dependent, spouse . . I . . .. · . . . . · · . . are.met during litigation; $.thenk vi. Sthenk,-·88(fA.2d :633· (Pa.Super, ioo~). -·A.~ :tbe. 'parties -· I. .. . . . . . - . ... . .' . ., . . . . • . . agreed.to this-amount pendingequitable-distribution, by the InterimOrder dated April 8,.2013, 1t

was ,t¢asotl:lk for the Coµrt .!Q 11Ss(1111e t11at.$10;()(!0,P,er,ml!ll!h met ih¢rt~ of Wife, Even if, .µpon revi~w and appli~_aJ~~)li ot theabuse pf discretion standard, th.~,Appell~t~:CQqit:believe,$ I that tl.le. Trd i Court erred, .arty eiT9r·,w.~s i:iar!J.lless; as re.froae.tivily: was preserved,

f ff~Js.·C.~;m¢i$.eStatement number·eleven,( Ll), :&h~ assigns error to, the Court's 'failure In

«> ;,lll'ibQ, Husband with. s tiQ:Q<iQ 111 maritalfunds- the $-t2Q;CJ0n pertal~.to ~d$~i've4•by Husbang from I QhemADVISOR priorto . :$~p~rntton . in 201 J that were depostted.mto . a post- sepatati®l•~~n'.. Wl(e• ~i~aim that ·.mis mone~ repre$~~!& a pornon of-Ute marital estate and sh.9µJq ha1e: been' meluded.in 1~$ calculation .. Husband, .who. did not disagree th~l' JIJe. money was

earned pri~r I (9:.s~paration; .. effectively. argued.diat . .. t.h~tmonc.y .. . was .ineluded in the ,calctll4ti'on:of

his, 2013 lift disposablei.o.GQ.m.e that was.stipulated to by the parties 1·4 ancf'tberefor~ was :not

subjecr,t9 lq~tta~le .distribution. This Jb.eo.ry,. more comrnonlyref erred to.as "'.eouble dippin~/·

_means thaj ftioi\ey <,\lll\Ql.b<>, treated as- both ihcQin]; and a niWtal ;,.,,~t 8dhrer-\J•. Rohrer, 1 U 14 . .see P.~' 4, yte'.qj.i1taole•.[)1~lributio~ l'tial Tr;1_ns9J(?t 'd.at.~IJ· 0ct().b¢t 26~ 20 )5; ! 10 I I

·:,,.

calculation ef the martialeit~teJ1~ :if-was included in Husband's2013 ,net disposable·'.income; lo her 12th .assi'gnment,:Wif~ c;9n(~nq~ ·tharth:e Court.erredin awarding W:ife only 55% t5f

the .madta] estat~.• ;~rg•iiJ:rK that the· facts supported: an award l.lPW!rd~ of 100%. of the total estate,

In ~.uppor:t of her· at~umeht, Wif~ .conterrds that Husband's post./fi'eparation estate exceeds the

marital ~$t~te· and, thathis future earning·:···potentia] l~ on track to continue at the .same rate or htgher. while, Wife is. v.n~Q.1pk1y~d iand suffers from health issues.

. equitable distribution of marital pr~periy· is "Whether the trial .c;:9µ-11 'ijbu$~d its di'scr~tion: by a :inis~pphcat-km of the. law orfailure to: f0,}low p1;oper Iegalproeedure." Biese V; Biese, ,C).19-A..!2d

892/895' (P.~~ Super, ,4QQ9).citing, Smith. v. .'.Smtih, .994 .A..icf :15\J 8,;(Pa:.S~uper. 2006). Such a

li_ghtly1Jd. Title-23' ·§~$0.2(a) provides guidance: tcUn¢ courts iJ.1 determining. equitabledistnbutlorr D}'

pr9v1di.~g.the.followingi:eley~t fa.pt.ors for-consideration:

{).). The length ·ofthe, marriage, (;2) AnY:Jiriot m~_n:I~ge ofeither·parly .. (3}Th~·~ge.; h~alth. station', amount. andsources of'income. vocational skills, ~ropfoy~bilH:y;;·estate, 1iabilitiepm;d. needs. of each of the.;parties. (~} The. contrifiutiort'l>y one p~y:to. the. education, ttaining:-Qr fo9.re~.~~- eamihg pow~rQttherother:party; · · (5)'T4.~ 9pport.upi(y of each party :fQi:ft,i,t~re,~cqUi.$itionsof :c~pital :ass¢ts and foco:rne. (6) The sources :of income ofboth. patties, including;..but not'Iimitedto, 't'ne<,ifc,~J. retirement, irtslirartce. or ithe,;~~~n.efits. · · (7)The contribution or. di~s~pc)tion.of each -party ittthe-.acquis.tiqn., presetv.ation. d~pr~C.ia(ion:cj'r :al)iiredatiort of'the, Il)a.,tlJ!lf proper::t,y, inchlding'th~ contriP.Mtkm·of aparty.as homemaker; · · (t,n The value of the. prQperty,s¢t ap,~ to each party. (9.) '!he: standard of Hv.u:ig: qf die;parlies established «luring the ;m~rrf~H!~··

'

ftQ) The ·econo.mic:c.itc:umstan~es ·efea~h party al. 'the time th¢ dtvision of pr.qp~rty· i's ·t~ .pec.Qm'e;effective. {l'O'..l) The Federal, State and local tax .ramifications ·4$S.®i~!~g with :~c.h lS~~t lo. 'be dfv.i<;ied:, di.~trfbuted :or assigned'.,,which .rarnffications nee.d:notbe· Im.medfate ~a certain, ·· _ (10~2 l The::¢"pense:6f sale; :~a¢;fet, or lrquid.a,tjon. as.s99.iat~d wiUi: ~- p~i¢µl~r asset'~ \vhicih :exp~n.$¢ n.e~Qri9t ~~ .h:nit).e<il'aJ~ .and :¢.e.rla:in. (.l l} Whelher.Jhe,party.w.ill .be· serving; as the,custodiaii .of any' depertderit,1nihot' children'. . ..

Thefactors that'. Wergh:rn?slne~v'ily in Wife.''.S favor are.the parties' $01,lr<;~S.·,of'incom¢•. and 'theiopportunity-of.y~9h ·p~rt,y(Qr{utur~. acquisitions. It is· undeniable-that Husbandisin.a

telev.ant.cQIJ1?i.4etatiQn~.. The .Master . and. Court also· examjned ·the'·Pilrtiest standard of liViii$:,

health.,:,and contributions t>yth.~'.;p~ie,:; to the· marital.estate, and towards the.other's .educatien.

and tr.~info:g, ·~a in all cases.feund Hti'sband;,s t¢levanrtestim.(:)n"t to· be, more credible.

In-terms of their ~t.aµ~a,.rci ofHv.iiig.the' Master' found that the parties did: not. live· an

ostentanous · Jifestyl'e. Despite, their- wealjh, f.lµ&b.~4 ~es(ifr¢~ th~t.. ho).J.1 parties tpokc;,tr(} 0.ftne house, ·which foch1ded the. shopping, cooking, ,.... , cleaning. and yard work. JJ This was ·contr~xy. to I

Wife, who: testified. to :,1.p9~H~~parati(>.n monthly budget of:approximately $3.S~·ooo which i'n¢..iucled cos.ts:.111corl'sisterit With the lif~,sty{~ ~~!~PH~b~tl 4.uii_ngJh~; ten {1'0)_ -ye~ marriage •.' Sueh expen$~S Included, among other things, payin,~ tht>usands ofdo}lars. for a mate assistant 'to travel' from Flof.ida· :to, dhfo: twice :~ ffi9Qth, :a,nd'.paying_: $5,QO. p:eF month 'f!:>t .dogidaycare::setvitesYi

}'1,1~ermore; Husband was :alteaoy establisfrea in.);11$.- ~~,~~r PI.l.9Jttq W~_ir r.n~rr•lige :~d.

Wjfe did;not 'Work aft~rth.~.ft first year. ofmmfagf!; despite .the factthat .the:parties didnot have any children., Thus, the· marital estate increased w.ougliJh~ ·efforts. of Husband ~4 by the ti¢cisioil to l·i¥~, ~- r.c;.Jati~ely frugal Iifestyle, Although Wif~ maintains·.that herheusehold tEquitable D.istributkmTria:J·Tr!!ri~:<:.r-ipJ d.at~ ·octobei:726;.20.Hi pgs:,ii7~219., 1f>·Equitiible DistribtitionTri!l.l. Tti!OSt.tiP.ttlatedQctober'.27,:iC)l'5. pgs. 7,Ja:76, 89-91; 108,~:120,

:12

...... {

contributions. and.earning po.(~I:i.t.i~i became 'more. limited. as .a.resulr ef her.health issues, this

testimQ:Q.y'WijS.-'tmsqpp9r.fe~ :byanymedi¢afexpert Pr.doctJ,r,n~nt~t.ion.,.:a:n~: con$i~te.d·only ef her

own d¢sctiptioii$ of her ~iim~n.t&lsymp.toms;.17 Furthermore, Wife' had " .. .b~y.l'\..req~ivfag m.9~ihl¥ . sµpport .o_f $2();000 since .Fe.btui!iy 201)., -~.d fastelid :of sazing 'te.J,tepare,'for her future, chose to·

·._i spend' the money lo :~µppott ofa .lifestyle.much' more extravagant 'tbaJ1. th~t whkh. she Hved1 . 9W.-ing·the;inatrfage .. Again, W.ife.w~&not foundtobe·cted1ble.

l~~IJ~.~ :o.fcredibility 'are. solely Within the prQvi_q~~:qf theJa;ctJindei\ 'in this case the

.Master; as, he/she ::was, 'in the'best positiQn to .m~e:thatassessWienL Such findings will not :p~·

.disturbedwhen supperted by the record. Words v, ·Qicierski, 937' A2d:JT03; UOS. (Pa.~up¢t

'2QQ7),. Cntldress v ..BQg_<!s.ia.n, 1:2 A.@cl 448, 45.5:.456 :(Pa.Super .. ·2Q1 l), tii.e.J~c;t.fiIJdec 'is.freeto · .b~.ltev~ . all,~ pm: ~ or:none ·of.the evidence. Williamson . ·v.-. Wilii(i)nson;5B6.A2d . . . .967... . 97Z (Pa.Super .. ·.l 991).; .Jii this: oase.there.is ntf basts to 1ov~r,tµm .th~ findings of'fhe. Mastet,and this.,.

Trial Court teg~dirtg <m:dibi.li'ty determinations; ,as: .they. ,are supported by.Fth~ record,

- ¥.asterand After. consideration .of the ~taiv\Q_ry. factqi:s ,it-was, recommended. oy~the. · ,affirmed .h:y tht§. 80'1J.1Jhat\Y,lfe: receive-mote than h~JfGfth~ marital estate, This 5$% division

afforded Wife with.j)1stun4~r '$~·~~0.QOO ·in,assel$;·of which over·$1:;QOQ~09.0 \Y,q\lld:l;)e·:i.n the·

form o(!l· ~~~h payment. At the time. o(ih;~:.award' the Master .and. Courrwere -also.aware-that: . ~·

Wife would be. receiving. wen 'ever $1 ;OOO:;OOO in sµ,ppor,t. .~:,:r~m:~. 'fhµs; lo.o~ing.atthe: c:H~trf!:>ution:siheme. as a whole, ·ifoi;: .dfv.ision aceomplished eW.nomie:justicefor both. parti~s. at1d

. Lastly, Viife. ~rgµes:~th~t the Courrened in its: deteiminaifonJ~arCh~rtiADVISOR is a: .norf·m~it~lasset;. Title-23..§3'5.Dl(a).('.lefin.~sm~Ital'pro~rty·aS'"aU·propertY·acqOh'ed:by·either • r- .. :; • •

l, .... ;- I. . I . , marriage;l 'T:~tle ·23 "§35QJ(~)(l).. 'Thus, the timirtt 6f':tne,.ae~ui&iti.on:9fap ;iss¢~,ti..e~:tlle "when" 8119. not tqe.·"how,? is the.determiningfactor when characterizing. art:a$set' as., maiital ornon- . I -· . . . . . ·- -. . t~ .marital. An(h-q,:iy v. A.nt!zo.nYi, 5-14 A:2d 91, -(Pa,Stjp~i:, l 986)

. R tlndisputed ~!tr!!II JM( Husbandentered iil!Q ~ ;1;urd;as~ ag,~gi\ for. . . . . . . . Chem:AQ,YlSQR,0nJanuai:y2, 2001 more'thantwo (2).-years _pm:>r to marr1a~e; Pursuant to. the;

.agr~men{ H~;ban<!c~i{ approximately $7i000fot Six(~). shares i<:~~mAOVISO~ With the

r~ma.Infnglsna:res ~prtrchas~d by th~:c.Qmp.1:1:Qy itself, 1·8 Husl,~d~·sex_p~ri .testified that .thi~.

·purchase ~greemem.t Qp~rated:io·make:.Husband·th~ 100% own~r of Chel}1ADVISQR}9 ! ". .I . " . " .. . . . . " However, iWife:-maintainsthr,\t:l1e~au~e:Chem.ADVIS'OR :paid•the:iemairiing;port:ion ;Qf :th~

. ·putchas~:Jgr.e.ement, - ~· , . .and.is a ,cornpanysol,ely . " . owned by.Husband, that. those -cornpa~y . funds 'w.ere .,

· marital fuAds. arid- the use: pf them converted Cherrt.AD V.lSQRtQ:m~rti~t prqp~11Y·~o, 'Ihe Court

was m;~rJnyiJJced :by. this,argumen:t, ~~-th~ ~~tfm~ pf acquisition is.not a.d~rerrniningla<;.t.Qri I ., . . Contributipns' by ~: ~po.u_se tQ assets ,aequited ·ptfor'tQ m~rrH1ge ,40 not transmute.an asset" from I. . I .• • r

pon:-ima.rit,l 'totnaritaL W!.nters·y Wint.er.s, 512<A2d 12ti,; i2IS(p~:.S.~ger. J98.6).dclng.;\.ntho;,j;

In Ji.lying bn. this argument, Wif~ ·.seeks te apply-principles ofequitable di~µibqtion,sµc,h as; financial clntril;l1.,1t1qnsJ:and equitable'fairness, as a· m¢~ns.ofte.c~aracterizi~g. this,corrtj;:>'any:a::.a. m•i:i~l •+t, Blit her .:e1~nce gn these concepts and.factorsis misplaced <ey they are ~r6pe< .

cons'ider~ti1gn.s. ()rz.'ly arthe time· of.equitable distribution, b,y which time :assets:.haV<:dil:teady been . 1

,chara:e,ed .as ~ri!al or.non-marital. litiliZirtg the timing of the asset as the' detenni)iing fam.or:d9es, . I,not create equitabl~ . . as any. fili~n.~l~f.Ciontt:ibutfon$Lor .ioJµsti¢e as\ asserted. 'by. Wife; ·- . . . . . . . i .eff-0&. Of nolJ~wnilig,$p0u~e ate jit-O~rlY CQ!l$i~ere<\ by.a court when ,Qet~t\i;:,g .rhe

dist,ribuifoj' of the: ,n.Grea~~ invalue-of anon-madtal asset.and such, ana~ysis to(jlc, place. '"'. - I· . . ·. ' 1.8 See'Pgs. 'l0,J2, 3~~40: of Equkabl~<Oi'stributjc;n_Tr~_I\I Ttans¢th)t dated October, 26 •. 20 IS. :.!~ See'Pg; 3.9J9t~q~it~b,l~;D.1str1butiQnJi:ial:1,'ransc:ript c;liit~ 0¢tob~r26, 2015', .. 29 se·e Wi~er~ Br.i~fjn:s,upport ofExceptlQI').~,· Q9.<:~e(lf?8~

I 1.

I . . A, the tlf(le .Qf tile p~~ is th<•Qn(y 9<1i1Sid~rati9n; Jhe_ C:oQrt, OOtre¢!ly coneluded ihat C.hemADVIS:OR was ·a. noii-maritaJ .asset, I .. : . . .. . . . . . . .. . ,:fQf ~11 th:e foregoing reasons, the: Trial Court' s rulings,should be.AFFIRMED.. I. I

I I 1 · .: HY'THE'COUR'F,

I I 4-1(.)IY~~~~ . r. ..l · 1

I II ~

I I II I. .I

Footnotes

[11] Eqµit'l!Ql.~.QisttjlJutipii Trial Transcript-dated .Q~\tj\>~r¢7,:zp f~ 'pgii:: 12·1~ ..