Hunt, R. v. Hunt, P.

J-A13031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ROBERT A. HUNT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : PENNY ANN HUNT : No. 841 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2012-FC-001816-15

ROBERT A. HUNT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : PENNY ANN HUNT : No. 842 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 9, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2012-FC-001816-02

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 18, 2023

Husband, Robert A. Hunt, appeals from the final decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County divorcing Husband and Wife, Penny Ann Hunt, and resolving all outstanding economic issues between them. ____________________________________________

• • Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A13031-23

Herein, Husband challenges the trial court’s alimony and equitable distribution awards as adopted in the May 9, 2022, decree. We affirm.

The trial court provides an apt statement of facts and procedural history, as follows:

A Complaint in Divorce was filed on October 13, 2012. The parties separated on May 12, 2012. A Divorce Master, Robert A. Kulling, was appointed on June 29, 2017, to address the issue of interim relief and on September 5, 2018, to address claims for equitable distribution, alimony, counsel fees, and costs and expenses. A prehearing Conference was held on October 1, 2018. On November 5, 2018, a Settlement Conference was conducted, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement. This matter was eventually assigned to [the trial court]. Hearings were conducted before [the trial court] on January 9, 2019, April 26, 2019, August 22, 2019, February 28, 2020, October 15, 2020, and November 19, 2020. Numerous Status Conference Hearings and Contempt/Special Hearings were held in addition to these hearings. On September 21, 2021, the [trial court] issued a Final Order on Divorce and Economic Issues.

Stipulated findings of fact indicated that Husband and Wife were married on June 17, 1996, and separated on May 12, 2012. The parties were married for fifteen years and eleven months. This was Husband’s first marriage and Wife’s second marriage. The parties have no children together.

The [trial court] made the following findings of fact regarding Husband’s income and potential to earn.

1. Husband currently pays $1[,]796.38 in support payments. The support payments are set to expire as Husband has paid $98,793.13 out of the $105,421.22 owed to Wife.

2. Husband also pays $359.28 per month in arrears (“arrears payments”). Husband owes over $100,000 in arrears payments.

-2-

J-A13031-23

3. Husband is currently employed as an Independent Contractor/business analyst with Kodiak systems. He has worked with this company since 2017. Prior to his current employment, he was the President of CRA collections from 2007-2016, and he worked for UPS for 8 years. Husband also had several other business dealings which were depleted during the marriage.

4. Husband has an Associate’s Degree in Business.

5. Husband’s 2019 Kodiak salary was $163,360.00. In 2018, Husband’s Kodiak salary was $170,136.96. [N.T., 2/28/2020, at 201.] Husband’s salary was consistently higher in prior few years.

6. Husband sought to lower his salary and hid assets. See N.T. 1/9/2012, at 35-36.

7. Husband has received items such as $100,000 sports cars, a Ferrari worth $180,000, trips to Super Bowl on a private jet in lieu of a higher salary, and at least $100,000 as cash bonuses. N.T. at 50-51; see also N.T., 4/26/2019, at 11- 12.

8. Husband has monthly expenses of $10,312.00.

9. Husband has consistently lived at [a] high standard of living and above his means despite separation.

10. In accordance with the findings above, Husband’s annual gross salary is at a minimum above $200,000.

Final Am. Order, 2/9/2022, at 2-3.

Regarding Husband’s salary, the [trial court] noted that “[t]estimony was provided that Husband received a Ferrari, other sports cars, cash bonuses, and other trips in lieu of salary. This indicate[d] that his salary [wa]s probably higher than indicated.” Id. at n1. In noting that Husband lives at a high standard of living and above his means despite separation, the [trial court]noted that this included “[s]ports cars, racing, expensive trips, and etc. See N.T., 10/15/2020, at 133-137.” Id. at n2.

-3-

J-A13031-23

The [trial court] made the following findings of fact regarding Wife’s income and potential to earn.

1. Wife is currently employed as a Commercial Underwriter at Farmers First Insurance Company where she has been employed for nine years.

2. Wife’s 2019 salary was $70,047.00.

3. Wife has monthly expenses of $4,089.95.

4. Wife is currently in breast cancer remission and has fragile health.

5. Wife’s annual gross salary is 72,721.44. See Wife’s Ex. 170.

6. Prior to separation, Wife consistently lived at a high standard of living.

7. Wife has been unable to sustain the prior standard of living and her medical expenses have greatly depleted her resources and her primary source of income.

8. At the time of the last hearing, Wife was receiving temporary support payments which is almost depleted.

9. In addition to support payments, Wife is currently owed over $100,000 in arrears payments from Husband.

Id. at 3-4.

On October 1, 2021, Husband filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On October 14, 2021, Wife filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On February 8, 2022, a hearing on cross-motions for reconsideration was held. As a result, on February 9, 2022, the final order was amended regarding the payment plan on page twenty-three and the requirement to purchase life insurance on page

-4-

J-A13031-23

twenty-four. On May 9, 2022, a divorce decree was entered. On June 6, 2022, Husband filed a Notice of Appeal and a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.

Husband raises in his appellate brief the following Statement of Questions Presented for this Court’s consideration:

1. Did the trial court err in its reasoning and analysis of the award of alimony to Wife?

2. Did the trial court err in its calculation of the value of marital assets by assigning two separate values to the marital home, to the detriment of Husband?

3. Did the trial court err in ordering that Husband’s non-marital property, a personal injury settlement, should be attached as part of the divorce process and distributed to Wife before the entry of the divorce decree, and prior to the date of a final order?

4. Did the trial court err in ordering funds contained in escrow and held by Wife’s counsel to be distributed to Wife prior to the entry of a divorce decree, prior to the date of a final order?

5. Did the trial court improperly fail to consider the inordinate length of the litigation in this case, as well as the lengthy separation of the parties, during which time Husband paid support to Wife, as a factor in the case when creating its final order for equitable distribution and alimony?

6. Did the trial court improperly weight evidence from Husband’s ex-girlfriend in making key evidentiary determinations in the case?

-5-

J-A13031-23

7. Did the trial court improperly consider a higher than actual sale value of several marital assets, including the Gettysburg painting and the Nissan Acura?

Brief of Appellant, at 9-10.

Husband first assails the trial court’s alimony award. Our standard of review for challenges to alimony awards is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa. Super. 2004). When examining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, we examine:

not whether the trial court has merely committed an error of judgment, but rather whether the trial court has overridden or misapplied the law, or has exercised judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will as demonstrated by the evidence of record.

Lawson v. Lawson, 940 A.2d 444, 447 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal brackets omitted).

[T]he purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met. Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay. Moreover, alimony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution award and development of an appropriate employable skill.

Gates v. Gates, 933 A.2d 102, 106 (Pa. Super. 2007) (cleaned up; emphasis in original).

-6-

J-A13031-23

The Divorce Code provides the following guidance in relation to an award of alimony:

(a)General rule.--Where a divorce decree has been entered, the court may allow alimony, as it deems reasonable, to either party only if it finds that alimony is necessary.

(b) Factors relevant.--In determining whether alimony is necessary and in determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(1) The relative earnings and earning capacities of the parties.

(2) The ages and the physical, mental and emotional conditions of the parties.

(3) The sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.

(4) The expectancies and inheritances of the parties.

(5) The duration of the marriage.

(6) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party.

(7) The extent to which the earning power, expenses or financial obligations of a party will be affected by reason of serving as the custodian of a minor child.

(8) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.

(9) The relative education of the parties and the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking alimony to find appropriate employment.

(10) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties.

-7-

J-A13031-23

(11) The property brought to the marriage by either party.

(12) The contribution of a spouse as homemaker.

(13) The relative needs of the parties.

(14) The marital misconduct of either of the parties during the marriage. The marital misconduct of either of the parties from the date of final separation shall not be considered by the court in its determinations relative to alimony, except that the court shall consider the abuse of one party by the other party. As used in this paragraph, “abuse” shall have the meaning given to it under section 6102 (relating to definitions).

(15) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications of the alimony award.

(16) Whether the party seeking alimony lacks sufficient property, including, but not limited to, property distributed under Chapter 35 (relating to property rights), to provide for the party's reasonable needs.

(17) Whether the party seeking alimony is incapable of self-support through appropriate employment.

(c) Duration.--The court in ordering alimony shall determine the duration of the order, which may be for a definite or an indefinite period of time which is reasonable under the circumstances.

(d) Statement of reasons.--In an order made under this section, the court shall set forth the reason for its denial or award of alimony and the amount thereof.

(e) Modification and termination.--An order entered pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the court upon changed circumstances of either party of a substantial and continuing nature whereupon the order may be modified, suspended, terminated or reinstituted or a new order made. Any further order shall apply only to payments accruing subsequent to the petition

-8-

J-A13031-23

for the requested relief. Remarriage of the party receiving alimony shall terminate the award of alimony.

(f) Status of agreement to pay alimony.--Whenever the court approves an agreement for the payment of alimony voluntarily entered into between the parties, the agreement shall constitute the order of the court and may be enforced as provided in section 3703 (relating to enforcement of arrearages).

23 Pa.C.S. § 3701.

In this issue, Husband questions both the amount and the duration of the alimony award, and he challenges the court’s application of several of the seventeen factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b) that a court must weigh in considering whether to award alimony. Specifically, Husband argues first that economic justice required the court to consider the “exceedingly large amount of support that he had already paid to Wife during the separation of the parties over a nine-year period ($77,098.48)” as well as what he describes as “the excessive amount of arrears which were past due and would continue to be collected by Wife into the future ($108,134.00 in arrears past due). Our jurisprudence, he maintains, typically applies “indefinite alimony” only when the length of the marriage is “much longer than the fifteen years between the parties in this case.” Brief for Appellant, at 29.

Husband further argues that the court failed to analyze the “reasonable needs of the parties” and relied, instead, on what he contends was a superficial determination of the parties’ respective incomes and his ability to pay alimony, thus making the court’s application of the guideline amount erroneous.

-9-

J-A13031-23

Wife responds that the trial court reasonably concluded that manifest economic justice could not be reached absent an alimony award to her. She maintains that even though she receives 70 percent of the marital estate, the alimony award does not reflect an abuse of judicial discretion when one considers her poor health stemming from a 2017 Stage-4 breast cancer diagnosis and continuing treatment, her comparatively older age, a sizeable income disparity favoring Husband, and Husband’s marital misconduct with finances leading to a depleted marital estate at the time of equitable distribution. See Section 3701(3, 4, and 14, supra).

The trial court substantiates its award of alimony with extensive, record-supported findings of fact regarding Husband’s and Wife’s respective incomes and potentials to earn, the valuation of items and designation of them as marital and nonmarital, See TCO, 2/9/22, at p.2-17. At the time of the order, the court explains, wife was in poor health and unable to pursue additional training or assume an increased workload. This finding of fact, coupled with the court’s determination that her receipt of 70% of a marital estate that was dissipated unreasonably by Husband’s financial misconduct, led the court to conclude that it would be for an indefinite time that “Wife will be unable to meet her reasonable needs.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 8/2/22, at 7-8.

As such, the trial court concludes that it complied with Section 3701(c) when it ordered alimony to be for an indefinite time and modifiable with changing circumstances because it was reasonable to do so under the circumstances. See Section 3701(c) (permitting indefinite duration to

- 10 -

J-A13031-23

alimony order where reasonable). We agree, as our independent review confirms that the court’s determinations and conclusions are supported by the certified record. Therefore, we affirm on this issue based on the analysis supplied by the trial court in both its initial Opinion in support of its “Amended Final Order on Divorce Economic Issues”, 2/9/2022 and its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion.

In Husband’s second issue, he maintains that the trial court erred in its calculation of the value of marital assets by assigning two separate values to the marital home, to the detriment of Husband. In reviewing the lower court's decision to adopt the divorce master's valuation, we are mindful of the following:

“[T]he Divorce Code does not set forth a specific method or valuing assets, and consistent with our standard of review, the trial court is afforded great discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution order which achieves economic justice.” Carney [v. Carney,] 167 A.3d [127,] 131 [(Pa. Super. 2017)] (citation omitted). “In valuing marital assets, the trial court must exercise discretion and rely on the estimates, inventories, records of purchase prices, and appraisals submitted by both parties.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). However, “[t]he trial court may accept all, part, or none of the evidence regarding valuation of marital property, and it may rely on its own valuation method.” Brubaker [v. Brubaker], 201 A.3d [180,] 185 [(Pa. Super. 2018)].

Llaurado v. Garcia-Zapata, 223 A.3d 247, 254 (Pa. Super. 2019).

- 11 -

J-A13031-23

The two values referenced by Husband are the $410,000.001 purchase price Husband agreed to pay after discussion with the trial court and the $435,000 value the court chose in forming its equitable distribution order. The trial court explained that it counseled Husband to make the $410,000 purchase for the sake of paying off both the mortgage and arrears on the mortgage and realizing an equity remainder which could be distributed between Husband and Wife. R.R. 1381a. Of further concern to the trial court was that third party offers may be below market value because a foreclosure was pending. N.T., 2/9/22, at 8.

The trial court opines that it chose the latter value, which is approximately 6% higher than Husband’s agreed-upon purchase price, because it believed the urgency of the “forced sale” may have been at a below-value purchase price, and Wife’s professional appraisal was considerably higher. As the trial court’s valuation method relied upon extensive discussions of market values, third-party offers, and appraisals, and reached a final amount considerably closer to Husband’s purchase price than to Wife’s professional appraisal amount, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

In Husband’s third and fourth issues, he maintains the court erred in ordering that his personal injury settlement acquired post-separation should ____________________________________________

1 A third party had made a purchase offer of $400,000, albeit with a contingency that seller pay one-half the realtor’s 6% commission. RR 2587a, 7-18.

- 12 -

J-A13031-23

be attached as part of the divorce property and distributed to Wife prior to the entry of a divorce decree. Under the definitions of 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(a)(8)2 and relevant caselaw, Husband asserts, funds received from a settlement for a cause of action arising after the date of separation are not marital assets. See Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 849 A.2d 582 (Pa. 2004).

The trial court, however, explains that it acted under its enforcement authority conferred by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e), which empowers a court to enforce equitable distribution by use of a party’s real and personal property. Specifically, Section 3502(e) provides:

If, at any time, a party has failed to comply with an order of equitable distribution, as provided for in this chapter or with the terms of an agreement as entered into between the parties, after hearing, the court may, in addition to any other remedy available under this part, in order to effect compliance with its order:

(1) Enter judgment; ____________________________________________

2 Section 3501(a)(8) of the Domestic Relations statute provides:

(a) General rule.--As used in this chapter, “marital property” means all property acquired by either party during the marriage and the increase in value of any nonmarital property acquired pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) as measured and determined under subsection (a.1). However, marital property does not include:

(8) Any payment received as a result of an award or settlement for any cause of action or claim which accrued prior to the marriage or after the date of final separation regardless of when the payment was received.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a)(8).

- 13 -

J-A13031-23

(2) Authorize the taking and seizure of the goods and chattels and intangible property of the party;

23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e).

In its Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court sets forth the circumstances that compelled it to act under Section 3502(e):

“Given that the bulk of the marital assets [we]re either in Husband’s possession or were dissipated by Husband’s actions,” the [trial court] ordered that “the remaining amount owed to Wife was to [be] paid first from Husband’s personal injury escrow funds . . . .” Final Am. Order at 23. The [trial court] was within its enforcement authority and did not err in ordering the distribution of Husband’s post-separation settlement.

Rule 1925(a) Opinion, at 11.

On this point, Husband does not dispute that the trial court has powers to enforce an order of equitable distribution, and baldly claims that the trial court abused its discretion in taking the entire amount of the settlement. The court, however, clarified that it applied the settlement assets to the remaining amount owed to Wife, a fact that Husband does not contest. Therefore, this claim affords Husband no relief.

In Husband’s fifth issue, he contends that the trial court improperly failed to consider the spousal support Husband paid to Wife for nine years when it entered its final order for equitable distribution and alimony.

When determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, this Court must consider the distribution scheme as a whole. Mundy v. Mundy, 151 A.3d 230, 236 (Pa. Super. 2016). “We do not evaluate the propriety of the distribution order upon our agreement with the court's actions nor do we find a basis for reversal in the court's application of a single factor. Rather, we look at the distribution as a whole, in light of the court's overall

- 14 -

J-A13031-23

application of the 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 3502(a) factors[3] for consideration in awarding equitable distribution. If we fail to find an abuse of discretion, the order must stand.” Harvey v. Harvey, ____________________________________________

3 (a) General rule.--Upon the request of either party in an action for divorce

or annulment, the court shall equitably divide, distribute or assign, in kind or otherwise, the marital property between the parties without regard to marital misconduct in such percentages and in such manner as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors. The court may consider each marital asset or group of assets independently and apply a different percentage to each marital asset or group of assets. Factors which are relevant to the equitable division of marital property include the following:

(1) The length of the marriage. (2) Any prior marriage of either party. (3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties. (4) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party. (5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income. (6) The sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits. (7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker. (8) The value of the property set apart to each party. (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. (10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective. (10.1) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications associated with each asset to be divided, distributed or assigned, which ramifications need not be immediate and certain. (10.2) The expense of sale, transfer or liquidation associated with a particular asset, which expense need not be immediate and certain. (11) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any dependent minor children.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502.

- 15 -

J-A13031-23

167 A.3d 6, 17 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation and internal brackets omitted). Finally, “it is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and decide credibility and this Court will not reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by the evidence.” Brubaker, 201 A.3d at 184 (citation omitted).

...

“A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equitable distribution.” Brubaker, 201 A.3d at 184 (citation omitted). “In making its decision *524 regarding equitable distribution, the trial court must consider at least the eleven factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 3502(a).” Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2003). However, there is no standard formula guiding the division of marital property and the “method of distribution derives from the facts of the individual case.” Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 888 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). While the list of factors in Section 3502 serves as a guideline for consideration, the list is “neither exhaustive nor specific as to the weight to be given the various factors.” Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, “the court has flexibility of method and concomitantly assumes responsibility in rendering its decisions.” Id. (citation omitted).

Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520, 523-24 (Pa. Super. 2019)

To support his position, Husband relies on DeMarco v. DeMarco, 787 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2001), in which this Court deemed inequitable an order awarding alimony for twenty years where the facts established that the parties had been married just 12 years and were separated for the ensuing 17 years, the entire time for which an order of support was in effect.

Similarly, he offers Teodorski v Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 2004) for the proposition that the denial of permanent alimony is appropriate where the marriage at issue was relatively brief—six years in Teodorski—and the paying spouse already had paid support for nearly an equal amount of time—nearly 5 years. Id. at 199, 201.

- 16 -

J-A13031-23

Husband concedes the facts of his case are distinguishable from each of the cited cases, as he has “paid support for nine years on a marriage that lasted just under 16 years.” Brief for Appellant at 45. He argues, however, that continuing spousal support after Husband has already paid over $100,000 as well as legal fees for Wife, who has worked full time during the separation, is similarly inequitable to the cited authority. To this end, Appellant contends that the trial court failed to consider Husband’s contributions and, consequently, effected an economic injustice through its equitable distribution scheme and support award.

The trial court rejects Husband’s argument in full. Referencing the Section 3502(a) factors, the Court notes:

The [trial court] considered all eleven . . . factors before making its equitable distribution determination. The [trial court] did not fail to consider the length of the litigation and separation in this case when creating its final order for equitable distribution and alimony. In fact, while analyzing the alimony factors, the [trial court] considered that “Husband was less than forthcoming and his lack [of] cooperation in the early proceedings contributed to delays and the depletion of some assets [] relative to furnishings in the marital home, other vehicles, and cash. Said actions thus deprived Wife of monies/property that she could claim in equitable distribution.” Final Am. Order at 30. At the hearing on motion for reconsideration, Husband admitted to having delayed the proceedings by paus[ing] litigation for a few years further lengthening the separation. Tr., Feb. 9, 2022, at 10. The [trial court] also considered under the duration of marriage factor that Husband had been paying around $1,800 per month since May 2018 through the Domestic Relations Office. Final Am. Order at 26. The [trial court] noted “[this will factor into the duration and Husband’s ability to pay paired with the standard of living during this marriage. However, otherwise this factor is neutral.” Id. at 26.

- 17 -

J-A13031-23

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, at 12-13. As the record supports the trial court’s declaration that it considered the length of both the parties’ litigation before it and their separation relative to the length of their marriage, we agree with the trial court that Husband’s claim is without merit.

Husband next posits that the trial court erroneously made credibility determinations in favor of Husband’s ex-girlfriend, Elizabeth Varnish, without reliable evidence to support her claims. Ms. Varnish testified, inter alia, that Husband accepted, in lieu of salary, $100,000.00 sports cars, a Ferrari worth $180,000.00, and cash bonuses of at least $100,000.00, without requiring any proof of such assertions. For example, he maintains, no Department of Motor Vehicles records of ownership were ever introduced during the hearings. Brief of Appellant, at 48. Instead, Ms. Varnish related on the stand simply that Husband had told her so. N.T., 1/9/19, at 50.

To support his appeal for reversal, Husband cites to Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 395 (Pa. Super. 2015), in which there existed a controversy over whether a ring was marital property. The wife had offered an extra-judicial statement that the ring was, in fact, marital property, but only the Husband provided testimony about the ring, denying that it was marital property. The trial court relied on the wife’s out-of-court statement to find the ring was marital property, but we reversed on appeal, observing, “Here, given the lack of Wife's testimony regarding the ring, the Master's acceptance of Wife's position as credible and determinative of ownership is

- 18 -

J-A13031-23

not supported by the record. Consequently, the trial court's reliance on the Master's credibility determination is not supported.” Id. 119 A.3d at 395.

Morgante is inapposite to the present matter, as Ms. Varnish, unlike the wife in Morgante, did, in fact, testify before the court about the facts presently in dispute, and the court, considering her long-time close relationship with Husband, reasonably found her testimony credible.4 Therefore, Husband’s claim fails.

In Husband’s final issue, he contends the trial court erroneously assigned inflated, higher-than-actual-sale value for several marital assets. The first is an oil on canvas painting entitled, “Lions of the Round Top – ____________________________________________ 4 We note that the trial court applied Rule 1925 waiver to Husband’s claim, as

it concluded the enumerated matter complained of, which stated, “The [trial court] improperly considered evidence from Husband’s ex-girlfriend in making key evidentiary determination in this case.”, was not raised with sufficient specificity to enable the court to identify what evidence was at issue.

It is well-settled that “any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (citation and quotation omitted). We will also deem a claim waived if the Rule 1925(b) statement is so vague that it fails to provide adequate guidance to the trial court regarding the issue on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (“The [1925(b)] Statement shall concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue be raised for the judge”). A Rule 1925(b) Statement “which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no [Rule 1925(b)] Statement at all.” Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 2006).

While we do not disagree with the trial court’s assessment that Husband’s Rule 1925 statement lacked specificity with respect to this issue, we have elected to review and dismiss the issue on its merits.

- 19 -

J-A13031-23

Gettysburg”, by Don Troiani. The trial court valued this work at $40,000, opining,

There was some dispute as to whether this painting was a gift to Husband and therefore nonmarital or whether it was given in lieu of salary or debt and therefore was marital property. N.T., 10/15/2020, at 166-67. The [trial court] notes that throughout this case there was testimony by various parties that Husband received cash bonuses, exotic cars, trips, and other lavish items in lieu of salary. Accordingly, [the trial court] accepts Wife’s testimony that this painting was owned by the parties prior to separation and is marital property rather than nonmarital. N.T., 4/26/19, at 208. Husband sold the painting for $25,000 without Wife’s knowledge in 2013. N.T., 2/28/20, at 181. However, this painting was appraised for a value at $40,000 and the [trial court] accepts this value. N.T., 4/26/19, at 111-12.

Rule 1925(a) Opinion, at 14.

Husband argues that Wife testified that the value of the painting was $40,000.00, which, Husband maintains was based on hearsay. However, as Husband fails to develop a meaningful argument, supported by citation to supporting authority, in opposition to the trial court’s valuation rationale, this issue waived. See C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating that “[i]t is well-established that the failure to develop an argument with citation to, and analysis of, pertinent authority results in waiver of that issue on appeal”); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).

Next, Appellant contends that no evidence of record was presented establishing that the Chevrolet DS truck was a marital asset. In fact, Husband asserts, his ex-girlfriend Ms. Varnish testified that she gave Husband the truck after he had supplied her with purchase money for it two years post-

- 20 -

J-A13031-23

separation, in 2013. N.T.,1/9/19, at 59. Despite this testimony, Husband continues, the trial court found that the truck was a marital asset and placed an equitable distribution value on it of $10,000. Because this argument is outside the scope of the Rule 1925(b) concise statement at issue, which asserted that the trial court overvalued certain marital assets, the trial court does not address it. Accordingly, we decline to review this argument. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (Any issues not raised in accordance with Rule 1925(b) will be deemed waived. Rule 1925 is a brightline rule.).

The same result attends Husband’s contention under this final issue that the trial court erred in assigning certain value to uncollectable loans as part of equitable distribution. This matter was not specified in Husband’s Rule 1925(b) statement, such that the trial court’s comprehensive Rule 1925(a) opinion does not address it. As this consequence impedes our ability to conduct meaningful review of the claim, we find this part of his final issue waived as well.

With respect to the Nissan Acura NSX race car, which was identified in Husband’s Rule 1925(b) statement, Husband concedes the car was a marital asset but argues that extensive required repairs and a mechanic’s lien, which covered the costs of the repairs and storage of the car amounting to $38,000.00 in costs significantly reduced the car’s value before the parties separated in 2010. N.T., 2/28/20, at 48; Husband’s Exhibit, Receipt, 12/15/16. Therefore, Husband contends that his contributions to maintain

- 21 -

J-A13031-23

the marital asset should have affected the equitable distribution calculation in his favor, in the interests of economic justice. Anthony v. Anthony, 514 A.2d 91, 94-95 (Pa. Super. 1986).

Wife counters that testimony established that the Acura NSX was a valuable asset at the date of separation. N.T., 4/26/19, at 192, with a valuation range between $27,600 and $39,000 in 2012. Wife’s Exhibit 206, p. 8. Testimony was offered that Husband went to the auto repair shop, with whom he enjoyed a friendly relationship, and advised that he did not want the vehicle because he was separating from his wife. N.T. at 218. Despite the subsequent mechanic’s lien and storage fees, Husband still exercised a degree of control over the vehicle, as testified to by his ex-girlfriend Ms. Varnish. According to Ms. Varnish, she saw the Acura NSX in the shop of Husband’s friend on a date after which the car was supposedly lost to a mechanic’s lien sale. N.T., 1/9/19, at 39.

On this evidence, the trial court concluded that Husband executed the mechanic’s lien and engaged in related actions afterward in a manner that was, “at the very least” a negligent if not an intentional undertaking to hide the asset from Wife. Rule 1925(a) Opinion, at 14. As there is record support for the court’s credibility determination in this regard, we deny Husband’s claim.

Decree affirmed.

- 22 -

J-A13031-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/18/2023

- 23 -

FE/09/2022/81D 11:39 FED/09/2022/WED 11 AM 39 Al FAX N». FAI No, ?P.001/034 001/034 Circulated 3:05:09 pM Received 6/24/2022 3.05.09 PM Superior09/29/2023 11:23 Court Middle PM District

1'I OTMNOY,tiit uperior ca,J8%RE OFFICE OF THE PROTH&OT¥voe«e Court Middle District 841 MDA 2022

York County COmty t

Allison Blew Blew York County Judicial Center Prothonotary 45 N. George Street Borges Billie Jo Bones York, PA 17401 Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Office: Office- (717) (717) 771-9611 771-96X1 Gregory E. Gettle, Esq. Gregory Esq. Passports; (717) Passports: (71'7) 771-4760 771-476o Solicitor

FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: 02/09/22 FROM: EROTHONOTARY'S PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE YORK CQ JIMICI,A LCENTER JUDICIAL LOCATION: YORK CO

TO: LOCATION:

PENNY V AYERS, ESQ 717741-1469 717141-1469 --�----

Notice Entry of Order. Notice of Entrr Order.Decree Decree or Judgment in accordance with with PA R. C. P. 236 PAR.CP. 236

CASE NUMBER 2012-FC-001816-15 2012-1€-001816-15 -��~���---------- SHEET: PSS NICER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:_3 NUMBER 34 pages

ANY PROBLEMS WITH TRANSMITTAL PLEASE CALL CALL (717) 771-9611 AND ASR (7IT) TT1-9611 ASK FOR DENISE.

Confidentiality Notice: This facsimile, including any attachments, attachments, is for the sole sole use of the recipient(s) and may tbe intended recipient(s) privileged may contain confidential and privileged information. Any Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is is prohibited. If you are not the zecipient, please contact the the intended recipient, the sender at the the phone phone number listed above and destroy all copies copies of the original message.

FED/09/2022/WED 11 FE/09/2022/81D 11:39 AM 39 Al FAX IN». AI No. ?P.002/034 002/034

- y Egzygp, y arr er cebfowoT FE8 -9 PHI2» 20 $cu. cewe Yoni.'

OIF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OR

A. HUNT, ROBERT A. No. 2012-0-001816-15 No. 2012- FC-001816 - 15 Plaintiff vs. VS.

PENNY HUNT, ' ACTION ACTION IN DIVORCE Defendant Defendant

AMENDED P AMENDED TNAL ORDER FINAL ORDER ON ON DIVORCE D117ORCE ECONOMIC ECONOMIC ISSUES ISSUES PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A Complaint in A Complaint in Divorce Divorce was was filed on October 13, 2012. The parties separated on

2012. A May 12, 2012. A Divorce Master, Robert A. Kulling, KulIing, was appointed on June 29, 2017 to

interim: relief. On address the issue of interim On September 5, 2018, Divorce Master, Robert A.

K-ulliog, Esquire was appointed to address claims for equitable distribution, alimony, Kulling,

counsel. fees, counsel fees, and costs costs and A, Prehearing and expenses. A Prehearing Conference Conference was was held held on on October I, I,

2018. On November 5, 2018, aaSettlement Conference was conducted but the parties parties were

unable unable to reach an agreement. to reach agreement. This This matter matter was eventually assigned was eventually assigned to to this this Honorable Honorable Court Court_

conducted before tbis Hearings were conducted this Court on January 9, 2019, April 26, 2019, 201.9, August August 22, 22,

October ' 15, 2020, and November 19, February. 28, 2020, October 2019, February 2020_ Numerous Status 19, 2020.

held in addition to these Conference Hearings and Contempt/Special Hearings were beld

hearings_ On hearings On. October 1, I, 2021, Plaintiff filed aaMotion for Reconsideration. On October October 14,

I

FE/09/2022/81D 11:39 FED/09/2022/WED 11 AM 39 Al FAX IN». AI No, ?P.003/034 003/034

2021, Defendant filed aaMotion for Reconsideration. Reconsideration_ On Oar February 8, 2022, Oral Argument Argumezit

beard. As was heard. As aaresult, the fial final order was amended regarding the payment plan on page

twenty-three and the requiremew requirement to purchase life insurance on page twenty-four.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Windings General Stipulated Findings 1. 1. The Plaintiff is is Robert A. A. Hunt Hunt (hereinafter (hereinafter "Husband"). Husband Husband was bom iuin 1966 and was 49 years of age at the time of the hearing. hearing.

2. The Defendant is Penny Hunt Hunt (hereinafter (hereinafter "Wife"), Wife was born bom in 1959 in 1959 and and was 56 years of age at the time of the time o£ the hearing. hearing.

3. The parties were married rnaixied on June 17, 1996. This was the second marriage for Wife and the roanriage the first marriage for Husband. Wife's first marjage marriage ended in divorce.

4. 4. The parties separated separated on on May May 12, 2012. 201.2.

5. 5. The parties were married The married for aaperiod period of approximately approximately 15 years, years, Il 11 months.

6. 6. The parties have no children together. The together.

B. Husband's Husb"dIs Income lia come and ad Potential to Earn

1. Husband currently pays I. pays $1796.38 $ 1.796.38 in iu support support payments. The support The support payments are set set to expire as Husband has paid $98,793.12 $95,793.12 out of the $105,421.22 $ 105,421..22 owed to Wife.

2_ Husband 2. Husbaa- id also pays pays $359.28 per month in arrearsarrears ("arears ("arears payments"). Husband owes over $100,000 $ 100,000 in arears arcars payments.

FED/09/2022/WED 11 FE/09/2022/81D 11:39 AM 39 Al FAX IN». AI No. P. 004/034

3. ' Husband is currently employed employed as an Independent Coutxactoribusiness analyst with Kodiak systems. He has Contractor/business bas worked 201,7. with this company since 2017. Prior to bis cuuent employment, he his current was the President of CRA collections from 2007-2016, and he worked for UPS for 88years. Husband also had several other business dealings which dealings were depleted which were depleted during duriug the marriage. the roarriage.

4. Husband has an Associate's Degree in Business.

was $$163,360.00. 5. Husband's 2019 Kodak salary was 163,360.00. In 2-01 S, Husband's 2018, Kodak salary was $$170,136.96. 170,136.96. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020, 2020, at 201.' 201. 1 salary was consistently Husband's salary consistently higher higher in prior prior few years. few years

assets. 6. Husband sought to lower his salary and bid assets. See Jan. 9, 2012 2012 at 35-36. at 35-36.

7. Husband has received items such as $100,000 $ 100,000 sports cars, aaFerrari Ferrari worth $$180,000, 1$0,000, trips trips to Super Bowl on oil aaprivate jet in lieu of aa higher salary, and at least $100,000 higher $ 100,000 as cash cash. bomuses, bonuses. Id. Id, at 50-51; 50-51; see also April see April 26, 26, 2019 2019 at at 11-12. 11 -12.

S. Husband bas 8. has monthly expenses expenses of of $10,312.00 $ 10,312.00_

at high 9. Husband has consistently lived at hvzzlg and above high standard of living his means despite separation separation.z

10. In accordance with 10. In with the findings findings above, above, Husband's annual annual gross gross salary is at minimum above $200,000.

C. Wife's C Income and Wife's Income Potential to and Potential to Earn Earn

1 _ Wife is L. is currently employed as aa Commercial Underwriter at at Farmers First Farmers First Insurance Insurance Company Company where she bas where she has been employed for been employed for

I Testatnoay was provided that Husband received a Testimony aFerrari, other sports sports cars, cash bonuses, and other trips in lieu of salary. salary. This indicates that his salary salary is is probably higher than indicated probably bigher iudicated Z Sports crs, Sports cars, racing, racing, expensive expensive trips, trips, ad and ete. etc. See See Trans. Oet. Oct. 15, 2020 a1at 133-37, 133-37.

FE/09/2022/810 FED/09/2022/WED 11 39 Al 11:39 AM FAX IN». AI No. 005/034 ?P.005/034

nine years. nine

Wife's 2019 salary was 2. Wife's2019 was $70,047.00.

has monthly expenses of 3. Wife bas of $4,089.95.

4. Wife Wife is fragile health_ is currently in breast cancer remission and has fragile health

5_ 5. Wife's gross salary is $72,721.44. See W's Ex. 170. auaaual gross Wife's annual

separation Wife consistently lived at aahigh standard of 6. Prior to scparation living. living.

7. Wife bas 7,Wife has been unable to sustain the prior and her prior standard of living and medical .expenses medical expenses have depleted her resources and her have greatly depleted primary source of o£ income.

hearing, Wife was receiving temporary 8. At the time of the last bearing, Which is almost depleted support payments which depleted.

9. In addition to support 9.In support payments, Wife is currently owed over $00,000 in arears payments from Husband. $100,000

findings on D. Findings on.Assigned Assigned Value to Items and Analysis of Marital vs. Nonmarital

1. Husband's UPS I. TIPS Retirement Fund.- Fund: Husband has aaUPS Retirement Fund which Fund which was from employment during the marriage_ The exact marriage. The amount is unknown. Court will unknown. The Court find in will QDRO this fund in the same percentage of equitable percentage equitable 4£ distribution generally_ generally.

TVife had q 2. Wife a401 401K prior prior to marriage: marriage: Husband coerced Wife into removing $33,000 removing in 2010 which $33,000 in which resulted in in tbe the closure of the account, a apenalty penalty of losing funds, and future interest. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020, at 21-22, 135-36; Oct. 15, 2020 at 135-36; see also Trans., Oet. at 125- 27. However, Husband did not use these funds to save the marital 27

FED/09/2022/WED 11 FE/09/2022/81D 11:39 AM 39 Al FAX IN». AI No. ?P.006/034 006/034

horse and as a home and aresult the in ],Maryland the marital home in Maryland was lost.

Wife's ,host-separation 3. Wife's Retirement ,account: Post-separation Retirement Account: Wife does have aapost- post- 401 K. The Court does pot separation 401K. not need to value this given that it is nonmarital. nozmiarital. However, the Court will note note that this 401K amount is not significant because Wife started this account post-separation. is See Trans., Oet. Oct. 15, 2020 at X58-59. W -174. 158.-59. See W-174.

4_ Marital Home: Tbe 4. The home was sold for for $410,000. See H-16. H-16- However, the Court recognizes that the value may have been been higher and that due to the forced sale of the marital home to Husband, Wife may not have received the due value. Wife did provide an appraisal which valued the home at at $475,000, $475,000. In taking into consideration Husband Husband receiving receiving the home and the forced the home forced sale, the the Court will at $435,000 value the marital home at $435,000 -- — $ 347,000 (mortgage) $347,000 (mortgage) =_ $88,000.

5. Wife's Jewelry; Jewelry: Both parties agree that Wife bad had jewelry that tbat was marital property, Husband valued Wife's property, Husband Wffc's jewelry jewelry as as $6,750 $ 6,750 and Wife valued it at at $5,580. values are $5,5$0. These values are fairly fairly close close and thus the Court will average the value to: $6,165. $6,165.

Jewelry: Husband valued his jewelry at $2,750. Wife did 6. Husband's Jewelry.: not provide aaspecific number in her spreadsheet and the testimony was not specific enough except in the instance of aawatch which is listed separately. listed separately. Accordingly. Accordingly. The Court Count values Husband's jewelry at $2,750- at $2,750.

7.7. Bitcoin: This Court beard heard several hors from an expert hours of testimony from expert only to conclude that this value cannot be ascertained to any degree of certainty. of certainty. Therefore, Therefore, this worth $0. tbis item is worth $0_ Trans. Trans.,, Oct. 15, 2020, 26-27- at 26-27.

8. Collectible Debts: 8. Debts_ Husband is owed approximately $$126,000 126,000 in during the marriage from various persons including: debts during including- Ken

FE/09/2022/8ED 11:40 FED/09/2022/WED I1 AM 40 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.007/034 007/034

Eak_lor, Jason Baklor, Jason.Wasserman, Wasserman, and KevinLevrone. Kevin Levrone. See Trans., April 26, at 40. Accordingly, the debts are 2019 at axe valued at $126,00. $ 126,00.

9. ,Paintings: Paintings' a. Don a. Don Troiani. Troiani; Lions Lions of of t heeBounddTop Top Painting Fainting ("Gettysburg"): ("Gettysburg"; There was There was some some dispute dispute as as to whether this to whether sainting was a this painting agif gift to and therefore nonmarital or whether it Husband and it was given in lieu tberefore was marital property. of salary or debt and therefore property. See Trans., Oct. 15, 2020 at 166.-67. 166-67. The Court notes that throughout throughout this case there was testimony by various parties that Husband trips, and other lavish received of cash bonuses, exotic cars, trips, items in salary_ Accordingly, in lieu of salary. Aceoxdiogly, this Court accepts Wife's that this painting was owned by testimony that by the tbe parties prior to to separation and is marital property separation than nonmarital. Trans., property rather tban Tans., April April 26, 2019 at 208_ 208. Husband sold the painting painting for $25,000 without Wife's Wife's 'knowledge knowledge in 2013. Trans_, Feb_ 28, 2020, at Trans., Feb. 181 _ However, this painting was appraised for aavalue at $40,000 18L. and the Court accepts and accepts this value. value_ Trans., April April 26, 2019 2.019 at IHI- 111- 12.

b. Other Faintings; b. Otar Paintinvs: The Court Court recognizes that that tbere thew was some testimony paintings or racing testimony regarding other Bivens' paintings macing painting. painting. However, the did not the Court either did not hear sufficient testimony to hear sufficient to set aavalue for these paintings or they were included on one or noumarital appraisals. more nopmarital appraisals. The Court also believed that it was unclear whether whether some of the paintings were purchased purchased prior to separation and separation and if so so which which paintings paintings were were marital. Accordingly, Accordingly, the Court viewed viewed these paintings as nonmarital of Husband or marital property property with anan unascertainable unascertainable value. Trans., Jan. value. See Trans, Jaa. 9, 2019 at at 44; Trans., Nov. 19, 2020 at 25; See W-23 and W-24.

10. Cars 2001, Lots a. 200L Lotus, Esprit. Esprit: This item was sold for aaprofit of of $24, $24, 539.20 by the by parties and the parties and split. split. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020, at Feb. 28, at 43; H- Exhibit Exhibit l2A_ The 12A. The Court Court recognizes recognizes that that Wife Wife presented presented some some NADA NADA guides that dispute this value, however, the values guides were

FE/09/2022/8ED 11:40 FED/09/2022/WED I1 AM 40 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.008/034 008/034

NADA 2017 NADA 2017 and the date of separation was 2012. Accordingly, accept the original value of the Court can only accept of $24, 539.20 which .is now zero as the parties split the proceeds prior to this order.

b. 1991 1991Nissan Acura NSX: This item was valued at $39,500. See Nissan Ac1mA Oct. 15, 2015 at 66. There was some testimony Trans. Ot. testimooy:regarding regarding aa mechanic lien, lien. W'gs W's Exs. 206, 209. However, the the Court believes that Husband did this without Wife's knowledge and his actions was at the very least negligent if not intentional. that bis Accordingly, this Court will accept the value ofof $39,500. $ 39,500.

c. 2006 Audi S4: There Audi S4; There appears to be some discrepancy over which vehicle the parties are referring to. has listed taro to. Wife has two different qualify as aa marital property vehicles that possibly qualify property while Husband only lists one as marital. It is clear parties cleat that both parties agree that at least one of these vehicle is marital property but neither provided aavalue as of date separation. Wife 'W'ife provided two 2013 NADANA-DA values for over $20,000$20,000 while while Husband listed the amount as $12,600 previously listed $ 12,600 and now claims that that the vehicle has no value value as Husband gavegave this vehicle to to another. The Court believes The believes this was done without Wife's consent without Wife's consent and it must be must be assigned assigned some some value. Accordingly, the value_ Accordingly, Court will the Court will value value item at aamedian between Husband's original value and this iter Wife's estimated value of of $16, $ 16, 300 minus Husband's value of $12,600 to account for the loan. Thus, the value is $3,700. is $3,700.

d. BMW d. BMW 745 745 I1: This item was This item was purchased purchased by by Husband Husband in in 2013 201,3 therefore this Court does therefore this does need value tbis it this item and merely see it as evidence of Husband's continuance of living at aa high 55-5$_ standard of living. See Trans., Jan. 9, 2019 at 55-58.

2002 Fg d, Expedition: e. 202.Eard Expeditiou: Tbis This item was purchased by Husband post-separation and therefore this Court post-separation Count does need value this item and merely see it as evidence of Husband's continuance of living at aahigh standard of living. See Trans., Jan. 9, 2019 at 66-

FE/09/2022/81D 11:40 FED/09/2022/WED I1 AM 40 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.009/034 009/034

68.

f. 2010 Jaguar: This item was also also purchased purchased by Husband after separation therefore this Court does not need value this item and merely see it as evidence of Husband's continuance of living living at aa. high standard of living. 19, 2021 at 20-23. living_ See Trans., Nov. 19,

g. 2004 Range ROVer 2004Range Rover HSE: HSE: Both parties agree agree that that there was 2004 Mange Rover that was marital property. However, the value is Range that it was valued at disputed. Husband offered that at $15,000 $ 15,000 but but that he had turned it he it over over to Kevin Levome Levorne toto make make the loan payments. This apparently was was done without Wife's Wife's consent or and therefore sore knowledge and some value must be given. At the outset, Wife and Husband's values without without loans were only approximately $2775 jn approximately in difference. difference. Husband Husband offers offers that tbat the loan balance was around around $13,700. $ 13,700. In In order to to provide some equity equity for for Husband's mismanagement of the vehicle without Wife due to Husband's without her consent, the Court will set the value to to $2,000. $2,000-

h. h. . 2006.Mercedes 2006 Mercedes SLK350: Both parties parties also also agree agree that that this this vehicle vehicle was marital property_ property. This item has bas been in Wife's possession possession appears to be since separation. There appears be aadispute as to thethe loan loam amount at at the date of separation separation and and the value before the loan amount. Husband offers that the loan loan amount is is $5,532 while Wife offers that the loan amount is $20,997. Wife offers that the value before before the is $21,850.00 before the loan is before the applied the loan is applied and Husband and Husband offers offers that that it it is is worth worth $$16,350 16,350 before before the the loan loan is is applied. However, neither offered specific exhibits relative to to the loan. See the loan. See Trans., April 26, 2019 April 26, 2019 atat 128. 128. Accordingly, Accordingly, thethe Court will average both the will average the loans discrepancies discrepancies to $13,264.50 $ 13,264.50 and the values before the loan t to $19,100. $ 19,100. Therefore the value of this item is $19,100 $19,100 -— 13,264.50 13,264.50 = = $5,835.50.

i. i. 2006 BMW 2006 BMW M5:MS; The Court did The Court did not not hear enough testimony hear enough testimony nornor was it presented presented with any proof of sale dating dating prior prior to separation. separation_ Accordingly, this Accordingly, this Court Court merely assumes assumes that that this this was either sold was either sold

FE/09/2022/8ED 11:40 FED/09/2022/WED I1 AM 40 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 010/034

to separation or purchased after separation. Therefore, this prior to has no value. See Trans., Jan, item bas Jan. 9, 2019 at at 55-58.

j. 2010 Cadillac CIS: CTS: The Court did not hear any evidence that that vehicle was purchased this vehicle purchased prior to the date of separation and the date therefore this item is Husband's ponmarital nonmarital that is either currently owed by currently by Husband or was owned at some point following the following the parties' parties' separation. separation. See Trans., Jan. Jam 9, 9, 2019 2019 at at 62 62.

k. k. 19844 Mustang: Husband 1984Mustang; Husband purchased in 2017 purchased this in 2017 after after the date date of separation and scparation and therefore this Court does need value this iter item and merely see itit as evidence of Husband's continuance of living living at aahigh high standard ofof living. living. Id Id. at 72-73. 72-73.

t1. 2008 Lexus L250: 1250: Both parties agree this this is is marital marital property property or the very at the least used marital very least fiends to marital funds to purchase this item. The been sold for a item has already been aprofit profit of SI,000, $ 1,000, (Sale Price: $15,000 --— Loan: $$14,000) 14,000) however, the parties dispute the true true value- See value. Trans-, April See Trans., April 26, 20, 2019 at 194. 19.4- Wife offers of'fer's that that the the value is true value is $25,225 $25,225 while Husband believes while Husband believes itit to to be $ 15,000. be $15,000. Court recognizes that Wife The Court presented a Wife presented January 2013 a January 2013 guide, which is a NADA guide, xmontlis post-separation, a few months post-separation, accordingly, the Court accepts the Court accepts the value may the value may bebe higher higher than than Husband's value but not as bigb high as Wife proposes. proposes, Accordingly, the Court will add $5,000 will add $5,000 to the the value value for the the vehicle vehicle making the making the value $6,000. Given that the value $6,000. amount $1,000 tbe previous amount $ 1,000 was split, the remaining remaining balance is is $5,000 $5,000.

rn. Chevrolet m. Chevrolet DS DS Tuck Truck: The The Court Court believes believes that that based based on ou the the little little testimony that testimony that was was provided that this provided that this truck truck purchased purchased after the parties separation but likely was purchased with marital funds fluids due to due Husband requesting to Husband requesting his girlfriend girlfriend to purchase it with with his money. See Trans., Jan. 9,2019 money. 2019 at 58-61. 58-61. Accordingly, Accordingly, the Court Court will consider this marital property property and value it it at $10,000. $ 10,000.

n. Mini • Mini _ Cooper. Cooper: Husband bought this in 2016 and therefore this

FED/09/2022/WED II FEB/0/2O22/#ED 11:41 AM 4I A FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 011/034

Court does need to value this item and merely see it as evidence of Husband's continuance of living at at aahigh high standard of living. ,See See Trans., Jan.. Jan. 9, 201.9 at 63_ 2019 at 63. Husband purchased may have purchased more than one post-separation but this is is unclear to to Court and therefore irrelevant irrelevant_

o. 0. 2005 GMC 2005 GMC Envoy, Envoy, 2008 2008 Jesp Jeep Grand Grand Cherokee, Cherokee, and and Denali; Denali: 'there was some testimony regarding vehicles that appear to There to be identified to some extent above. However, the record is potnot completely clear as to when these vehicles were purchased but in reviewing witnesses' in witnesses' testimmy testimony and the posts referenced, thisthis Court can only reference a Id. a timeline after separation. Id at 65- 67. Therefore, this Court does need to value this item and merely see it coxnti auauce of living it as evidence of Husband's continuance at aahigh living at high standard of standard of living. living.

p. husband's P. Husband's Mercedes: Mercedes; There was some testimony presented that that Husband purchased purcbastd aa Mercedes sometime between 2017 and and 2018. Id. at 67-68. Accordingly, this this is Husband's nonmarital this Court does and this does need need to to value this this item item and merely see itit as Husband's continuance evidence of Husband's continuance ofof living living at at aahigh high standard standard living. of living.

q. 206 q 2003 Jetta; Jetta: Husband purchased this in 2017. See Trans, Trans_, April 6162. Accordingly, this is Husband's nonmarital 26, 2019 at 61-62. and this Court does need jaeed to to value this item and merely see see. it as .evidence evidence ofof Husband's Husband's continuance continuance of living living at at aahigh high standard standard living_ of living.

Oflier Cars: The Court r. Other Court recoozes recognizes that there may have been been other other that the vehicles that the parties attempted attempted to reference. However, the parties did not identify them toto aaspecificity that they they could be valued and/or did not establish aa timeline for the Court to t'or_ The Court account for. Court notes notes that the bulk bulls of such vehicles appear to be purchased by to be Husband and are only post-separation and relevant to extent that to the extent that Husband hashas raised raised claims of

FED/09/2022/WED II FE/09/2022/8ED 11:41 AM 41 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.012/034 012/034

bankruptcy in lieu of aaclearly proven lavish standard of living durixag the marriage and during axad post-separation. post-separations.

that this 11. Regal 2665 Boat: Both parties agree that this is is marital marital property property but disagree as to the value. The Court notes notes that there $ 10,000 value there is a $10,000 difference before any loan. Accordingly, the Court will set the value before any loan amount to to $20,000. Accordingly the value is $20,000 —-$13,187 $20,000 $ 13,187 - ^ $6,813.00. $6,813.00.

agree that this item 12. Motorcycle Trailer: Both parties agree itein is marital marital. property. However, the parties disagree on the value by $3,500. Accordingly, the Court will average amount of Husband's value, $1,500, and Wife's value, $5,000, to t0 $3,250.

13. Motorcycles: Chopper )Motorcycle a. Chopper Motorcycle: Both parties agree that this was purchased during the marriage but but do not not agree wbether whether itit was merely stored or sold prior to separation. See Trans., April 16, 2019 at x44-46- The Court potes 144-46. notes that Husband was less than honest throughout the the proceedings proceedings and and even Husband previous even Husband previous paramour confirmed Wife's testimony that that it was merely stored. Tan. 9, 2019 at 33-34. See Trans., Jan. Court will 33-34. Accordingly, the Court will treat equitable marital property treat it as equitable property and value it at $10,000. $10,000. See W's W'sEx Ex.222. 222.

2003 Yamaha b. 2003 Yamaha RI RI: Te The Parties agree agree that motorcycle is tbat the motorcycle is property and marital property and tbat that the motorcycle was sold for $22,000 motorcycle was and split split by the parties prior to this order. See Tans., Trans., Nov. I9, 19, also' April 2020 at 48; see also April 26, 2019 at at 160. 160- Accordingly, the the Court accepts this and values it this and it at $0. $0.

c. 1999 Kawasaki Drifter 1999Kawasaki Difer Motorcycle: this was Motorcycle; Both parties agree this rmxital property. This item had marital had two appraisals values at at $1,400 $ 1,400 and $3,000. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020, at 93. Accordingly, the Court and averaged both appraisals and averaged and finds vale finds the value to to be be $2,200. $2,200.

11 II

FED/09/2022/WED II FE/09/2022/8ED 11:41 AM 41 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 013/034

1000R MY d. 1000R MV AgStA: Agusta: This item item was was sold prior toto separation separation therefore has no value. See Trans., April 26, 2019 at 200.

e_ BMW 745 E e. T: This vehicle vehicle was purchased after separation therefore this Court does aced to therefore this Court does need to vahue value this item item and merely merely sees sees it as evidence of Husband's continuance of it of living living at aahigh high standard of living. April 26, 2019 at 67-68. living. See Trans., April 6768.

f. Ducati Motorcycle: Notorcycle: There was some testimony regarding this item. However, there was no evidence that Court would certainty of the timeline ascertain to the certainty tireline of ownership of this item. Accordingly, this Court can only assume that that if it was owned by Husband, it is nonmarital. See Trans., April 26, 2019 46-47. at 46.47,

g. ialey 8. Harley Davidson Davidson V-Bod: V-Rod: This item was purchased by husband in 2017 and therefore this Court does need treed value this item and of Husband's continuance of merely sees it as evidence of of living living at at aahigh standard standard of living. See Trans., Jan. 9, 2019 at at 49.

h. Ninia. Rage h. 2007 Ninia Race Motorcycle: There was some testixoorty testimony regarding aaninja regarding ninja motorcycle motorcycle atat the the date date of of separation. separation. However, However, it was offered it was offered that that it it was act filly operational. not fully operational. See Trans., April April 26, 2019 at 116-17. Accordingly, the Court will lower Wife's $6,355 to aavalue of value from $6,355 of $1,000. $ 1,000. See W's Ex. 235.

i. i. Other motorcycles: Other motorcycles; TheThe Court Court recognizes recognizes that that there there may have may have been other motorcycles referenced; however, the parties did did not identify them to identify them to aaspecificity specificity that that they they could could be be valued valued and/or and/or did not did riot establish establish aatimeline timeline for for the the Court Court to to account account for. for. The The Court notes that the bulk of such vehicles appear to be purchased notes that by Husband post-separation and are only relevant to the extent by Husbmd has raised claims of bankruptcy that Husband baanikTuptcy in lieu of aaclearly proven lavis.h proven lavish standard standard of of living during the living during marriage and the marriage and post- separation.

FED/09/2022/WED II FE/09/2022/8ED 11:41 AM 41 AN FAX IN». AI No. P.014/034 014/034

14. Personal items in the Marital Home/Furnishing: Horne/Furnishing: Husband presented presented aalist of item in the House that were sold byby the parties for aatotal of $1367.58. H's E. Fx, 17. The Court accepts this value as aaset set off except in the instance of items such as aaGettysburg painting, aa president rolex watch, and atad pacman pacmau game for which wife or husband's girlfriend husband's girlfriend was able to was able to provide specific testirony. provide specific testimouy. The Court will notevote that there was significant testimony of Husband hidings items and that several items were likely not included in the appraisals. However, the Court cannot ascertain the true value or percentage identity of said items and thus addresses this under the percentage and alimony analysis. for equitable distribution and analysis_

15. Watches: a. Presidential Rolex Watch. olex Watch. The Court heard The Court heard testimony testimony regarding regarding this watch and therefore values it at 52,500. it at $2,500. See See Trans., Feb. Feb. 28, 2020 at 196-97. 2020 at 196-97-

b. Some testimony was given about b. about aaTissot, Tissot, Raymond Raymond Weil, Weil, and Timex watch. However, the testimony was somewhat unclear therefore this Court cannot assign aavalue these items. Id Id.

16,Wies 16. Wife's Paceman Pacrnan Game:Game: A A pac-man pac-man game game was was onon the list of the list of Husbarid's original Husband's original appraisal, appraisal, bowever, however, it it was not present when the the Court ordered Husband to to cooperate with aasecond appraisal of items, Accordingly, the Court views household items. views this as evidence of aa willful willful dissipation of Wife's nonmarital assets and of Wife's nonmarital assets and accepts accepts Wife's Wife's testimony testiroony as to the value of the Pacman machine. There was testimony testimony given regarding regarding the Pa.cman Pacman game value manging ranging fron from $600-$2200 and that Husband gifted this item to to Wife. See Trans., Nov. I9, Nov. 19, 2021 2021 atat 37-39. 37-39. Thus, Court assigns Thus, Court assigns aavale value of of $1,000 $ 1,000 and and if Husband cannot produce the physical item, he will need to reimburse Wife for it.

17. Husband's Husband's Escrow Escrow Personal Injury Settlement: Personal Injury Settlement.-The The value value of this this Settlement is settlement is just just over over $50,000. This is $50,000. Tbis is nonmarital nownarital of of Husband Husband. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020 at 34.

FED/09/2022/WED II FE/09/2022/8ED 11:41 AM 41 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.015/034 015/034

18. Coin Collection and Gold and Silver: Tbere There was no specific specific testimony on the value of this this and the bulk of the testimony testimony these on items were vague. See Trans. Trans.,, Oct. Oct. 15, 202.0 16364. Thus, the 2020 at 163-64. Court cannot assign Court assign: aavalue.

1.9_ 19. Guns: There was no specific testimony of this item and testimony on the value of the bulk of the testimony on these items were vague. Thus, the the Court cauot assign aavalue. Trans, cannot Trans., Oct, Oct. 15, 2020 at 168.

20. 20. Exercise Equipment: There was some evidence that that the marital $300. exercise equipment was valued at $300. See H's H'S Ex. Cotes 20. The Court did not testimony to the contrary and not hear any convincing testimony and therefore accepts this accepts this value. value.

21 21. Business Business Assets: Back in 2017, this Court heard testimony of Assets: Baek of Husband's numerous business dealing with various companies. of some of the CRA 'However, with the exception of However, CRA accounts the Court is unable to to ascertain aavalue vale to these, only view this these assets and can only conduct as evidence of Husband's dissipation conduct dissipation of marital assets. See Oct. 12, 2017 at 27-28, Trans., Oet. 27-28, 41, 41, 50.

, Wife: There are arears payments gears owed to Wife. 22. Supposal Support Arears payments owed by Husband to Wife post-separation. Therefore, the arears payments payments are considered nonmarital. The Court notes that it heard testimony that the $ 100,000. See Trans,, the arears payments are over $100,000. Trans., at 39. Nov. 19, 2020 at Nov

CRA Accounts: The Court reviewed Wife's exhibits relative to the 23. CR4 ending in 6461. The Court motes CRA account ending notes that on on. May 11, 2012, May 1, which was the day before separation, separation., the balance was $ 19,990- 13- was $19,990.13 The next next ledger balance was on May 14, 14, 2012. Accordingly, the Court accepts the marital value for the CRA Aconts Accounts to to be $19,990.13. See W's Ex. 5. W's Ex,

24. Wife's Accounts: 24. Husband and Wife's Accounts: The heard some The Court heard some testimony testimony

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 AM 42 AN FAX IN». AI No. P. 016/034

accounts of Wife and Husband. about various accounts Husband.. However, the bulk of these accounts that appear to contain any significant amount of to be dated post-separation assets appear to post-separation and and therefore do do not require the Court to assign aavale. value. Accordingly, the Court will not will consider them assign any particular value to these accounts and will to be to be nonmarital nonmarital of the parties patties unless uuless specified below. Other and have outside parties accounts are extremely nominal and parties on these accounts and therefore do not largely affect distribution. See W's Exs. 1-3, 8-11. Es.

a. Husband's Account ending inin 0865; 0865: Between May 4th and anal May $10,024.18_ See W's Ex. 6. 18th of 2012 the balance remained $10,024.18. 6_ notes that there appears to The Court notes to be another individual's name who is not Wife on tbis who is this account. Accordingly Accordingly the Court will value value the the cash cash amount amount at at $5,012.09 $5,0X2.09_

b. Husband's Husband's and Wife's Account ending in Wife's Joint Account in 6075: The The day before separation, May 11, 2021, there there was $5,184.91 $6,184.91 in the joint account. The balance did not change until May 14, joint account. Tbe balance did not change until May 14, 2012. 2012_ Ex. 7. Accordingly, the value is $6,184.91. See W's Ex. $6,184.91.

c. Wife's Account ending in Account cnding 8377: The in 8377; The parties agree about about the the amount ill in the checking account at date of separation the checking separation was around $3,400. There was testimony that roughly around that $3,000 of this this money money was given by by Husband to Wife as part part of her share for aa sale of aatruck and therefore we will subtract this amount amount and and the Court will value it at $400, $400.

Marital, Property E. Marital Property

1. Husband's UPS I. Husband's URS „ Retirement Fund: QDRO 30% to 1to Husband Husband 70% to

Wife.

2. Marital Marital home borne ("Camelot")y: ("Camelot­)- $88,000 $$ 8,000

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 AM 42 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 017/034

3. Wife's " Wife's Jewelry: rewelry: $6,165 $ 6,165

4. Husband's Jewelry: Jewehy: $2,750 $ 2,750

5. 5. Bitcoin: Bitcoin: $0 $0

Gettysburg Painting: $40,000 6. Gettysburg

7. 200L Lots 2001 Lotus Esprit: $0 Esprit $0

199114issau.AcuraNSX: 8. 1991 Nissan Acir NSX: $39,500 9. 2006 Audi $ 3,700. Andi S4: $3,700. 'l0. Rauge Rover HSE: $2,000 10. 2004 Range

1. 2006 Mercedes 11.2006 Mercedes $LK350: SLK350: $5,835.50 $5,335.50

Lexus [250: 12. 2008 Lex$ 1250: $5,000 $ 5,000

X3. 13. Chevrolet DS Tuck; Truck:$10,000 $ 10,000

14_ Regal 2665 Boat: 14. Regal Boat, $6,813.00 $6,813.00

15. Motorcycle 15. $3,250 Motorcycle Trailer: $3,250

Chopper Motorcycle: $10,000 16. Chopper Motorcycle; $ 10,000

17. Yamaha RI: $0 17. 2003 Yamaha $0

18. 2007 Ninja Ninja Race Motorcycle: $1,000 $ 1,000

19. Personal items Personal items in in the Marital Home/Furnishing: Home/Furnishing: $1367.58 $ 1367.58

20. Presidential Rolex 20. $2,500 olex Watch: $2,500

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 AM 42 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.018/034 0I8/034

21. Ex&rise Exercise Equipment: $300 $300

22. CRA ACCOunt5; 22. Accounts: $19,990.13 $ 19,990.13

23. lusband's 23. Husband's Account Account ending in in 0863 0865: $5,012.09 $ 5,012.09

24. Hnband's 24. Husband's and and Wife's Joint Wife's Joint Account ending Account ending in in 6075: 6075: $6,184.91 $ 6,184.91

25. Wife's Account 25. Wife's Account endine ending in in 8377: $400 $400 8377. F. Nonrarftal F, Nonmarital

1. Husband's Personal Injury Escrow fund I.

2. Support Arears 2. Axears Payments owed to Wife

3. Wife's Post-separation 401K

4. Husband's various vehicles listed as post-separation vehicles above including above including motorcycles, aaFerrari, Ferrara, and other cars.

5. Wife's Pacman Machine. Husband will need need to return the the machine or reimburse Wife for a $1,000. $ 1,000.

G. Equitable Distribution

3502(a) of the Divorce Code lists eleven factors that must be considered in Section 35024a)

any recommendation for equitable distribution. Notably, "there is no simple formula by by

v. Smith, 653 A.2d 1259, 1264 which to divide marital property." Smith ». 1264 ((1995). 1995). Rather,

each case is evaluated by aacase by case basis. Id. While "the list of factors of section Id Wile

3502(a) serve as aaguideline for consideration, the list list is neither exhaustive nor specific as

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 AM 42 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.019/034 019/034

to the weight weight to be given the various factors." Id. The Court applied the eleven equitable

factors listed distribution factors listed in Section 3502(a) 3502(x) of of the the Divorce Code Code to this this case as follows:

of marriage. ' Length of The parties were married for aaperiod of approximately I5 15

years, 11 Il months. This factor along with others support aalarger portion for for Wife.

Prior marriages. This was the first marriage for Husband and the second marriage

Wife_ This factor did not affect the distribution as Wife is not receiving any sort of for Wife.

property from her property or monies from her prior marriage.

Age, Age, health, etc. Husband is and is in generally is 49 and gezierally good good health while Wife is 56

and: is in breast cancer remission. Husband will likely be and be able able. to continue to work for aa

significant amount of time. time. While Wife's age would normally normally not impede impede her her ability to to

work, work, her health is compromised compromised as she is in breast cancer caxlcer remission. remission- Husband will be

earning at minimum over twice as much Wife after the divorce is finalized. Husband's eaming

income appears to fhuxgate mncome fluxgate upwards and what is not reflected in his paystubs is apparent

through from $50,000 10 through multiple sport cars ranging from to 190,000 each, expensive trips, hefty

cash bonus, and etc. Given the disparity cash disparity in income, income, this factor is aasignificant indication

distribution. that Wife should receive aalarger portion of equitable distribution

Contribution to education, training, etc. There was very little testimony on om this

factor and therefore this factor is neutral.

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 42 AN AM FAX IN». AI No, ?P. 020/034

acquisitions_ Opportunity for future acquisitions. Neithez Neither party appears to have any

significant opportunity for the acquisition of capital assets in the future outside significant

employment. Wife's lack of higher education and overall health will likely prevent her

from obtaining any future acquisitions. However, Husband will be in aabetter position to

acquire capital assets given acquire given: the parties' income disparity. disparity. This factor favors aalarger share

for Wife.

xneorue other than employment. Wife does not have other sources of Sources of income

income other than employment and the support that the previous support getting from Husband that she was getting

is almost gone. The Court will will,not not include arrears as aasource of income as the arrears are

aapenalty due to Husband's actions. Husband sources of income vary. There was aalot of of

testimony that Husband received sport cars, expensive trips, cash bonuses, and other

exp•n.sive items expensive items in in lieu lieu of of salary. salary. Thus, this factor favors this factor favors aalarger larger share share for for Wife.

Contribution or dissipation of property. Wife provided provided ample testimony relative

to Husband taking out liens on uonmazatal nonmarital without her knowledge, coercing her to giving

hiw her pre-marital him pre-marital retirement funds under the ruse that she was saving saving their marital home, home,

finds and pproperty hiding marital funds .roperty including furnishings, furishings, and other business ventures veotuxes

utilizing marital wads utilizing Tura into the ground funds that were run ground by by Husband's mismanagement. The

not find Husband's defenses to be credible and therefore, this factor favors aa Court did pot

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 AM 42 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P.021/034 021/034

larger larger share for Wife.

Value of property property set apart to each eaeh party. While on its face it appears that the

have several items of value, much of the property is parties have is not physically intact due to

Husband's dealings with with the property. Notably, Notably, the parties have aamarital home, several the parties

vehicles and motorcycles, aavaluable painting, Husband's UPS pension, pension, and some other

of the property miscellaneous items. Much of property including the marital home is in Husband's home is

and thus, tbis physical possession and this factor favors aalarger share share for for Wife.

marriage. Standard of living established during the marriage. There was extensive

marriage. testimony relative to the high standard of living that the parties lived at during the marriage.

both, Wife and Husband lived well above their Testimony supported that both means. their means.

Specifically, Husband and Wife had many of expensive expensive automobiles, motorcycles, motorcycles, boats,

paintings, guns paintings, guns and and coin coin collections, collections, and and other other luxury hxry items_ Additionally, the parties items. Additionally, parties took took

baternational luxury trips, many itemnational trips, attended racing events, super super bowls, and etc. Further, the

and regularly purchased parties hosted lavish events and purchased expensive expensive outerwear as well as various

gadgets. Husband has demonstrated dernomtrated that he is able to maintain such a aLifestyle lifestyle even after

almost ten almost ten years of separation despite his claims of bankruptcy_ bankruptcy. However, Wife has not

been able to been able to maintain maintain aalifestyle lifestyle even even close close to to the standard of Qf living Uvixig during dwj.jag her marriage. r. arriage.

Given Wife's Given Wife's health, health, education, education, and and age, age, she she is unlikely to is unlikely to achieve achieve such such aastandard standard of living living

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:42 AM 42 AN FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 022/034

remotely equivalent on her own means. Therefore, Therefore, this factor significantly significantly favors aalarger larger

share for share for Wife. Wife.

Hco)aomic circumstances, including tax Economic assets tar ramifications. The exchange of assets

will likely be in some form be in foram of payment to Wife starting starting with funds in escrow given that

most of property is in Husband's possession. Husband has also received many sources of

and thus any ramifications which he may incur are income have not been claimed on taxes and aze

at his own making. See Trans., Oct. 15, 2020 at 89. Additionally, neither party party produced produced

any tax any experts on tax experts on this inatter. Tbus, this ratter. Thus, this Court will not not offer any any ftitrther analysis on this further analysis

factor. This factor by by itself does not affect this Court's analysis.

children.. The parties have no minor Custody of minor children. miuoT children. Therefore, Tbezefoze, this

is not aafactor.

Asset Husband Wife Wife Value

UPS Retirement UPS Retirement QDKO QDRO Fund Fund Marital Home $88,000 $ 83,000 $88,000

Wife's Jewelry Wife's Jewelry $6,165 $6,165 $6,165 $6,165

Jeweltyr Husband's Jewelry $2,750 $2.,750 $2,750

Bitcoin Bitcoin $0 $0 $0 $0

Gettysburg Painting 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 023/034

2001 Lotus Espht Esprit $0 $0

Acura.. 1991 Nissan Acura $39,500 $39,500 $39,500 NS NSX 2006 Audi S4 $3,700 $3,700 $3,700

2004 Range 2004 Range Rover Rover $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 HSE 2006 Mercedes $5,835.50 $5,835.50 . 9LK350 SLK3.50 2008 Lexus 1250 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

SAS Truck Chevrolet DS $10,000 $10,000

Regal 2665 Boat $6,813.00 $6,813.00

Frailer Motorcycle Trailer $3,250 $3,250 $3,250

Chopper Motorcycle $10,000 $10,000

2003 Yamaha Yamaha RI _ $0 $0

Nixaja Race 2007 Ninja $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Motorcycle . Motocle Personal items Personal in the items in $1367.58 Marital HQuie/p'utn ishing Home/Fumist Presidential Presidential Rolex Rolex $2,500 $2,500 Watch Exercise Equipment Exercise Equipment $300 $300 $300

CRA Accounts $19,990.13 $19,990.13 $19,990.13 $19,990.13

Husband's Account $5,012.09 $5,012.09 $5,012.09 endir ending in 0865

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No. ?P.024/034 024/034

Joint Account $6,184.91 $6,184.91 $6,154.91 $6,184.91 ending in 6075 endins 5075 Wife's Account $400 $400 $400 ending in 8377 endins Distribrttion Distribution $77,810.46 (30%) $77,810.46 $181,557.75 $181,557.75 (70%) (70%) $259,368.21 Percentage Percen oo

Total Assets Held Total $246,967.71 --$12,400.50 $ 12,400.50

Remaining Remaining Owed -169,15725 -169,157.25 169,157.25

For the reasons set set above, the net net marital property should be property should to be distributed 30% to

Husband and 70% to Wife. Additionally, Husband's 401K from UPS is to be QDRO 30%

to Husband and 70% to Wife. The Court notes that this percentage allotment is not much

higher than Husband proposed on his final higher final spreadsheet and purported purported to to Wife's requested

distribution,, This spreadsheet covers fAmding relative to Wife receiving the majority of the distribution. finding

the marital assets and which party physically has the the marital assets . which party physically has the property or contributed to the property or to the item

being sold or dissipated the value. Given that that the bulk of the marital assets are either in in

Husband's possession or were dissipated by Husband's actions, the remaining amount

is to paid owed to Wife is paid first from ixijury escrow finals from Husband's personal injury anal escrow funds and

fluids relative to the sale of the funds famishing items in the marital home. the marital home or furnishing home

These monies must be be released from escrow to Wife's Wife's counsel within ten ten days of

this order. Husband isis •also required to take reasonable efforts to collect debts also required debt's owed which

are listed above. Husband will pay remabiWg after escrow distribution to $ 88,453.02 remaining pay $88,453.02 to wife

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 025/034

amotmt is paid in full. Husband is also at $640.00 per month with 6% interest until this amount

ordered to produce pac-man game to Wife or reimburse Wife in the amount produce Wife's Pac-man amount of of

ten days of this order. As this item is not marital property, $1000 within ten property, Husband may may not

subtract this amount from fiords referenced above. This Court warns from the escrow funds wars Husband

and delays that it will view any unreasonable efforts and delays as as an an action action for contempt of court.

H. Support Arrears Owed to Wife.

Husband currently owes over a $$100,000 100,000 in support arrears to Wife, given that

.Husband has been less than honest with the discovery of Husband o£ marital property property and dissipated

other assets. Therefore, the Court orders Husband to take out aalife insurance policy of aa

Dainiz roinimum of $100,000 Um of - $ 100,000 which names Wife Wife as the sole beneficiary. Husband is to submit to

Wife's counsel aareceipt and aid documents of said insurance policy within sixty days of this

As the support order. As support arrears decrease, deczease, the minimum zuinimum life life irnsurmce insurance policy may decrease decrease

rata. pro rata.

L . Alimony L. ApzxRoiy

A Court may A alimony as aasecondary remedy may award alimony remedy where economic justice and aid

the reasonable needs of aaparty cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution

scheme, i.e. aaremedy remedy based upon upon the the `reasonable' party seeking alimony as 'reasonable' needs of the party

as the payor's ability well as ability to pay. pay. Teodorskt Teodorski ». v. Teodorsli, Teodorski, 857 857 .A..2d 2000 (Pa. Super. A.2d 194 2000

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No, ?P.026/034 026/034

2004) (emphasis added). Alimony is to be awarded only CL 2004) only when and if the trial court fids finds

sufFcient income to obtain the that it is necessary to provide the receiving spouse with sufficient

necessities of life. Id. The necessities are in party party based upon the standard of living during during

the marriage. While While "the purpose of alimony is not "the purpose not to reward one party party and and punish punish the

other, but to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support support herself

through met."' Miller v_ through appropriate employment are met." • Miller, 744 A_2d 778 (pa.. 744 A2d Super. (Pa. Super

1.999). These principles will be discussed further as part 1999). part and and parcel parcel to totality totality of the

seventeen factors seventeen £actors for alimony under Section Section. 3701(b) of the the Divorce Code, Code, and, and, as

applicable to the specific facts of this case.

Relative earnings and earning capacities. As noted above, Husband will be

earning at minimum over twice as much Wife after the divorce is finalized. Husband's appears to income appears to fluxgate fluxgate upwards upwards and what what is is not apparent mi his paystubs is apparent not reflected in

through multiple sport through multiple sport cars cars manging ranging from from $50,000 $ 190,000 each, expensive $50,000 to $190,000 expensive trips, trips, hefty hefty

cash bonus, cash bonus, and and etc. etc. Given Given the the disparity disparity in in income, this this factor is significant factor is significant and and favors favors an an .

award of alimony.

While Wife currently cnaently has the ability to work, Wife is in remission with breast

cancer. Given Wife's health and and age, age, her carping earning capacity capacity is not stable.

Ages and conditions of the parties. As earlier indicated, forty-nine indicated, Husband is forty-nine

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No, ?P. 027/034

whale Wife is fifty-six and is in breast cancer remission. and is in generally good health while

Husband will likely- to continue to likely be able to to work for aasignificant amount of time. While

Wife's age would normally not impede her ability to work, leer her health is compromised as

factor support is. breast cancer remission. Thus, this factor she is support an award of alimony. alimony.

Sources.of Sources income.for of income and for both parties. Husband's income appears to be steady and

any instability relative to Husband's employment appears to be by Husband_ be intentional by Husband. As As

noted previously, Husband also receives expensive items and cash bonuses in lieu of salary.

Wife is currently working full-time and W;fe and has has been for close to ten text years. However, her her health

could compromise this source of income. Husband attempts to to claim that alimony is not not

needed because the arcars arears payments are significant. However, this Court would note note that that

the arears payments are aapenalty for Husband's failure to pay support support already already owed or

delayed. Therefore, itit is improper improper for this this Court Court to reward Husband for his actions and for bis and to to

Wife by penalize for Wife by counting the arears payments as aasource of income. Accordingly, for

the reasons listed in the previous previous factors, this factor also support support an award of alimony alimony.

)expectancies and inheritances. Neither party Expectancies party testified that they they are expecting expecting

Accordingly; this factor is neutral. inheritances. Accordingly,

Duration of the marriage. The parties were married for aaperiod period of approximately

15 years, 11 15 months. Husband Ii months. Husband has has been been paying paying roughly 1goo since roughly $$I800 since May May 2018 2018 through through the the

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No, ?P.028/034 028/034

Domestic Relations Relations Office. This will will factor into the duration and Husband's ability to pay Husband's ability pay

living during paired with the standard of Living during this marriage. However, otherwise this factor is

neutral_ neutral

.Contribution Contributfou to training, ete. to training, etc. There There was was no no significant significant testimony testimony regarding regarding this this

factor and it not a consideration, a factor for consideration.

Custody of Custody of minor nib.ior children. children. The The parties parties have have no minor children together. no minor

Therefore, this this is not aafactor. factor

laving during the marriage. There was extensive testimony Standard of living testimony relative

to the high standard of living that the parties lived at during the marriage. Testimony

that both supported that Wife and Husband both Wife Husband laved well above lived well above their Specifically, Husband means. Specifically, their means. Husband

and Wife and Wife had many many of of expensive expensive automobiles, automobiles, motorcycles, boats, paintings, motorcycles, boats, paintings, guns guns

and other luxury collections, and luxury items. Additionally, Additionally, the parties parties took tools many many international international

hzxury trips, attended racing events, super bowls, and etc. Further, the parties huxry parties hosted lavish

and regularly purchased expensive outerwear as well as various gadgets. events and gadgets. Husband

to maintain has demonstrated that he is able to maintain, such such a e'veri after almost ten years of a lifestyle even

separation. However, Wife has not been able to maintain aalifestyle even close to the separation.

during her standard during her marriage. The Court notes that even an award of of alimony merely boosts

her standard of living living but still does equate Wife's standard of livirig living to that what she was

FED/09/2022/WED I1 FE/09/2022/8ED 11:43 AM 43 Al FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 029/034

accustomed to during the marriage. Moreover, given Wife's health, education, and age, she

is unlikely to achieve aastandard remotely similar on her own means. Accordingly, Accordingly, this

factor factor heavily supports an award of alimony.

Relative education and training. Husband has an an. Associate Degree, Degree. Wife has no

higher education. Given the disparity in their incomes, this factor slightly favors an award

of alimony. of alimony.

Relative Assets and Liabilities. Both parties have retirement accounts although

only Husband's account is marital. marital, Husband has numerous debts owed that may be

collectable. Husband also has several vehicles some which are worth sizable amounts. arnouuts_

has the marital bome. Husband also has home. Outside of one vehicle, her retirement account, and and

jewelry. jewelry. Wife does not have any any major assets. Accordingly, Accordingly, this factor supports an award

alimony. of alimony.

Property brought to the marriage. Wife had a a 401K prior to marriage. However,

Court heard testimony that the Court that Husband coerced Wife to withdraw $33,000 to save the

Maryland Maryland marital residence. Wife Wife testified that Husband did not use this money money for the

marital home and as consequence they marital they lost Maryland marital home as an asset and Wife

lost $33,000 $33,000 of her retirement funds plus all of the monies which she was penalized for

early and any withdrawing early any future interest. Husband does have a abankruptcy bankruptcy action pending pending

FEB/0/2O22/#ED 11:44 FED/09/2022/WED 1I AM 44 A FAX IN». AI No. ?P. 030/034

but given the testimony of Husband's continuous high stand of living, this does not affect

this factor_ factor. Accordingly, this factor supports an award of alimony.

Contribution as aahomemaker. Wife Wife testified to to being primarily primarily responsible responsible for

household duties, chores, and hosting events for Husband. See Trans. Trans- Oct. Oct_ 115, 5, 2020 at 130-

32. No other testimony was given relative to this factor. Accordingly, this factor slightly

supports an award of alimony.

Relative needs of the parties. Wife's delicate health healtb and age which have been

pertinent that discussed above are particularly relevant to this factor. Additionally, it is also pertinent

this Court previously found that Husband had the ability to pay pay $$1796.38 1796.38 aamonth. While

Wife will receive some assets through not through equitable distribution, some of the assets may pot

be collected due to Husband's baWcjuptcy be bankruptcy action and Husband's mishandling of property property

and financial matters. Moreover, Wife testified to begin imable lodging unable to afford better lodging

additional support. It is notable that without additional that Wife's standard of living changed changed drastically

upon separation while ample same. Wife also has ample while Husband's remained relatively the same,

medical bills that hamper her ability to support ber ability support a arelatively comparable standard of living.

Accordingly, this this factor supports an award of alimony. factor supports

Marital misconduct. There was was testimony of marital marital misconduct relative to to

and property. Husband's affairs and Husband's misuse of finances and Court notes property. This Court

FED/09/2022/WED 1I FEB/0/2O22/#ED 11:44 AM 44 A FAX IN». AI No. ?P.031/034 031/034

Husband was less less than forthcoming and his lack cooperation in the early proceedings

contributed to delays and the depletion of some assets in in relative to fun•shings furnishings in the

marital home, other vehicles, and and. cash. Said actions thus deprived Wife of monies/property

that she could claim in equitable distribution. Thus, this factor spports supports an award of

alimony_ alimony.

Federal., state, and local tax ramifications. Given the recent tax changes, alimony Federal,

is no longer deductible for the paying spouse, nor is it income for the receiving spouse. is

This is significant. Husband will have to bear the burden of alimony in this case without

the ability to deduct those costs on his federal taxes, but given the relative needs of Wife,

any alimony award shall be manageable by Husband given his income. izxcome. Tbis This factor by itself

support an award for alimony. does not support

Lfteldimg of Lacking of sufficient sufficient property. property. As As noted noted above, above, outside outside of of Wife's Wife's retirement retirement

funds and her vehicle, Wife has no property. Meanwhile, Husband Husbaud has numerous sources

of income, property, and the marital home. home. Thus, this factor supports an award of alimony alimony.

CapabiUity for support through employment. This factor has been discussed at Capability

length in previous factors and is is applicable here as well. This factor favors an award of

alimony.

For the reasons For reasons set set forth above above and despite despite Wife Wife receiving receiving 70% 70% of the estate, the marital estate,

FED/09/2022/WED II FEB/0/2O22/#ED 11:44 AM 44 A FAX IN». AI No, ?P.032/034 032/034

Wife is still in aaposition in which she needs additional support to maintain her monthly monthly

notes that factors on marital misconduct, the standard of expenses. This Court notes of living living during during

the marriage, earnings/capacities to earning, and health bealtli of the parties parties are particularly particularly

relevant in this case largely persuaded this this Court Court to award alimony alimony for Wife. This Court

has determined that Wife will likely be unable to meet iueet her reasonable needs indefinitely indefinitely.

poor and as This Court's reasoning for decision is three fold: First, Wife's health is poor

increased workload. Second, Husband's such she unable to pursue additional training or an increased

mishandling of many marital assets have resulted mishandling resulted in debts or losses of assets in in their entirety entirety

so that Wife is unable to otherwise retrieve equitable assets from from, said property. Third, property. Third,

Husband cost Wife aasignificant amount of ber her retirement fund resulting in her having having to

start over with a start a new retirement fund. These reasons are certainly certainly not exhaustive but this

Court believes Court that they believes that they do provide provide ample support for ample support for this this decision. The The Court will opine will opine

that it does not view its decision as aapenalty for husband Husband but as provision for the economic

Wife for the numerous instances justice owed to Wife instances that that this Court Court could not grant grant aa

of assets distribution of assets for marital assets for depleted marital assets due due to Husband's conduct. Moreover, Husband's conduct. Moreover, this this

Court basis its award on the previously calculated Domestic Relations Support of May M y

2018. Accordingly, 2018. Court determines Accordingly, this Court determines that Husband shall that Husband shall continue continue pay pay $1796.38 $ 1796.38 aa

month permanently commencing with the finalization of the divorce. This award will be

FE/0/2O22/8ED 11:44 FED/09/2022/WED 1I AM 44 A FAX IN». AI No. ?P.033/034 033/034

subject to review for the statutory reasons including aachange in circumstances circumstances_

J. Attorney's Fees

Linder §$ 2503(3) Under 2503(3) of the Divorce Code, any participant who is awarded counsel fees the Divorce

as aasanction against another participant for dilatory, dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct during

the pendency of aamatter. matter_ 42 pA.C. S. $2503(7). PA.C.S. §2503(7). Wife argues that she is entitled to attorney's

fees due to Husband's uncooperativeness during the discovery process and Husband

repeated attempts to hide assets assets and monies from this Court. This Honorable Court is

inclined to agree with Wife except for two factors.

First; this Court in already held Husband in First, contempt and ordered in contempt oxdexed Husband to

Wife for attorney's fees reimburse Wife fees and anal appraisals of property. property. Second, this Court believes

that that Wife was pot prudent in Dot entirely prudent procuring of experts in the procuring experts and other preparation preparation

expenses_ Namely, some of Wife's expenses. expert's testimony Wife's expert's testimony took took aasignificant significant amount of time

only to provide an inconclusive value property. Other experts value of alleged propenty. experts were produced produced to

value fact .Husband's vale items that were in fact Husband's personal property property not marital property property and tbus thus

o£ little relevance to this proceeding. Additionally, this were of this Court believes that that many of

Wife's claims relative to Husband's vexatious behavior stem stern prior to this Court's issuance

of contempt against Husband and thus are merely repetitious. Furthermore, others actions

by Husband are better by better addressed in this Court's fidings findings relative to equitable equitable distribution

FEB/0/2O22/#ED 11:44 FED/09/2022/WED 1I AM 44 A FAX IN». AI No, ?P.034/034 034/034

foT depletion of marital assets. Accordingly, this Court denies Wife's request and alimony for

for attorney's fees.

This mattear matter is now ripe for divorce. divorce. .

BY THE CG1U'R

Date: February 8. 8.2022 202 SW'OPHER PHER AUNGES, MENGES, JUDGE

The Prothonotary is directed to serve aacopy of this order tpon upon Counsel and Parties as required by bylaw. law.