Opinion
J-S48001-18 No. 529 EDA 2018
10-03-2018
WILLIAM R. HAGNER v. SUSAN H. HAGNER, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered January 11, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2011-13639 BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Susan H. Hagner ("Wife") appeals from the Decree granting the parties' divorce, specifically challenging the December 14, 2017 Order distributing the parties' property in accordance with their pre-nuptial agreement. After careful review, we adopt the trial court's April 24, 2018 Opinion as our own, and affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts of this prolonged litigation and we need not reiterate them in detail. In sum, after a five-year courtship, the parties became engaged in May 1998. Several weeks prior to the September 26, 1998 wedding, Appellee William R. Hagner ("Husband"), who is an attorney, provided Wife with a proposed prenuptial agreement as he had informed her for years that he would do if he ever married again. Husband suggested that Wife review it with an attorney. At her request, Husband gave Wife the names of three family law attorneys, one of whom she consulted.
This was Husband's second marriage and Wife's fourth marriage.
On the day of the wedding, Husband reminded Wife that they needed to execute the prenuptial agreement. When she suggested they sign it after the wedding, he stated that he would not get married until it was signed and would be amenable to postponing the wedding if she needed more time to consider the agreement. Wife then provided Husband with a copy of the agreement with handwritten revisions. Husband, in turn, modified Wife's modifications, and the parties ultimately reached agreement. They each signed the final prenuptial agreement and married later that day.
Thirteen years later, on December 14, 2011, Husband filed a divorce Complaint. Wife filed an Answer and Counterclaim. Much litigation ensued. Most relevant to this Appeal, Wife filed a Petition to Invalidate the Prenuptial Agreement and its amendments on February 2, 2013. The trial court held a hearing on the Petition and found the prenuptial agreement to be valid and enforceable. The prenuptial agreement included the parties' waiver of their rights to equitable distribution. Wife appealed and this Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory.
According to Husband, during the marriage, the parties had twice modified the agreement. See Appellee's Brief at 2. According to the trial court, it did not need to consider the subsequent actions of the parties after it found that the agreement was valid and not reached through duress or misrepresentation. See Trial Ct. Op., dated 4/4/17, at 13. Wife has not raised any issue pertaining to the amendments in this appeal.
The matter proceeded to a hearing before Master Caren Morrissey, who issued a Report and Recommendation on April 26, 2017. Wife filed Exceptions. On December 14, 2017, the trial court denied Wife's Exceptions and entered an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the hearing master. On January 11, 2018, the court entered the Decree terminating the marriage.
Wife timely appealed. Both Wife and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Wife raises the following issues for this Court's review:
1. Did the trial court err in not finding the prenuptial agreement invalid/voidable based on the totality of the circumstances and the evidence presented including but not limited to undue influence, duress and coercion on the day of wedding wherein Appellant's consult was with an attorney of Appellee's choosing, hence not independent, where Appellant was only given a copy of the prenuptial agreement three days before the wedding and shortly thereafter the parties left together for a "destination wedding" in North Carolina to which the parties had invited family and friends from out of state, including Appellant's elderly mother, making it practically impossible for Appellant to have a meaningful opportunity to review and/or revise the proposed prenuptial agreement and wherein Appellant's state of mind was significantly impacted due to the recent unexpected death of her son[?]
2. Did the trial court err in applying the "clear and convincing" burden of proof standard as opposed to the "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof[?]
3. Did the trial court err in determining that items purchased by the parties during the marriage were not marital property when all items acquired during the marriage are presumed to be marital, Appellant testified in great detail as to the how, when and where of the purchases during the marriage, and Appellee failed to meet his burden to overcome this presumption[?] Further did the court err in determining Appellant had waived her right to the marital
property and non-marital property not listed on Schedule B as she suggested the monetary value as a reasonable alternative for distribution[?]Wife's Brief at 5-6.
4. Did the trial court err excluding Appellee's income and in not awarding Appellant counsel fees when a Section 3702 claim under the Divorce code was properly raised in her counterclaim, a counsel fee claim was not precluded by the terms of the prenuptial agreement and an award was necessary to place the parties "on par"[?]
Each of Wife's issues challenge the trial court's finding that the parties' prenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable. The following well-settled standard of review applies:
The determination of marital property rights through prenuptial, post[-]nuptial and settlement agreements has long been permitted, and even encouraged. Both prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements are contracts and are governed by contract law. Moreover, a court's order upholding the agreement in divorce proceedings is subject to an abuse of discretion or error of law standard of review. An abuse of discretion is not lightly found, as it requires clear and convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures. We will not usurp the trial court's factfinding function.Paroly v. Paroly , 876 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
Wife also contests the trial court's property distribution, specifically challenging the credibility determinations underlying its disposition. "When reviewing the actions of a lower court in a divorce action, we are limited to a determination of whether there was an abuse of discretion. Although the master's report is entitled to great weight, the final responsibility of making the [property] distribution rests with the court." McNaughton v. McNaughton , 603 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. Super. 1992) (internal citations omitted). "Our review is thus based on the court's distribution of property." Id. However, even though a master's report and recommendation is only advisory, it "is to be given the fullest consideration, particularly on the question of credibility of witnesses, because the master ha[d] the opportunity to observe and assess the behavior and demeanor of the [witnesses]." Childress v. Bogosian , 12 A.3d 448, 456 (Pa. Super. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Honorable Ann Marie Wheatcraft filed a thorough Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, citing the certified record and providing a well-reasoned analysis of Wife's issues with reference to, and discussion of, dispositive authority. After careful review, we conclude the record supports the trial court's determinations. We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. We, thus, adopt the court's April 24, 2018 Opinion as our own and affirm. See Trial Ct. Op., dated April 24, 2018 (finding, inter alia, that (1) Wife had the burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the prenuptial agreement was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or duress pursuant to principles applicable to contract interpretation; (2) Wife's testimony that she had only three days to review the agreement was not credible under the totality of the circumstances; (3) Wife received independent legal advice prior to signing the agreement; (4) enforcement of the prenuptial agreement did not trigger either paragraph contained in the agreement allowing attorney's fees; (5) Wife's testimony regarding the expenditure of her own funds without receiving reimbursement to improve Husband's separate property was not credible; and (6) court properly distributed personal property of the parties based on the prenuptial agreement as well as Husband's more credible testimony and post-trial memorandum).
The parties are instructed to annex the trial court's April 24, 2018 Opinion to all future filings.
Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/3/18
Image materials not available for display.