Opinion
J-A35022-15 No. 467 WDA 2015
02-02-2016
ROGER C. WIEGAND, JR., Appellant v. MARTHA A. WIEGAND, Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 19, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): Case No. FD 13-006450-008 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Appellant, Roger C. Wiegand, Jr. ("Husband"), appeals from the equitable distribution order entered on February 19, 2015, in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
The relevant facts of this case were set forth by the trial court as follows:
At first blush, the issues presented in this appeal appear very complicated because of the nature of the gifts made and their significant value. Actually, they are quite simple, and the disposition of this case rests almost solely on my determination of the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before me.
Background
Husband and Wife, Martha [A. Wiegand] ("Wife") married in October of 2004 and separated in October of 2012. They have two children together, a 7 year old daughter and a son, 5[.]1 Wife exercises primary custody of the two children in the marital
home. Husband, who now lives in Colorado, exercises custody on a very limited basis.
1 Husband has a daughter, born July 1, 2014, with his fiancée with whom he lives in Boulder[,] Colorado[.]
Both Parties presented appraisals and expert testimony regarding the value of the marital home. I found Wife's appraiser, Charles Weisberg, more credible than Husband's expert and accepted his estimate of the property's value at $880,000.00.
Wife comes from fairly modest means. Husband, on the other hand, comes from a very wealthy family. Much of the family wealth comes from oil and gas leases known as the "PC Exploration Limited Partnerships." Husband's parents gifted a number of these limited partnership interests, called "units" during the marriage[.]2 The gifts of the units were accompanied by hand-written letters from Husband's parents addressed to both Husband and Wife, and written by Husband's Father, which included personal messages to both of them.
2 Husband was gifted a number of units prior to the marriage which the Parties stipulate are non-marital.
The marital nature of these units was contested, with Wife asserting they were marital property and Husband claiming the gifts were only to him and therefore non-marital. Husband also asserted that the units which the Parties purchased during the marriage were purchased using only funds generated by the gifted units and should therefore also be non-marital. Wife testified they were purchased using funds from the units, as well as her and Husband's employment income.
In addition to the gifts of the partnership interests, on July 8, 2011[,] Husband's Father made a cash gift of $1.5 million, and on October 11, 2012 a second gift of $1.2 million. Again, these gifts were accompanied by personal letters, addressed to both Parties. The marital nature of these gifts was also contested.
I found the gifts made by Husband's family were to the Parties jointly. Husband's father (hereinafter "Father") testified
on behalf of Husband. He testified that his donative intent was for all of the gifts to be for Husband, only. Because I found Husband's Father's testimony not to be credible and found it contrary to all other evidence presented regarding the purpose of the gifts, I discounted it. I found the gifts to be marital.
I distributed the estate on a roughly 50/50 basis. This appeal followed.3
Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/15, at 1-4.3 Husband also filed for supersedeas. As the funds in Husband's brokerage account were frozen by previous Order, I granted the supersedeas only as to the equalization payment to Wife of approximately $925,000.00[.]
On appeal, Husband raises the following issues for this Court's consideration:
1. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in finding that the two (2) cash gifts from Husband's family totaling $2.7 Million were marital property, as opposed to Husband's non-marital property acquired by gift from his parents?
a. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in failing to consider and give proper credit to Husband in its equitable distribution order for his payoff of the second mortgage on the parties' marital residence in the amount of $247,658.39 on or about July 19, 2011 from the gifted funds referenced above?
b. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in failing to consider and give proper credit to Husband in its equitable distribution order for his payment in the amount of $10,140 for the parties' jointly-filed Federal Income Tax return filed subsequent to the parties' separation, from the gifted funds referenced above?
2. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in finding that the assignments of limited partnership interests in the
1997, 1998 and 1999 PC Exploration Limited Partnerships were marital property, as opposed to Husband's non-marital property acquired by gift from his father?
a. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in finding that the post-separation distributions from the 1997, 1998 and 1999 PC Exploration Limited Partnerships were marital property, as opposed to Husband's non-marital property?
3. Did the Trial Court err in adopting the appraisal value of $880,000 for the parties' marital residence as found by Wife's expert, Charles Weisburg?
4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE: Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in failing to award a skewed distribution of the marital estate in favor of Husband - and in particular, an appropriately skewed distribution to Husband of the $2.7 Million in cash gifts, as permitted by 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3502(a) in recognition of the source of these funds, i.e. Husband's parents, which contribution significantly enhanced the value of the marital estate?
Husband's Brief at 22-23.a. In failing to order a skewed distribution in favor of Husband, did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in its analysis and consideration of the equitable distribution factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3502(a)?
Husband has opted not to pursue his third issue on appeal. Accordingly, the issue is waived, and we need not address it further. Husband's Brief at 23.
We apply the following standard in reviewing an equitable distribution order:
A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equitable distribution. Our standard of review when assessing the propriety of an order effectuating the
equitable distribution of marital property is whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure. We do not lightly find an abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence. This Court will not find an abuse of discretion unless the law has been overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in the certified record. In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole. We measure the circumstances of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties and achieving a just determination of their property rights.Childress v. Bogosian , 12 A.3d 448, 455 (Pa. Super. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, it is within the discretion of the trial court to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations, and this Court will not reverse those determinations where they are supported by the evidence. Id . (citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable legal authority, and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in this matter. We agree with the trial court that the issue at the heart of this matter is whether gifts from Husband's family were made to both parties, making them marital property, or to Husband alone, placing them outside of the marital estate. Furthermore, we agree that a determination of this issue rests primarily on the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court addressed Husband's claims of error and disposed of them in its well- reasoned opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the February 19, 2015 order on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
The parties are hereby directed to attach a copy of the trial court's June 17, 2015 opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/2/2016
Image materials not available for display.