Opinion
J-A27039-15 No. 1842 WDA 2014
12-21-2015
BETTY LOU COYLE Appellee v. REED B. COYLE, III Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order entered October 16, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Domestic Relations at No: No. 2009-5253 BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STABILE, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant Reed B. Coyle, III ("Husband") appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County ("trial court"), which denied his petition for special relief. Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history underlying this case are undisputed. Briefly, on June 24, 2009, Appellee Betty Lou Coyle ("Wife") filed for divorce, alleging that her marriage to Husband was irretrievably broken. On October 29, 2010, the trial court entered a consent order, memorializing the parties' agreement with respect to the equitable distribution of assets. On April 13, 2011, Husband filed a motion to quash the October 29, 2010 consent order, alleging that Wife refused to provide him with a copy of the prenuptial agreement and barred him from obtaining his personal belongings and business records. The trial court denied the motion. On August 3, 2011, Husband filed an emergency petition for special relief, alleging:
5. One vital piece of information still in possession of [Wife], which she has refused to return, was the agreement between [Wife] and [Husband] regarding the proceeds from 225 Victoria Lane, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317 in the event of a divorce. Prior to the parties' marriage, [Husband] owned 209 Braun Drive, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317 and the proceeds of the sale of that residence went, in part, towards the purchase of the Victoria Lane property.Husband's Emergency Petition, 8/3/11 (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing allegations, Husband requested the trial court to deposit the net proceeds from the sale of the parties' Deep Creek property, located in Maryland, into an escrow account until the issue of Husband's pre-marital property was resolved. The trial court granted the emergency petition to the extent it directed Wife to produce copies of all documents relating solely to the Deep Creek property in her possession. On November 17, 2011, Divorce Master Eric Held filed his report and recommendation, to which both parties filed exceptions. On April 11, 2012, the trial court granted in part and denied in part Wife's exceptions to the report. On May 8, 2012, the trial court issued a decree, divorcing Husband and Wife from the bonds of matrimony under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c).
6. The contents of the agreement, which was drafted by [Wife's] former attorney, Ms. Louann G. Petrucci, stated that due to [Husband's] prior ownership of the Braun Drive property he would receive the entire selling price of $375,000.00 in the event of divorce. It is [Husband's] belief that [Wife] deliberately hid or destroyed the executed agreement [(Braun Agreement)] in order to prevent [Husband] from receiving the proceeds from his pre-marital property.
7. At the time of the execution of the above-mentioned [October 29, 2010 consent order, Husband] was unable to obtain a copy of the [Braun Agreement] to assert his equitable distribution rights to his pre-marital property due to [Wife's] refusal to comply with the discovery request made on July 29, 2010.
. . . .
9. The parties are currently before Eric Held regarding the [p]etition for [c]ontempt [Husband] brought against [Wife] for the discovery requests. Testimony has been given by [Husband] as to the existence of the [Braun Agreement] and another hearing date has been scheduled for August 31, 2011 to continue with the testimony.
Eventually, more than two years later, Husband filed the instant petition for special relief on October 16, 2014, alleging once again:
7. One vital piece of information still in possession of [Wife], which she has refused to return despite several [c]ourt orders to do so, was the [Braun Agreement] between [Husband] and [Wife] regarding the purchase of 225 Victoria Lane, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317 as well as the proceeds from 209 Braun Drive, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317 ([Husband's] pre-marital property) in the event of a divorce.
8. It is undisputed that prior to the parties' marriage, [Husband] owned 209 Braun Drive, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317. A copy of the deed to 209 Braun Drive, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317 is attached hereto[.]
9. Despite [Wife's] attempts to keep [Husband's] documents hidden, [Husband] was able to obtain a copy of the [Braun Agreement]. A copy of the [Braun Agreement] is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "G."
10. The contents of the [Braun Agreement], which was drafted by [Wife's] former attorney, Ms. Louann G. Petrucci, stated that due to [Husband's] prior ownership of the Braun Drive property he would receive reimbursement for all purchase sums expended by him for the purchase and real estate fees as well as improvements to Victoria Lane in the event of a divorce (including down payment and prorated items as stated on the final settlement statement executed at the closing on August 26, 2003). . . .
11. On September 29, 2006, the property located at 209 Braun Drive, McMurray, Pennsylvania 15317 was sold for $375,000.00. . . .
. . . .
13. It is [Husband's] belief that [Wife] deliberately hid or destroyed the executed [Braun Agreement] in order to prevent [Husband] from receiving the proceeds from his pre-marital property.Husband's Petition for Special Relief, 10/16/14 (emphasis added). Based on these allegations, Husband petitioned the trial court to impose a constructive trust (under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3505(d)) on the Victoria Lane property.
Wife filed an answer and new matter in response to the petition for special relief, asserting that "[Husband] was provided all documents by his prior counsel at a date prior to August of 2011. [Husband] continues to allege that he has been harmed by [Wife's] alleged failure to return documents that have been in his possession for over three (3) years." Wife's Answer to Petition for Special Relief, 10/16/14, ¶ 6. Wife further asserted:
The issue has been fully litigated. [Husband], while being represented, entered into [the October 29, 2010 agreement]. He now wants us to believe that he simply forgot about the previous [Braun Agreement], and now, four (4) years later, wishes to re-litigate and [sic] agreed upon issue. [Husband's] counsel has been in possession of the [Braun Agreement] since prior to August 2011.Id. at ¶ 25. The trial court denied the petition on the same day. Husband timely appealed to this Court. The trial court directed Husband to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Husband complied. In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding in part that Husband was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating the issue of the Braun Agreement pertaining to Husband's pre-marital property. In defining res judicata, our Supreme Court has explained:
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits parties involved in prior, concluded litigation from subsequently asserting claims in a later action that were raised, or could have been raised, in the previous adjudication. The doctrine of res judicata developed to shield parties from the burden of re-litigating a claim with the same parties, or a party in privity with an original litigant, and to protect the judiciary from the corresponding inefficiency and confusion that re-litigation of a claim would breed.Wilkes ex rel. Mason v. Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., 902 A.2d 366, 376 (Pa. 2006) (citations omitted).
On appeal, Husband raises only two issues for our review.
1. Were [Husband's] rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3505(d) and 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3332 violated due to the trial court's error of law by failing to grant a hearing regarding the pre-marital and marital property pertaining to the parties that was not previously distributed?Husband's Brief at 3. The issue of res judicata, upon which the trial court predicated its decision to deny Husband's petition for special relief, was not addressed in any meaningful way in Husband's brief. Nonetheless, after careful review of the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion authored by the Honorable Valarie S. Costanzo adequately disposes of Husband's issues on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/30/14, at 4-11. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's order denying Husband's petition for special relief. We direct that a copy of the trial court's December 30, 2014 Rule 1925(a) opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
2. Were [Husband's] rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution violated when [Husband] was denied a hearing, without the presentation of evidence, without testimony and without the opportunity to argue or object regarding the equitable distribution of pre-marital and marital property?
To the extent Husband challenges the divorce decree under Section 3332 of the Divorce Code, we reject the challenge as waived. Husband raised this issue for the first time on appeal in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/21/2015
Image materials not available for display.