Opinion
65 WDA 2023 J-A22022-23
12-21-2023
RANDALL FOGLE v. ANNETTE E. FOGLE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree Entered December 13, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Civil Division at No(s): 2020-33141
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM
OLSON, J.
Appellant, Annette E. Fogle ("Wife") appeals from the final divorce decree entered on December 13, 2022. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:
[Randall Fogle ("Husband")] filed his complaint in divorce on October 10, 2021. . . . On October 26, 2021, Wife filed her answer and counterclaim for counsel fees, costs, expenses, alimony, and alimony pendente lite. [During the September 27, 2022 equitable distribution hearing, the trial court heard the following evidence:]
. . .
Husband and Wife married on June 23, 1979, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Neither party was married previously. Husband and Wife have three children together, ages 41, 40, and 35. [The trial court] heard no testimony that either party continues to be responsible in any way for any of their children who are all emancipated. The parties began to live separately on September 25, 2020. The marriage lasted for approximately 41 years.
Husband is 64 years of age and Wife is 60 years of age. Husband receives monthly injections as his cancer treatment requires. Wife has type II diabetes that she manages with medication. Neither parties' health conditions hinder their ability to provide for themselves. The record does not show that either party has contributed to the training, education, or increased earning capacity of the other. Additionally, neither party testified to having other vocational skills. Outside of employment income, each party indicated they have no additional opportunity to acquire capital assets or income.
Husband has worked at Corsa Coal Corp. from 1981 to present day, approximately 42 years in total. He was the primary breadwinner for the family while working at various positions for the company such as an apprentice, a foreman, and a superintendent. He was also one of the nine miners rescued from the Quecreek Mine accident. Wife was the primary caregiver for their children during the marriage. She worked at a Dollar General store for about three months during the late 1980's or early 1990's, but had not been employed until recently. Wife currently works part time as a patient representative for Meyersdale Hospital.
The parties' standard of living while married was largely middle class until approximately 2015 when Husband started to make over six figures. Testimony revealed the parties took vacations to places such as Canada, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Africa. The family would also go on yearly or bi-yearly camping trips or vacations to the beach.
Husband's total taxable income in 2021 equaled $181,810. Husband testified that a recent management decision changed both the location of where he works and his position resulting in a decrease of his hourly rate from over $70 an hour to $63. Husband receives health insurance and a 401(k) through his employment. He currently resides in Grantsville, Maryland. Husband makes $1,000 monthly rent payments to Kathy Jenkins, with whom he now lives, as well as contributions to utility bills. Husband also plans to retire on February 7, 2023, when he turns 65. Husband testified that he believes he will receive approximately $2,200 per month from Social Security.
Wife testified that her average monthly gross pay from Meyersdale Hospital was $1200. Wife did not submit a tax return [or] a pay statement at the hearing, but testified that she earns $15 an hour at her position. She currently works approximately 25 hours a week. She also receives spousal support of approximately $1,250.77 every two weeks or $2,501.54 per month. Wife remains on husband's health insurance, but she does have the opportunity to receive health insurance at her current position for approximately $140 per month. Wife is not Medicare eligible until she turns 65. Wife's monthly expenses include a mortgage payment of approximately $200 per month, approximately $2,300 in annual property taxes, homeowner's insurance, and a car payment. Wife contends that she is unsure how she will support herself if she loses spousal support because her employment compensation "does not go very far." Wife believes she can retire at age 67 and 8 months. Wife also believes she is not eligible for Social Security, but conceded that she can draw a "derivative benefit" from Husband's Social Security when "he reaches social security age."Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/22, at 2-5 (citations omitted).
The trial court concluded that the total value of the marital estate was $1,032,954.60. Id. at 13. The trial court also concluded that "a near 50/50 split is the most just distribution of the marital property." Id. at 14. The trial court reasoned, however, that, "[b]ecause Husband has several months to work before retirement [and because] Husband makes substantially more income than Wife," the most just distribution of assets "will be to award Husband most of the physical assets while awarding Wife most of the liquid assets." Id. Therefore, the trial court awarded Wife the majority of the liquid assets, for a total award to Wife of $519,596.03 and Husband the majority of the physical assets, for a total award to Husband of $513,358.57. Id. at 18. Further, as is relevant to this appeal, the trial court denied Wife's request for alimony. Id. at 19.
On December 12, 2022, the trial court entered its final property distribution and divorce decree in this matter. Trial Court Decree, 12/12/22, at 1. Wife filed a timely notice of appeal. She raises one claim to this Court:
When [Wife] was married for [41] years, has limited earning capacity, cannot maintain the marital status and lifestyle, and [Husband] was the financial provider, did the [trial] court err by denying the alimony claim of [Wife]?Wife's Brief at 3.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Scott P. Bittner. We conclude that Wife is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge Bittner's December 12, 2022 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Bittner's opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Bittner's December 12, 2022 opinion.
Judgment Entered.