Opinion
J-S05039-17 No. 1014 MDA 2016 No. 1089 MDA 2016
03-30-2017
LISA A. GEBHART, Appellee v. STEVEN A. GEBHART, Appellant LISA A. GEBHART, Appellant v. STEVEN A. GEBHART, Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree May 23, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Civil Division at No.: 2010-S-642 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Lisa A. Gebhart, now known as Lisa A. Harner (Wife), and Appellee, Steven A. Gebhart (Husband), cross-appeal from the divorce decree of May 23, 2016. The parties dispute various aspects of the order of equitable distribution. We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them at length here.
For the convenience of the reader we note briefly that Husband has remained steadily employed in his family's business, the acquisition, construction, and sale of real property. Husband also owns property which generates additional income.
Wife owns a portion (one-third) of a large (210 acres) farm, jointly with her siblings. She was formerly employed as the bookkeeper in the construction business owned and operated by Husband and other members of his family. Wife has a bachelor's degree but is not currently employed. In addition to serving as the bookkeeper in the construction business of Husband's family, Mother has also worked as a counselor and a claims examiner. The Master found that Wife was employable but may need further education to assist her in obtaining employment comparable to what she has had in the past.
The Master recommended that Wife receive 65% of the net marital estate, and that Husband receive 35%. The Master determined the net marital estate was $380,526.00.
The trial court observes that neither party had any of the marital property professionally appraised. The court, after adjusting the marital debt associated with one of the key marital properties (Wheatland Acres), increased the net marital estate from $380,526.00 to $747,369.00. Therefore, Wife's 65% of the net marital estate increased (from $247,342.00) to $485,789.00. Based on this revision, Husband owed Wife a cash payment of $262,509.00. The trial court, accepting the recommendation of the Master, declined to award attorney fees and related costs to either party. Both parties timely appealed.
Wife presents five issues for our review.
1. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred when it did not conclude that the parties' [g]ross [m]arital [a]ssets subject to equitable distribution are $1,614,417.40 and that the [g]ross [m]arital [d] ebts are $619,398.00, thus making the [n]et [m]arital [e] state for distribution between the parties $995,019.40?
2. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in awarding Wife a mere 65% of the net marital estate though the Master found only one unknown and incalculable statutory factor to favor Husband and five absolutely known and factual statutory factors to favor Wife[?]
3. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in failing to award Wife reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses in this matter?
4. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in failing to require Husband to turn over specific items of personal property as requested and set forth in [Wife's] Exhibit 21[?](Wife's Brief, at 4-5).
5. Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in failing to consider or award fair rental value for the rental properties [Husband] operated throughout the duration of this matter[?]
Husband disputes the claims made by Wife and presents two of his own issues for our review:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err when it entered an[ ] order in equitable distribution without reviewing the [d]ivorce Master's [t]ranscript?(Husband's Brief, at 8).
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err when it reduced the debt associated with Wheatland Acres from the $605,496.00 found by the Master to the $128,730.00 figure in the December 22, 2015 Order?
Our role in reviewing equitable distribution awards is well-settled.
Our standard of review in assessing the propriety of a marital property distribution is whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure. An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence.
Smith v. Smith , 904 A.2d 15, 18 (Pa. Super. 2006). "In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole." Morgante v. Morgante , 119 A.3d 382, 387 (Pa. Super. 2015).
McCoy v. McCoy , 888 A.2d 906, 908 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). When reviewing an award of equitable distribution, "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." Hayward v. Hayward , 868 A.2d 554, 559 (Pa. Super. 2005).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues cross-Appellants have raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/16, at 7-15) (concluding: (1) trial court properly determined the value of the net marital estate; (2) trial court did not err in awarding Wife 65% of the net marital estate; (3) trial court properly declined to award attorney's fees, costs and expenses to either party; (4) trial court has already ordered Wife may obtain return of her personal property; and (5) trial court acted within its discretion in choosing not to award Wife rental value of marital rental properties where Husband has paid all expenses and debts associated with those properties).
Furthermore, the trial court properly found (1) that it was Husband's responsibility to enter and order divorce master's transcript, if he wished to challenge any award based on actions contained in transcript; if there is a cross-appeal, the cross-appellant shares this responsibility; and (2) trial court acted within its discretion in reducing the valuation of the debt associated with one of the properties (Wheatland Acres) for the purpose of effectuating economic justice between the parties. ( See id.). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/30/2017
Image materials not available for display.