Preview:

J-A06043-13

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ENRICO A. FERRARA, Appellant v. GERALDINE FERRARA AND CHRISTINA FERRARA, Appellees No. 2625 EDA 2012 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appeal from the Order August 10, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at Nos.: 1372 D.R. 2001 & 9597 CV 2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., ALLEN, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J. Filed: April 4, 2013

Appellant, Enrico A. Ferrara (Husband), appeals from the Order of August 10, 2012, which granted him and Appellee Geraldine Ferrara (Wife) a no-fault divorce and distributed the parties' property. discussed below, we affirm. Husband and Wife married on November 22, 1987, the parties have one child, Appellee Christina Ferrara (Daughter), born on December 11, 1989.1 During the marriage, Husband operated a business, Excel Lighting For the reasons

Production, which closed in 2010. Wife worked for the business during the
____________________________________________ * 1

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

The facts and procedural history are taken from the trial court's August 10, 2012 Opinion.

J-A06043-13

marriage. Further, during the marriage, the parties maintained residences in Brooklyn, New York and in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania. On October 13, 2009, Husband and Wife transferred the Pennsylvania home, as a gift, to Daughter. Husband and Wife separated in May 2010. Husband filed the instant action in divorce on October 5, 2010. Husband filed a petition for joinder seeking to join Daughter as an indispensable party on November 4, 2010. Husband claimed that, although the Pennsylvania home was titled in Daughter's name, it was, in actuality, marital property. 29, 2010. The trial court granted Husband's petition on December

Wife filed an answer and counterclaim on January 28, 2011.

Husband filed the joinder complaint on March 4, 2011, and Daughter filed an answer on March 23, 2011. The matter was scheduled for a hearing before the trial court on April 18, 2012.2 Husband requested a continuance, and

the hearing ultimately occurred on May 16, 2012. On August 10, 2012, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting a divorce and determining equitable distribution. Husband filed a motion for reconsideration on September 6, 2012, which the trial court denied on September 10, 2012. The instant, timely appeal followed.

Husband filed a timely concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
____________________________________________

See Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 590 A.2d 4, 7-8 (Pa. 1991) (holding that a divorce hearing must be held before the trial court rather than a divorce master when the rights of a third party are to be determined).

2

-2-

J-A06043-13

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court issued a Statement Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), partially relying on its August 10, 2012 Opinion. On appeal, Husband raises the following issues for our review: A. Whether evidence was omitted relating to almost $97,000 of credit card debit in Husband's name and whether this omission resulted in unfairness to Husband in [the] total equitable distribution award[?] * * *

[B.] Whether the [trial] court erred in not placing a value on [a] crystal collection which was awarded to Wife and valued by the parties at $50,000[?] (Husband's Brief, at 4).3 Husband challenges the trial court's equitable distribution order. "We review an equitable distribution order for an abuse of discretion." Reber v. Reiss, 42 A.3d 1131, 1134 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 2012 Pa.Lexis 2996 (Pa. December 27, 2012) (citation omitted). 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
____________________________________________

Husband originally raised three issues on appeal. (See Husband's Brief, at 4). However, on February 19, 2013, Husband filed documentation with this Court notifying us that the parties had reached a settlement with respect to the issue regarding the Pennsylvania home and withdrawing that issue from the appeal. (See Letter Notice, 2/19/13, at 1).

3

-3-

J-A06043-13

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. Id. (citation omitted). Further, this Court has explained:

We note that there is no simple formula by which to divide marital property. The method of distribution derives from the facts of the individual case. The list of factors of [23 Pa.C.S.A.

Download 2625-eda-2012.pdf

Pennsylvania Law