Appeal from the Order entered February 13, 1985, Court of Common Pleas, Clinton County, Civil Division at No. 560-83.
Before: Tamilia,*fn* Johnson and Hoffman, JJ.
ING MEMORANDUM BY TAMILIA, J.
I dissent. Although in most instances we agree with the trial court's distribution of marital property, the 92%/8% division espoused by the majority seems to avoid altogether the equitable factor of equitable distribution. While we realize that equitable distribution does not necessarily connote an even partition, Semasek v. Semasek, Pa. Super. 479 A.2d 1047 (1984), Platek v. Platek, 309 Pa. Super. 16, 454 A.2d 1059 (1982), we feel that in this instance one in which neither party contributed the lion's share of their modest assets, such disproportionate allotment as that ordered by the trial judge constitutes a clear abuse of judicial discretion.
For purposes of determining the measure of each party's proper share of marital property, our courts have been provided with 10 elements to consider. 23 Pa.C.S.A § 401(d).
(2) Any prior marriage of either party.
(3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties.
(4) The contribution by one party to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other party.
(5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income.
(6) The sources of income of both parties, including but not limited to medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.
(7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, ...