NORMA W. EDKIN Appellee
WILLIAM EDKIN Appellant NORMA W. EDKIN Appellee
WILLIAM EDKIN Appellant
Appeal from the Decree Entered August 10, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-01-00057
Appeal from the Order Entered October 16, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-01-00057
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J. [*]
In these consolidated appeals, Appellant, William Edkin (Husband), appeals from the trial court's final divorce decree entered August 10, 2012 and the trial court's subsequent October 16, 2012 supersedeas order. In the former appeal, Husband challenges numerous aspects of the trial court’s equitable distribution, alimony, and other economic awards. In the latter appeal, Husband challenges the trial court’s valuation of security required under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1731(b). After careful review, we vacate in part and affirm in part the trial court’s August 10, 2012 equitable distribution decree and remand for a recalculation in accordance with this memorandum. We further affirm the trial court’s October 16, 2012 supersedeas order.
The trial court summarized the procedural history of this protracted divorce case as follows.
[Wife] filed a Divorce Complaint on January 2, 2001, raising claims for equitable distribution, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, costs and expenses. On September 25, 2001, Wife filed a petition requesting interim counsel fees, costs and expenses. At a divorce hearing on November 9, 2007, Wife withdrew her claim for alimony. Subsequently, Wife filed a petition to reinstate her claim for alimony on August 3, 2009. Hearings were held before Divorce Master Scott E. Albert on September 5, 2002, February 20, 2003, April 3, 2003, August 15, 2003, January 22, 2004, January 23, 2004, February 22, 2007, July 12, 2007, October 3, 2007, November 9, 2007, November 16, 2007, October 23, 2008 and January 16, 2009. The Master's Report was filed March 26, 2010. Husband filed timely Exceptions on April 14, 2010. Wife filed no Exceptions and requested that Husband's Exceptions be dismissed.
Argument Court was held on October 19, 2010, before the Honorable Christopher A. Hackman and the Honorable Jeffrey J. Reich.
By agreement of the parties, an Interim Distribution was granted on April 15, 2011, which disbursed $25, 000.00 to Wife, $25, 000[.00] to her divorce attorney and $25, 000.00 to her criminal defense attorney.
On October 19, 2011, oral argument was held in Judge Reich's chambers regarding the valuation of Husband's share in Pet Emergency Treatment Services. Based upon the agreement of counsel, the record was supplemented by counsel's respective letter briefs.
The Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 29, 2012. Thereafter, a divorce was granted on August 10, 2012. Counsel for Husband filed a timely Notice of Appeal on August 28, 2012.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/25/12, at 1-2.
On August 30, 2012, Husband filed an application for supersedeas pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1731(b). By order filed on October 16, 2012, the trial court granted Husband's application for supersedeas conditioned upon filing with the Lancaster County Prothonotary security for $765, 000.00 within 30 days of the date of the order. On November 15, 2012, Husband filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's October 16, 2012 order, seeking additional time to obtain the security required. That same day, Husband filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's October 16, 2012 supersedeas order. On December 14, 2012, this Court partially granted Husband's application for relief, consolidating Husband's appeals.
On appeal, Husband raises the following eighteen issues.
I. Did the [trial c]ourt err in valuing 3498 Marietta Avenue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania at $618, 000.00?
II. Did the [trial c]ourt err in awarding [W]ife the total current value in the Vanguard Windsor IRA and the Edward Jones - Lord Abbett affiliated fund class A?
III. Did the [trial c]ourt err in its valuation of [H]usband's interest in Pet Emergency Services, Inc. and Pet Emergency Treatment Services, Inc. (P.E.T.S.)?
IV. Did the [trial c]ourt err in finding that the "excess cash" in [H]usband's veterinary practice was a marital asset?
V. Did the [trial c]ourt err in making an adjustment for [H]usband's exclusive use of real property assets?
VI. Did the [trial c]ourt err in not assessing [W]ife with a share of the expenses paid by [H]usband to maintain the property located in Ocean City, Maryland?
VII. Did the [trial c]ourt err in finding that the sum of $23, 000.00 retained by [H]usband was marital property?
VIII. Did the [trial c]ourt err in finding that the rental account was marital property?
IX. Did the [trial c]ourt err in not reducing the value of the veterinary practice by the cost to sell the same?
X. Did the [trial c]ourt err in finding that [W]ife was not guilty of ...