Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Heckmann v. Heckmann

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 24, 2014

MICHELLE LYNN BOGOSIAN HECKMANN, Appellant
v.
CONRAD THOMAS HECKMANN, Appellee

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 28, 2013, In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Domestic Relations Division, at No. 2010-005658.

BEFORE: GANTMAN, SHOGAN and PLATT [*] JJ.

MEMORANDUM

SHOGAN, J.

Appellant, Michelle Lynn Bogosian Heckmann ("Wife"), appeals from the decree in divorce entered on January 28, 2013, which made final the November 19, 2012 order directing her to repay Appellee, Conrad Thomas Heckmann ("Husband"), for loans made to her during the marriage.[1] After review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The factual and procedural background of this case was set forth by the trial court as follows:

On or about October 1, 2012 [Husband] and [Wife] appeared for a full and fair hearing before this court for disposition of [Husband's] Petition for Special Relief requesting the return of certain personalty and monies loaned to [Wife]. After the hearing, this court took the matter under advisement and entered an Order granting special relief dated November 19, 2012, mandating [Wife] repay the sum of $32, 500.00 to [Husband] within ninety (90) days consistent with the evidence presented at the hearing. No equitable distribution hearing was held due to the existence of both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements and the October 1, 2012 hearing dealt exclusively with the disposition of non-marital assets. On or about January [28], 2013 a Divorce Decree was entered separating [Wife] and [Husband] from the bonds of matrimony. On or about February 8, 2013, [Wife] filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Petition for Reconsideration of the November 19, 2012 Order mischaracterizing the Special Relief Order as an Equitable Distribution Decree. [Wife's] Nunc Pro Tunc Petition for Reconsideration of the November 19, 2012 Order was denied and a notice of appeal was subsequently filed [on February 26, 2013] relative to the November 19, 2012 Order.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/7/13, at 1-2.

On appeal, Wife raises four issues for this Court's consideration:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or failing to follow proper legal procedure by, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 3323(f), ordering the [Wife] to make repayment of loans to [Husband] without taking sworn testimony, admitting exhibits or having exhibits or sworn affidavits attached to the Motion.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or failing to follow proper legal procedure by, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 4105, finding the existence of a marital loan or loans.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or failing to follow proper legal procedure by granting equitable relief under 23 Pa.C.S. 3323(f) even though there were Pre-nuptial and Post-nuptial Agreements in the case which did not provide for reimbursement of any marital loans as the Court Ordered.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law or failing to follow proper legal procedure by granting equitable relief in a divorce case where ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.