Crimi v. Crimi, 1349 EDA 2021

279 A.3d 1283 (Table)

Edmondo CRIMI, Appellant

v.Laura CRIMI

No. 1349 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed May 25, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:

Edmondo Crimi (Appellant) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County entering a divorce decree, settling equitable distribution matters between the parties, and issuing a schedule of "equitable reimbursement alimony" payments that Mr. Crimi would pay to his former spouse, Laura Crimi (Appellee). On appeal, he challenges the lower court's calculation of the marital value of the inventory and debts of the parties’ antiques business that was subject to equitable distribution, the award of the scheduled installment payments to Appellee, and various evidentiary rulings. Upon review, we vacate the current award of scheduled payments, remand for further proceedings for separate orders addressing the equitable division of the parties’ marital assets and the payment of former alimony arrears, and affirm in all other respects.

The lower court has summarized the factual and procedural history as follows:

Appellant, Edmondo Crimi (hereinafter "Appellant") and Appellee, Laura Crimi (hereinafter "Appellee") were married on November 26, 1992 and separated for the final time in October 2013. This matter was commenced when Appellant filed a Complaint in Divorce on January 17, 2017.¹ The parties appeared in Court on numerous occasions, and an Order approving Section 3301(d) Grounds for Divorce was entered on October 5, 2017.

¹ The parties originally separated in 2009 and a Divorce Complaint was filed on March 17, 2009, litigation ensured, and the parties then reconciled in approximately 2010. The original Divorce Complaint was withdrawn, via stipulation, on August 11, 2010.

The parties were married for twenty-one (21) years, having been married on November 26, 1992 and separating for the final time in October 2013. This was the second marriage for Appellant and first marriage for Appellee. The parties have two adult children born of the marriage. Appellant is 61 years old and in good health. Appellee is 56 years old and reports she is in "okay" health.

Both parties worked in the family antique business during the marriage. Appellant was self-employed at The Best of France Antiques, Inc. (hereinafter "Best of France"), which has now become Edmondo Crimi, LLC as of approximately April 2019,² and has been involved in the buying and selling of antiques since the age of 17. He was assigned an earning capacity of $60,000 per year by [the Honorable James M.] McMaster in the companion support matter. He has health benefits for himself, Appellee, and the younger of the two children. Appellee is self-employed at Stone House Antiques, however, she stated she is closing the business and liquidating the inventory. She also teaches English on-line to Chinese students, earning $40 to $60 per week, and was assigned an earning capacity of $20,000 per year, by Judge McMaster in the companion support matter.

² According to the testimony, Best of France became "inactive" around April 2019 when Appellant created a new entity, Edmondo Crimi, LLC. See January 8, 2021, N.T. p. 48. Appellant simply transferred the assets and inventory, from Best of France to Edmondo Crimi, LLC. Id. at p. 41.

On December 16, 2019, a Final Order in Support (hereinafter "Support Order") was entered in the form of alimony pendente lite (hereinafter "APL"). The Support Order was effective as of June 13, 2017 and was set at $989.78 per month in APL. Both parties filed petitions to modify the Support Order (Appellant seeking a decrease and Appellee seeking an increase), which were heard and denied by Judge McMaster on December 21, 2020. At that time, Judge McMaster also ordered that Appellant was in contempt of the Support Order, and he was ordered to pay $750.00 to Domestic Relations on or before December 24, 2020. Judge McMaster also ordered the APL shall terminate no later than June 30, 2021. Between March 2016 and December 31, 2020, there were at least thirteen contempt proceedings and two bench warrants issued against Appellant for his failure to pay the Support Order. As of June 1, 2021, there were outstanding arrears owed to Appellee of $21,779.99.

On April 14, 2014, at a Hearing before [the Honorable Susan Devlin] Scott, the parties reached an agreement that each would perform an inventory and take pictures of the merchandise/inventory (to have "something frozen in amber" for the Court in Equitable Distribution). See April 14, 2014 N.T. p. 16. Appellee testified that she went to the business approximately one month later, (May 2014) to take the photos of the merchandise, which she ultimately admitted into evidence in these proceedings, along with her list of the inventory at that time. See Exhibit Jt-10; W-7.

On June 7, 2017, after another Hearing before Judge Scott, Appellant was ordered to provide Appellee with pictures of the inventory within "two weeks of today's date," and Appellee was ordered to provide an accounting of items she removed from the business to Appellant. The Hearing was then continued and heard on October 12, 2017. Since Appellant still had not produced [an] inventory or pictures of inventory at the time of the October 12, 2017 Hearing, he was ordered yet again by Judge Scott to take pictures of all inventory and consignment items within twenty-five (25) days, and to produce that to Appellee by November 30, 2017. He was also ordered to provide a written report and photos to Appellee monthly thereafter regarding the business inventory, as was Appellee to Appellant. See October 12, 2017 N.T.

The parties, and their counsel, participated in an equitable distribution conference before the Master on August 24, 2020. The parties then appeared in Court for a de novo hearing over the course of three days, January 8, 2021, March 12, 2021, and May 4, 2021. On June 15, 2021, a Divorce Decree and Order was entered. Per the June 15, 2021 Order, all right, title, and interest in the marital business, The Best of France, and any and all successor businesses, was awarded to Appellant, free of any claim to Appellee, once he made all equitable reimbursement payments to Appellee. Per the Order, Appellant is solely responsible for all debt associated with the Best of France, and each party is solely responsible for any and all debts incurred in their respective names during the marriage. Appellant was ordered to pay Appellee a total sum of $836,394.00, in the form of six (6) equal $139,399.00 monthly installments of non-modifiable Equitable Reimbursement Alimony, effective with the first payment on July 1, 2021.

On June 22, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion to Reconsider and Vacate the Decree and Order Entered on June 15, 2021. Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal on June 25, 2021, and thereafter filed an Amended Appeal on June 30, 2021.³ An Order was entered on July 2, 2021, directing Appellant to file a concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the Order. Appellant's Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was timely filed on July 9, 2021.

³ An Application for Supersedeas Pending Appeal was filed by Appellant on July 1, 2021 and denied by this Court on July 8, 2021.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/21, 1-4; R.R. 1416-19. Appellant also filed a petition for supersedeas pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1732(b) that this Court denied on October 7, 2021.

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion in calculating the marital value of the business for equitable distribution purposes by failing to properly consider the marital debt obligations of the business?

2. Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by improperly considering only the assessed value of the business inventory assets and failing to consider and deduct the expenses and costs incident to acquiring the inventory?

3. Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion in awarding "equitable reimbursement alimony" in the amount of $139,399 per month and payable through the Domestic Relations Section knowing that Appellant lacked the assets or income to pay and in not ordering a supersedeas of the Decree & Order pending appeal?

4. Did the trial court err[ ] and/or abuse[ ] its discretion by improperly disregarding Appellant's evidence, testimony and witnesses based on pure conjecture regarding "facts" not in evidence, and factually erroneous interpretations of the evidence and prior rulings in the case?

Appellant's Brief at 5-6 (suggested answers omitted).

As a preliminary matter, we observe the different standards of review that apply to the issues raised. Our review with respect to the challenge of a trial court's equitable distribution scheme is limited and we will not reverse unless we find an abuse of discretion or error law. Cuth v. Cuth , 263 A.3d 1186, 1190 (Pa. Super. 2021). "A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equitable distribution." Goodwin v. Goodwin , 244 A.3d 453, 458 (Pa. Super. 2020). "An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence." McCoy v. McCoy , 888 A.2d 906, 908 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). "To assess whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine whether the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedure." Hayward v. Hayward , 868 A.2d 554, 558 (Pa. Super. 2005). "Further, 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. In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, we consider the distribution scheme as a whole. Goodwin , 244 A.3d at 458.

A challenge to an award of alimony is governed by an abuse of discretion standard of review:

Our standard of review regarding questions pertaining to the

...