Thomas v. Thomas

1

RONALD L. THOMAS JR. Appellant v. JANE C. THOMAS

No. 378 EDA 2021

No. J-A24025-21

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 20, 2021

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Civil Division at No(s): No 2017-30519

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

JUDGMENT ORDER

DUBOW J.

Appellant Ronald L. Thomas, Jr. ("Husband"), appeals from the February 8, 2021 Amended Divorce Decree which, inter alia, provided for the equitable distribution of the marital assets of Husband and Appellee, Jane C. Thomas ("Wife"), and awarded alimony to Wife. Husband asserts that the trial court failed to consider the 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) equitable distribution factors and failed to set forth the percentage of distribution for each marital asset pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506. Upon review, we vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.

A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our disposition. Husband and Wife were married for approximately forty years and separated for approximately ten years prior to Husband filing a Divorce Complaint in October 2019. After presiding over two hearings, the Divorce Master filed a Report and Recommendations on September 25, 2020 ("Report") and an Amended Report and Recommendations on October 5, 2020 ("Amended Report"). Husband filed Exceptions asserting, inter alia, that the Report and Amended Report fail to discuss the Section 3502(a) equitable distribution factors and fail to specify the actual distribution of all the assets to each party. The trial court denied the Exceptions without explanation. On February 5, 2021, the trial court entered an Amended Decree of Divorce which incorporated the Report and Amended Report.

Husband timely appealed. Both Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

We review an award of equitable distribution for an abuse of discretion. Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380, 382 (Pa. Super. 2009). "An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence" that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedure. Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15, 18 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). "A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equitable distribution[, ]" but at the very least must consider the eleven factors enumerated in Section 3502(a). Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520, 523-24 (Pa. Super. 2019).

Section 3502 provides, inter alia, the court shall equitably divide the martial property "in such percentages and in such manner as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors." 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). Moreover, Section 3506 provides that in an equitable distribution order, "the court shall set forth the percentage of distribution for each marital asset or group of assets and the reason for the distribution ordered." 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506. Finally, "[w]hen determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, this Court must consider the distribution scheme as a whole." Hess, 212 A.3d 520 at 523 (citations omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the Report and Amended Report fail to consider and discuss the Section 3502(a) equitable distribution factors in a meaningful way. Moreover, while the Report states the equitable distribution percentages that Wife requests, it does not clearly state whether the Master recommends that the trial court adopt those percentages.^[1] In turn, the trial court incorporated the Report and Amended Report into the Divorce Decree without ordering a clear equitable distribution percentage scheme.

Accordingly we vacate the portion of the Divorce...