Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-6219P. Richard Wagner, Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. #23103 Mancke, Wagner, Spreha & McQuillan 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 234-7051 Fax(717)234-7080 Attorney For Plaintiff HELEN FISCHBACH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I', Plaintiff, V. :NO: ?- 10.2 (q ?tVI -Ter *1 CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, IN DIVORCE Defendant. NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth irk he following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree in divorce or annulment may be entered against you by th'Co A tt? judgment may also be entered against you for another claim or relief requested in these papers bPlaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, y may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothor tary, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYEI 'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. ?i YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SE' FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 P. Richard Wagner, Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. #23103 Mancke, Wagner, Spreha & McQuillan 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 234-7051 Fax(717)234-7080 Attorney For Plaintiff HELEN FISCHBACH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL?,?NIA Plaintiff, V. NO: d 9- G? J9 T1tw. II CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, . IN DIVORCE Defendant. I COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Helen Fischbach, by and through her attorneys, M ncke, Wagner, Spreha & McQuillan, and files the following Complaint in Divorce: 1. The Plaintiff, Helen Fischbach, is an adult individual residing at 804 Hamilton Sigreet , Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. I 2. The Defendant, Brian L. Fischbach, is an adult individual residing at101 Media Load, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant have both been bona fide residents of the Commonweal4 of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months prior to the filing of this Complaint. 4. Plaintiff and Defendant are husband and wife having been married on June 8, 19 1, in Alresford Hampshire, England. Il r= I 5. There were three (3) children born unto the marriage, Aden, born 8/11/1994, Dan?on, born 5/16/1997, and Alexandra, born 6/17/2002. 6. There have been no prior actions of divorce or annulment between the parties inllthis or any other jurisdiction. 7. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant are members of the Armed Forces of the United I$tates or any of its Allies. I'8. Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of counseling and that she has the right to request that the court require both parties to participate in counseling. I' 9. The Plaintiff avers as grounds on which this action is based are: A. That the marriage is irretrievably broken pursuant to § 3301(c) of the Divoroo I Code; B. That as of April 18, 2010, the parties will have lived separate and apart for 4 period of at least two (2) continuous years; and C. The Defendant has offered such indignities to the person of the Plaintiff as tbl render the condition of the Plaintiff intolerable and life burdensome. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to enter a Decree in Divorce. COUNTI EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 above are incorporated herein by reference and made apharrt hereof -2- , s 11. During the marriage, Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired various items of marital property, both real and personal, which are subject to equitable distribution under Section 1401 of the Divorce Code of 1980. COUNT II ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE COUNSEL FEES. COSTS AND EXPENSES I' 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 above are incorporated herein by reference and made part II hereof. I' 13. By reason of this action, Plaintiff will be put to considerable expense in the preparation of her case in the employment of counsel and the payment of costs. 'I 14. The Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to support herself and to meet the cosjt? and expenses of this litigation and unable to appropriately maintain herself during the pendenc? of I this action. II 15. The Plaintiff s income is not sufficient to provide for her reasonable needs and pay I' her attorneys' fees and the cost of this litigation. 16. The Defendant has adequate earnings to provide support for the Plaintiff and to Ipay her counsel fees and expenses. COUNT III ALIMONY 17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 above are incorporated herein by reference and made pj part I hereof -3- I' III 18. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. 19. Plaintiff is unable to sufficiently support herself through appropriate employm0t. 20. Defendant has sufficient income and assets to provide continuing support for ?he I! Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court: (a) Enter a Decree in Divorce; (b) Compel the Defendant to pay alimony pendente lite to the Plaintiff; (c) Compel the Defendant to pay alimony to the Plaintiff, (d) Equitably distribute all property, both real and personal, owned by parties; (e) Compel the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs counsel fees, costs and expenses and the costs and expenses of this action; and (f) Grant such further relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, Mancke, W er, Spreha & McQuillan i By P chard Wagner, Esquire I.D. #23103 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7051 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: III',' -4- I VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. III understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I' Date: T5-OQ -2N f, of NIBScF IS 9." L: ?9 -f 41(o . 50 P 0 ATT`/ ce 580(0 P-rit 2-3 0s8l. add" ' 3 ? HELEN FISCHBACH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CNIL ACTION -LAW NO. 09-6219 BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, Defendant IN DIVORCE IN RE: PETITION TO ENFORCE SUPPORT AGREEMENT ORDER AND NOW, this /g ' day of May, 2010, hearing in the above-captioned matter is set for Wednesday, July 7, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, '' P. Richard Wagner, Esquire For the Plaintiff ./ Samuel L. Andes, Esquire For the Defendant rlm ~ G-S /Y1Zl s/GPs Jw ~~ T)t= ['T? f', . ~~: ~~ ~.s,: 5: ~; ~~: N O O ~' '~ 4= Gt"! _~ =~ ~~ -~.1. -,t-_ _~- -;, _~ t,-': ~. -< HELEN FISCHBACH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NO. 09-6219 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT AGREEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2010, upon the agreement of the parties as expressed by their counsel, we hereby enter the following order on the Petition of Plaintiff for Enforcement of Support Agreement: 1. The Defendant, Brian L. Fischbach, shall pay, for the months of July, August, September, and October of 2010, the following obligations or payments: A. The monthly installment of $610.00 due on the first mortgage against the marital residence owed to Members 1st Federal Credit Union. B. The monthly installment of $500.00 owed to Commerce Bank on the debts secured by the second mortgage against the marital residence. C. The sum of $100.00 on the monthly installment owed to Commerce Bank on the line of credit loan which constitutes a lien against the marital residence. D. The sum of $1,000.00 to the Plaintiff, Helen Fischbach. 2. Further action on Plaintiff's Petition for Enforcement of Support Agreement shall be held in abeyance until on or after the 1st of November, 2010. The purpose of that is to give the parties the time and opportunity to attempt to negotiate a settlement of all of the issues currently pending in their divorce and property settlement. In the event that no settlement agreement is reached, the amount the Defendant, Brian L. Fischbach, is to pay pursuant to the support agreement, which is the subject of Plaintiff's petition, shall be $2,000.00 per month commencing with the month of November 2010. 3. The agreement for $3,800.00 a month shall continue to be charged with that amount under the agreement irrespective of the other language in this order, provided, nevertheless, that his obligation shall be credited with whatever payments he makes pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this order. Commencing November 1, 2010, and continuing thereafter, husband shall be charged with an obligation of $2,000.00 per month under the agreement which is the subject of this action. 4. Wife shall be entitled to utilize the parties' line of credit in an approximate amount of $4,500.00 available to her to draw on that line of credit as a credit towards the support obligation owed by husband to wife. Said line of credit draw shall be credited to the husband's obligation of support and shall not be debt for which wife will be responsible through the equitable distribution proceedings. By the Court, Kevin Hess, P.J. ,"?PRichard Wagner, Esquire For the Plaintiff ,,-XSamuel L. Andes, Esquire For the Defendant :lfh Q c 8 TI f to ?' HELEN FISCHBACH, vs. BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 09-6219 CIVIL TERM 20 Defendant MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, Defendant , moves the court to appoint a master with respect to the following claims: ?X Divorce ?X Distribution of Property ? Annulment ? Support ?X Alimony © Counsel Fees ?X Alimony Pendente Lite M Costs and Expenses and in support of the motion states: 1. Discovery is complete as to the claims (s) for which the appointment of a master is requested. 2. The defendant has appeared in the action (personally) (by kWattorney,_ P. Richard Wagner her , Esquire). 3. The staturory ground (s) for divorce is 3301 (d) of the Divorce Code 4. Delete the inapplicable paragraph (s): A ? B ? C ? c a. The action is not contested. _ b. An agreement has been reached with respect to the followine claims: r'r, °ry C. The action is contested with respect to the following claims: T?ft 5. The action does not involve complex issues of law or fact . 6. The hearing is expected to take I days 7. Additional information, if any, relevant to the motion: Date: January 4, 2011 Attorney for Defendant Samuel L. Andes Print Name ORDER APPOINTING MASTER AND NOW , 20 Esquire, is appointed master with respect to the following claims: By the Court, 4 HELEN FISCHBACH, : IN TIjE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, Plaintiff NO. 09-6219 CIVIL TERM 20 Defendant MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER BRIAN L FISCHBACH, Defendant , moves the court to appoint a master with respect to the following claims: OX Divorce OX Distribution of Property ? Annulment ? Support XQ Alimony Q Counsel Fees ?X Alimony Pendente Lite © Costs and Expenses and in support of the motion states: 1. Discovery is complete as to the claims (s) for which the appointment of a master is requested. 2. The defendant has appeared in the action (personally) (by Wattorney,_ P. Richard Wagner her ,Esquire). The staturory ground (s) for divorce is 3301 (d) of the Divorce Code Delete the inapplicable paragraph (s): A ? B ? C ? a. The action is not contested. b. An aereement has been reached with respect to the followine claims: c. The action is contested with respect to the following claims: 5. The action does not involve 6. The hearing is expected to take complex issues of law or fact. days rn C- L L .., . I -. %.0 S F y ) C.,1 7. Additional information, if any. relevant to the motion: «.r Date: January 4, 2011 Attorney for Defendant Samuel L. Andes Print Name ORDER APPOINTING MASTER AND NOW 20 If ?• C?}C?4j& QQ3TP ire,ct is appointed master with respec to the following claims: By the Court, y, ?P i?iChOirdr, :Z--° Samuel Lutes,, .. - ('o?1e?s `lecJ z "" rn p1A ?? r-:) n -vrn ?J p ?-t O S'rt 5-n ;if_-n --rn NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Identification No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. 18th Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 F iLED-OF1~ IC for Plaintiff THE PROTHON y 2012 JAN -3 PM 2'. 58 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVANIA, CIVIL ACTION-LAW HELEN C. FISCHBACH NO. 09-6219 vs. BRIAN L. FISCHBACH IN DIVORCE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE CLERK OF COURT: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Brian L. Fischbach, in the above captioned support matter. Date: ?) ! aU L BY: Melinda M. Nagy, Esq ire Attorney I.D. No. 308106 FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2012 JAN 13 AM 11: 23 CUMBERLAND COUNTY HELEN FISCHBACH, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff VS. BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-6219 IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the appearance of Samuel L. Andes, for the Defendant Brian L. Fischbach in the above matter. Date: 10 E)?30 20 1Z Sazhuel L. Andes - Attorney at Law Supreme Court ID 17225 525 North 12' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 HELEN FISCHBACH, PLAINTIFF V. BRIAN FISCHBACH, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-6219 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21St day of March, 2012, upon consideration of Brian Fischbach's Petition for Bifurcation; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule shall issue upon Helen Fischbach to show cause why the relief requested by the Defendant should not be granted; 2. Helen Fischbach shall file an Answer to the Petition for Bifurcation on or before April 13, 2012; 3. Hearing/Argument on the matter will be held on Thursday, May 31, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ? Melinda Nagy, Esquire Attorney for Defendant bas (gip; e.5 kv?a,. led WL M. L. Ebert, Jr., r?^ry r3 x" ?? tV ? o C7 ? r? By the Court, 1 2 F 1 3 Ali Q/: G° P ENNS I LVAiN 1A P. Richard Wagner, Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. #23103 Mancke, Wagner & Spreha 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 234-7051 Fax (717) 234-7080 Attorney For Plaintiff HELEN FISCHBACH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff/Respondent, V. BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, NO: 09-6219 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE Defendant/Petitioner. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR BIFURCATION AND NOW, here comes the Plaintiff/Respondent, Helen Fischbach, by and through her attorneys, Mancke, Wagner & Spreha, and files the following Answer To Petition For Bifurcation: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Plaintiff does not know how to answer this. 5. Admitted. 6. Plaintiff/Respondent does not know how to answer this. 7. Admitted. However, it is further averred that the settlement offers are not reasonable. 8. Denied. Plaintiff/Respondent is without knowledge as to the choices Defendant/Petitioner had, therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of any hearing. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that the issues are postponed indefinitely. Deposition of Mr. Morgan is to be scheduled after Mr. Morgan obtains counsel because he is also in a divorce proceeding. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied. Plaintiff/Respondent is without knowledge concerning the truth of this averment, therefore, the same is denied. -2- 21. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant/Petitioner has no prospect to moving on with his life, and it is further averred that the complex issues concerning the company were caused in part by the Defendant/Petitioner. 22. Denied. It is denied that no prejudice will occur if the divorce is granted. 23. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Respondent requests the court to dismiss the Petition For Bifurcation. Respectfully Submitted, Mancke, Wagner & Spreha Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff/Respondent Date: 4,V 1,2- /?. -3- 2233 North Front Street VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ?-C4- t a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Debra K. Spinner, secretary in the law firm of Mancke, Wagner & Spreha, do hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document to the following persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first class postage, prepaid, and addressed as follows: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Two Logan Square, 12" Floor 100 North Eighteenth Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 By ,,? ' - C tr1? Debra K. Spinner, ecretary Mancke, Wagner & Spreha 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff/Respondent Date: ?:° 1 i. { - I HELEN FISCHBACH, PLAINTIFF V. BRIAN FISCHBACH, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 09-6219 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Brian Fischbach's Petition for Bifurcation, Helen Fischbach's Answer thereto, and after hearing; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. The Petition for Bifurcation is GRANTED and a Praecipe to Transmit the Record for Entry of a Divorce Decree may be submitted by either party; 2. Any existing Spousal Support Order shall hereafter be deemed an Order for Alimony Pendente Lite if any economic claims remain pending; 3. All economic issues between the parties shall survive the divorce decree. The economic rights of the parties shall not be impaired or diminished by any event including but not limited to the death of either party or remarriage of either party. 4. All outstanding economic issues shall be considered by the Cumberland County Divorce Master E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire. 5. Until final economic resolution, if either party remarries, a prenuptial agreement shall be executed by that party with his or her future spouse preserving and protecting any and all marital rights of the other party arising out of this marital relationship. Such agreement shall provide that the intended spouse shall waive any and all rights to marital property of the parties to this action. •, a 6. All marital property of the parties shall be held in custodia legis after entry of a divorce decree. 7. Both parties shall retain the status of surviving spouse entitled to death benefits upon the other party's death even though the parties are divorced while the economic claims remain pending and even though the deceased party has remarried prior to death. 8. Until final economic resolution, each party is hereby enjoined and restrained from alienating, assigning, concealing, conveying, dissipating, encumbering, secreting, transferring, or otherwise disposing of any of the marital property. 9. Neither party shall convey, transfer, encumber or otherwise dispose of any property or interest acquired during the marriage without regard to how the property is titled, without the written consent of both parties or Order of Court. 10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Bifurcation Order. By the Court, lkl-t M. L. Ebert, Jr., P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff V Melinda Nagy, Esquire Attorney for Defendant a Z, J. =tea bas ;es p mom. lid ?? NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. 18`t' Street, 12th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff ^' TfitLI?m°F pj?AfiY 812 JUN 28 AM 10: 57 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA HELEN FISCHBACH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN FISCHBACH Defendant, NO: 09-6at6'CIVIL TERM (,&lQ CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Melinda M. Nagy, Esq., state that I am the attorney of record for the Defendant in the above-captioned matter and I hereby state that a true copy of the Complaint in Divorce, Notice to Defend, and Counseling Notice was served upon my client. Melinda M. Nagy, Esq. NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. OF K6Th0jqj)TARv By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire m2 jm a A"10:57 Attorney I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square CUMBEIRLA.ND COUNTY 100 N. 18`} Street, 12th floor PPI414SYLVANIA Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff HELEN FISCHBACH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO: 09-6210 CIVIL TERM BRIAN FISCHBACH CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant, IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATION OF COUNSELING NOTICE I hereby certify that a Counseling Notice has been served on both parties in the above- captioned divorce action as required by the Divorce Code of Pennsylvania, 23 P.S. § 202, and Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.45(a)*(1). Melinda M. Najy-,-ESQ1?RE Attorney for Plaintiff NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. 18`h Street, 12th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fft-OFFX Cl T , ?THORID AWf 412 JUN 28 AM IU: 5 7 CLHAERLANA COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA HELEN FISCHBACH Plaintiff, V. BRIAN FISCHBACH Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 09-§2,4-8 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REOUEST ENTRY OF & 3301(d) DIVORCE DECREE TO: Helen Fischbach C/O P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Defendant, Brian Fischbach, intends to file with the Court the attached Praecipe to Transmit the Record requesting the Final Decree in Divorce per the Bifurcation Order entered on June 12, 2012. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, MELINDA M. NAGY, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDAT NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. 18th Street, 12th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff OF TF1Ep'f}{}j TARY 1912 JUN 28 AM 10? 58 CU'4?RK?g LVANIA+7Y eN Y HELEN FISCHBACH Plaintiff, V. BRIAN FISCHBACH Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 09-619 CIVIL TERM Ujq (A CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melinda M. Nagy, Esq., certify that a Notice of Intention to Request Entry of A Divorce Under 3301(d) of the Divorce Code was served on Plaintiff's counsel by regular mail on 6/26/12. Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. 18`t` Street, 12th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff r- F r T A TAB i 2V1'2 JUN 28 AM 10: 58 CON% AND COUNTY PE' SYLVANIA HELEN FISCHBACH Plaintiff, V. BRIAN FISCHBACH Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 09-" CIVIL TERM (VA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT RECORD TO THE CLERK OF FAMILY COURT: Transmit the record, together with the following information, to the Court for entry of a divorce decree: 1. Ground for divorce: Irretrievable breakdown under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code. 2. Date and manner of service of Divorce Complaint: Acceptance of Service by attorney of record. June 26 2012. 3. Complete either paragraph (a) or (b): (a) Date of execution of the Affidavit of Consent required by Section 3301(c) of the Divorce Code: By Plaintiff. N/A By Defendant: N/A (b) (1) Date of execution of Plaintiffs Affidavit required by Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code: N/A (2) Date of filing of Plaintiffs Affidavit required by Section 3301(d): N/A (3) Date of service of Plaintiffs Affidavit upon Defendant: N/A 4. Complete the appropriate paragraphs: (a) Related claims pending: Bifurcation Granted. (b) Claims withdrawn: (c) Claims settled by agreement of the parties: See Bifurcation Order. (d) State whether any written agreement is to be incorporated into the Divorce Decree. See Bifurcation Order. If yes, attach a true and correct copy of the fully executed agreement to the proposed Decree that is submitted herewith. 5. I certify that a Notice of Intention to Request Entry of A Divorce Under 3301(d) of the Divorce Code was served on Plaintiff's counsel by regular mail on 6/26/12. I further certify that all other documents required by Rule 1920.42(c) are enclosed herewith. Melinda M. Nagy Attorney for Plaintiff HELEN FISCHBACH, PLAINTIFF V. BRIAN FISCHBACH, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-6219 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Brian Fischbach's Petition for Bifurcation, Helen Fischbach's Answer thereto, and after hearing; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. The Petition for Bifurcation is GRANTED and a Praecipe to Transmit the Record for Entry of a Divorce Decree may be submitted by either party; 2. Any existing Spousal Support Order shall hereafter be deemed an Order for Alimony Pendente Lite if any economic claims remain pending; 3. All economic issues between the parties shall survive the divorce decree. The economic rights of the parties shall not be impaired or diminished by any event including but not limited to the death of either party or remarriage of either party. 4. All outstanding economic issues shall be considered by the Cumberland County Divorce Master E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire. 5. Until final economic resolution, if either party remarries, a prenuptial agreement shall be executed by that party with his or her future spouse preserving and protecting any and all marital rights of the other party arising out of this marital relationship. Such agreement shall provide that the intended spouse shall waive any and all rights to marital property of the parties to this action. 6. All marital property of the parties shall be held in custodia legis after entry of a divorce decree. 7. Both parties shall retain the status of surviving spouse entitled to death benefits upon the other party's death even though the parties are divorced while the economic claims remain pending and even though the deceased party has remarried prior to death. 8. Until final economic resolution, each party is hereby enjoined and restrained from alienating, assigning, concealing, conveying, dissipating, encumbering, secreting, transferring, or otherwise disposing of any of the marital property. 9. Neither party shall convey, transfer, encumber or otherwise dispose of any property or interest acquired during the marriage without regard to how the property is titled, without the written consent of both parties or Order of Court. 10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Bifurcation Order. By the Court, N,-?? ? M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Melinda Nagy, Esquire Attorney for Defendant bas TRUE COPY FROM RECORD in Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This --ZiK day of lam--, 20 /-2 Prothonotary LG /e- ,Wo. NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. By: Mell,inda M. Nagy, Esquire Attorneys I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. I Wh Street, 12th floor Philadel hia, PA 19103 (215) 791-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff t.- a F v 7 'fin !? ?? U 1 1`j' V ??1 l! ?!`i t( O?ZAVG 22 pl, j: 9 C" NC T' LS VAN!4 HELENIFISCHBACH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA 69- &a/ 9 V. : NO! 99-6219 CIVIL TERM BRIAN ''FISCHBACH Defendant, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE NOTICE If you wish to deny any of the statements set forth in this affidavit, you must file a counter- affidavit within twenty (20) days after this affidavit has been served on you or the statements will be admitted. AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 3301(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. The parties to this action separated on April 17, 2008 and have continued to live separate and apart for a period of at least two years. 2. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 3. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date -& -A• rian tschbach, efendant 4 NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 308106 Two Logan Square 100 N. 18~' Street, 12th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff ~~'~D-CFFIC -- ! s ~~ F'~e~Tt-~QNO1'Af~' 2~i2 Ai~G 31 PM 2~ 16 ~:,e.11~4ERLANO Ct3UNTY FE~t~tISYLVANiA HELEN FISCHBACH IN THE COURT OF COMMOI~T PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA a4-~a~ q v. N0-89-t3`9+CIVIL TERM BRIAN FISCHBACH Defendant, CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 3301(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. C eck either (a) or (b): (a) I do not oppose the entry of a divorce decree. (b) I oppose the entry of a divorce decree because (Check (i), (ii) or both): (i) The parties to this action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years. (ii) The marriage is not irretrievably broken. 2. Check either (a) or (b): (a) I do not wish to make any claims for economic relief. I understand that T may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. (b) I wish to claim economic relief which may include alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses or other important rights. I understand that in addition to checking (b) above, I must also file all of my economic claims with the Prothonotary in writing and serve them on the other party. If I fail to do so before the date set forth on the Notice of Intention to Request Divorce Decree, the divorce decree may be entered without further notice to me, and I shall be unable thereafter to file any economic claims. I verify that the statements made in this counter-affidavit are true and correct. I understandthat any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~ 02 S`- l.2 Date Helen NOTICE: If you do not wish to oppose the entry of a divorce decree and you do not wish to make any claim for economic relief, you need not fde this counter-affidavit. / f `.J ~. NICHOLAS A. CLEMENTE, P.C. "~~ By: Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire ?~, Attorney LD. No. 308106 , Two Logan Square 100 N. 18`" Street, 12th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 790-4000 Attorney for Plaintiff HELEN FISCHBACH 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO: 09-6210 CIVIL TERM BRIAN FISCHBACH CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant, 1N DIVORCE NOTICE If you wish to deny any of the statements set forth in this affidavit, you must file acounter- affidavitwithin twenty (20) days after this affidavit has been served on you or the statements will be admitted. AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 3301 (dl OF THE DIVORCE CODE t. The parties to this action separated on April 17, 2008 and have continued to live separate apart for a period of at least two years. 2. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 3. 1 understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. 1 verify that the statements ntade in this affidavit are true and correct. 1 understand that fc statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ,¢4904 relating to unsworn falsification authori[ies. Date: 8-/(p - jz. Tian F~sehbach, . ei~end~tnt INCOME WITHHOLDING FOR SUPPORT O ORIGINAL INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER/NOTICE FOR SUPPORT(IWO) -Ro2 114D-7 5 9-7 9 109 9T U O AMENDED IWO D 9— iO Z OI G)V i ) 'S S ;V09 O ONE-TIMEORDER/NOTICE FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENT O TERMINATION OF IWO Date: 07/09/13 ❑ Child Support Enforcement(CSE)Agency ® Court ❑ Attorney ❑ Private Individual/Entity(Check One) NOTE:TFtis IWO must be a�rdtl its .K4.Under certain circumstances you must reject this IWO and return it to the sender(see IWO instructions http://www.aFf.i Rs.aov/programs/cse/newhire/employer/publication/publication.htm-forms). If you receive this document from someone other than a State or Tribal CSE agency or a Court,a copy of the underlying order must be attached. State/Tribe/Territory Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Remittance Identifier(include w/payment): 3573101974 City/County/Dist./Tribe CUMBERLAND Order Identifier: (See Addendum for order/docket informaiton) Private Individual/Entity CSE Agency Case Identifier: (See Addendum for case summary) FISHER ASSOCIATES RE: FISCHBACH, BRIAN L. 135 CALKINS RD Employee/Obligor's Name(Last,First, Middle) ROCHESTER NY 14623-4255 210-44-5760 Employee/Obligor's Social Security Number (See Addendum for plaintiff names associated with cases on attachment) Custodial Party/Obligee's Name(Last, First, Middle) Employer/Income Withholder's FEIN 161373998 NOTE:This IWO must be regular on its face. Under certain circumstances you must reject Child(ren)'s Name(s)(Last, First,Middle) Child(ren)'s Birth Date(s) this IWO and return it to the sender(see IWO instructions htti)://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire employer/publication/oublication.htm-forms).If you receive this document from someone other than a State or Tribal CSE agency or a Court,a copy of the underlying order must be attached. 1613739980 See Addendum for dependent names and birth dates associated with cases on attachment. ORDER INFORMATION: This document is based on the support or withholding order from CUMBERLAND County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State/Tribe). You are required by law to deduct these amounts ffmii the�imployee/ obligor's income until further notice. xrn $ 1,302.00 per month in current child support Cnr;;J- $ 0.00 per month in past-due child support- Arrears 12 weeks or greater? O yeigx'O tan c-� $ 0.00 per month in current cash medical support <c� ' $ 0.00 per month in past-due cash medical support ' D �.t., $ 887.00 per month in current spousal support > ry C° ? $ 0.00 per month in past-due spousal support $ 0.00 per month in other(must specify) for a Total Amount to Withhold of$ 2,189.00 per month. AMOUNTS TO WITHHOLD: You do not have to vary your pay cycle to be in compliance with the Order Information. If your pay cycle does not match the ordered payment cycle, withhold one of the following amount: $SOS•1 S per weekly pay period. $ 1,094.50 per semimonthly pay period (twice a month) $ t ,?,I per biweekly pay period (every two weeks) $ 2,189.00 per monthly pay period. $ Lump Sum Payment: Do not stop any existing IWO unless you receive a termination order. REMITTANCE INFORMATION: If the employee/obligor's principal place of employment is within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State/Tribe), you must begin withholding no later than the first pay period that occurs ten 10 working days after the date of this Order/Notice. Send payment within seven 7 working days of the pay date. If you cannot withhold the full amount of support for any or all orders for this employee/obligor, withhold up to 55% of disposable income for all orders. If the employee/obligor's principal place of employment is not within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State/Tribe), the employer can obtain withholding limitations, time requirements, and any allowable employer fees at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/employer/contacts/contact map. htm for the employee/obligor's principal place of employment. Document Tracking Identifier OMB No.:0970-0154 Form EN-028 06/12 Service Type M Worker ID $IATT ❑ Return to Sender [Completed by Employer/Income Withholder]. Payment must be directed to an SDU in accordance with 42 USC §666(b)(5)and (b)(6)or Tribal Payee(see Payments to SDU below). If payment is not directed to an SDU/Tribal Payee or this IWO is not regular on its face, you must check this box and return the IWO to the sender. Signature of Judge/Issuing Official (if required by State or Tribal law): Print Name of Judge/Issuing Official: ' Title of Judge/Issuing Official: Date of Signature: JUL 1 0 2013 If the employee/obligor works in a State or for a Tribe that is different from the State or Tribe that issued this order, a copy of this IWO must be provided to the employee/obligor. ❑ If checked,the employer/income withholder must provide a copy of this form to the employee/obligor. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYERS/INCOME WITHHOLDERS Pennsylvania law(23 PA C.S. §4374(b))requires remittance by an electronic payment method if an employer is ordered to withhold income from more than one employee and employs 15 or More persons, or if an employer has a history of two or more returned checks due to nonsufficient funds. Please call the Pennsylvania State Collections and Disbursement Unit(PA SCDU) Employer Customer Service at 1-877-676-9580 for instructions. PA FIPS CODE 42 000 00 Make Remittance Payable to: PA SCDU Send check to: Pennsylvania SCDU, P.O. Box 69112, Harrisburg, Pa 17106-9112 IN ADDITION, PAYMENTS MUST INCLUDE THE DEFENDANT'S NAME AND THE PACSES MEMBER ID(shown above as the Employee/Obligor's Case Identifier)OR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN ORDER TO BE PROCESSED. DO NOT SEND CASH BY MAIL. State-specific contact and withholding information can be found on the Federal Employer Services website located at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/employer/contacts/contact map.htm Priority: Withholding for support has priority over any other legal process under State law against the same income(USC 42 §666(b)(7)). If a Federal tax levy is in effect, please notify the sender. Combining Payments: When remitting payments to an SDU or Tribal CSE agency, you may combine withheld amounts from more than one employee/obligor's income in a single payment. You must, however, separately identify each employee/ obligor's portion of the payment. Payments To SDU: You must send child support payments payable by income withholding to the appropriate SDU or to a Tribal CSE agency. If this IWO instructs you to send a payment to an entity other than an SDU (e.g., payable to the custodial party, court, or attorney), you must check the box above and return this notice to the sender. Exception: If this IWO was sent by a Court, Attorney, or Private Individual/Entity and the initial order was entered before January 1, 1994 or the order was issued by a Tribal CSE agency, you must follow the"Remit payment to"instructions on this form. Reporting the Pay Date: You must report the pay date when sending the payment.The pay date is the date on which the amount was withheld from the employee/obligor's wages. You must comply with the law of the State(or Tribal law if applicable)of the employee/obligor's principal place of employment regarding time periods within which you must implement the withholding and forward the support payments. Multiple IWOs: If there is more than one IWO against this employee/obligor and you are unable to fully honor all IWOs due to Federal, State, or Tribal withholding limits,you must honor all IWOs to the greatest extent possible, giving priority to current support before payment of any past-due support. Follow the State or Tribal law/procedure of the employee/obligor's principal place of employment to determine the appropriate allocation method. Lump Sum Payments: You may be required to notify a State or Tribal CSE agency of upcoming lump sum payments to this employee/obligor such as bonuses, commissions, or severance pay. Contact the sender to determine if you are required to report and/or withhold lump sum payments. Liability: If you have any doubts about the validity of this IWO, contact the sender. If you fail to withhold income from the employee/obligor's income as the IWO directs, you are liable for both the accumulated amount you should have withheld and any penalties set by State or Tribal law/procedure. Anti-discrimination: You are subject to a fine determined under State or Tribal law for discharging an employee/obligor from employment, refusing to employ, or taking disciplinary action against an employee/obligor because of this IWO. OMB Expiration Date—05/31/2014.The OMB Expiration Date has no bearing on the termination date of the IWO;it identifies the version of the form currently in use. Form EN-028 06/12 Service Type M Page 2 of 3 Worker ID $IATT Employer's Name: FISHER ASSOCIATES Employer FEIN: 161373998 Employee/Obligor's Name: FISCHBACH,BRIAN L. 3573101974 CSE Agency Case Identifier:(See Addendum for case summary) Order Identifier:(See Addendum for order/docket information) Withholding Limits:You may not withhold more than the lesser of: 1)the amounts allowed by the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act(CCPA)(15 U.S.C. 1673(b));or 2)the amounts allowed by the State or Tribe of the employee/obligor's principal place of employment(see REMITTANCE INFORMATION). Disposable income is the net income left after making mandatory deductions such as: State, Federal, local taxes; Social Security taxes; statutory pension contributions; and Medicare taxes. The Federal limit is 50%of the disposable income if the obligor is supporting another family and 60%of the disposable income if the obligor is not supporting another family. However,those limits increase 5%-to 55%and 65%-if the arrears are greater than 12 weeks. If permitted by the State or Tribe, you may deduct a fee for administrative costs.The combined support amount and fee may not exceed the limit indicated in this section. For Tribal orders,you may not withhold more than the amounts allowed under the law of the issuing Tribe. For Tribal employers/income withholders who receive a State IWO,you may not withhold more than the lesser of the limit set by the law of the jurisdiction in which the employer/income withholder is located or the maximum amount permitted under section 303(d)of the CCPA(15 U.S.C. 1673(b)). Depending upon applicable State or Tribal law,you may need to also consider the amounts paid for health care premiums in determining disposable income and applying appropriate withholding limits. Arrears greater than 12 weeks?If the Order Information does not indicate that the arrears are greater than 12 weeks,then the Employer should calculate the CCPA limit using the lower percentage. Additional Information: NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION OR INCOME STATUS: If this employee/obligor never worked for you or you are no longer withholding income for this employee/obligor,an employer must promptly notify the CSE agency and/or the sender by returning this form to the address listed in the Contact Information below: 1613739980 Q This person has never worked for this employer nor received periodic income. O This person no longer works for this employer nor receives periodic income. Please provide the following information for the employee/obligor: Termination date: Last known phone number: Last known address: Final Payment Date To SDU/Tribal Payee: Final Payment Amount: New Employer's Name: New Employer's Address: CONTACT INFORMATION: To Employer/Income Withholder: If you have any questions, contact WAGE ATTACHMENT UNIT(Issuer name) by phone at(717)240-6225, by fax at(717)240-6248, by email or website at:www.childsupport.state.pa.us. Send termination/income status notice and other correspondence to:DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION, 13 N. HANOVER ST. P.O. BOX 320, CARLISLE, PA. 17013(Issuer address). To Employee/Obligor: If the employee/obligor has questions, contact WAGE ATTACHMENT UNIT(Issuer name) by phone at(717)240-6225, by fax at(717)240-6248, by email or website at www.childsupport.state.pa.us. IMPORTANT:The person completing this form is advised that the information may be shared with the employee/obligor. OMB No.:0970-0154 Form EN-028 06/12 Service Type M Page 3 of 3 Worker ID $IATT ADDENDUM Summary of Cases on Attachment Defendant/Obligor: FISCHBACH, BRIAN L. PACSES Case Number 468114075 PACSES Case Number 979109980 Plaintiff Name Plaintiff Name HELEN C. FISCHBACH HELEN C. FISCHBACH Docket Attachment Amount Docket Attachment Amount 09-6219 CIVIL_ $ 887.00 00357 S 2008 $ 1,302.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB DANYON M.FISCHBACH 05/16/97 ALEXANDRA K.FISCHBACH 06/17/02 PACSES Case Number PACSES Case Number Plaintiff Name Plaintiff Name Docket Attachment Amount Docket Attachment Amount $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB PACKS Case Number PACSES Case Number Plaintiff Name Plaintiff Name Docket Attachment Amount Docket Attachment Amount $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB Addendum Form EN-028 06/12 Service Type M OMB No.:0970-0154 Worker ID $IATT HELEN C. FISCHBACH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 09-6219 CIVIL TERM MW BRIAN L.FISCHBACH, IN DIVORCE =M 70 CH = I- Defendant/Respondent PACSES CASE: 468114075 --Act ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2013, based upon the Court's determination that the Petitioner's monthly net income/earning capacity is $ 1,353.05 and the Respondent's monthly net income/earning capacity is $ 5,610.49, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit Eight Hundred Eighty-seven and 00/100 Dollars ($ 887.00)per month payable bi-weekly as follows: $ 887.00 per month for Alimony Pendente Lite and $ 0.00 per month on arrears. The first payment is due in accordance with the Respondent's pay schedule. The effective date of the order is June 6, 2013. Arrears set at$ 860.87 as of July 9, 2013. Failure to make each payment on time and in full will cause all arrears to become subject to immediate collection by all of the means as provided by 23 Pa.C.S.§ 3703. Further, if the Court finds, after hearing, that the Respondent has willfully failed to comply with this Order, it may declare the Respondent in civil contempt of Court and, at its discretion, make an appropriate Order, including, but not limited to, commitment of the Respondent to prison for a period not to exceed six months. Said money is to be turned over by the PA SCDU for distribution and disbursement in accordance with Rule 1910.17(d). Payments must be made by check or money order. All checks and money orders must be made payable to PA SCDU and mailed to: PA SCDU P.O. Box 69110 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9110 1 Payments must include the Respondent's name with their PACSES Member Number or Social Security Number in order to be processed. Do not send cash by mail. cc360 The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in the amount of$250 annually for unreimbursed medical expenses incurred for the spouse. Unreimbursed medical expenses of the spouse that exceed $250 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of expenses to the other party no later than March 31"of the year following the calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated was received. The unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows: 0 %by Respondent and 100 %by Petitioner. [] Respondent [X] Petitioner [] Neither party to provide medical insurance coverage. Within thirty(30) days after the entry of this order, the [X] Petitioner [] Respondent shall submit written proof that medical insurance coverage has been obtained or that application for coverage has been made. Proof of coverage shall consist, at a minimum, of- 1)the name of the health care coverage provider(s); 2) any applicable identification numbers; 3) any cards evidencing coverage; 4)the address to which claims should be made; 5) a description of any restrictions on usage, such as prior approval for hospital admissions, and the manner of obtaining approval; 6) a copy of the benefit booklet or coverage contract; 7) a description of all deductibles and co-payments; and 8) five copies of any claim forms. It is further Ordered that, upon payor's failure to comply with this order, payor may be arrested and brought before the Court for a Contempt hearing; payor's wages, salary, commissions, and/or income may be attached in accordance with law; this Order will be increased without further hearing by 0%a month until all arrearages are paid in full. Payor is responsible for court costs and fees. Other conditions: This order is based upon the fact that the parties' divorce is bifurcated. This case is given credit in the amount of$755.17 from the child support case#979109980. The next and full income withholding payment for both cases will be directed to this case. After that payment has been processed, should the balance exceed 30 days the ordered amount, an additional 10%of the order will be added to liquidate any accumulated arrearage. This Order shall become final twenty(20) after the mailing of the notice of the entry of the Order to the parties unless either party files a written demand with the Office of the Prothonotary for a hearing de novo before the Court. Mailed copies on: July 10,,2013 BY THE COURT M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. xc:Petitioner Respondent P.Richard Wagner,Esq. Melinda A Previtera,Esq. DRO:R.J. Shadday In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION 13 N. HANOVER ST, P.O. BOX 320, CARLISLE, PA. 17013 Defendant Name: BRIAN L. FISCHBACH Member ID Number: 3573101974 Please note: All correspondence must include the Member ID Number. ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS Plaintiff Name HELEN C. FISCHBACH HELEN C. FISCHBACH Financial Break Down of Multiple Cases on Attachment PACSES Docket Case Number Number Attachment Amount/Freauency 468114075 09-6219 CIVIL $ 887.00 / MONTH;,--• 979109980 00357 S 2008 1,302.00�NTH.c- ---1 i i rr;- $ T 77 r-- `0 , ri- _ .C'. $ <C7 Z'_ >r s `� TOTAL ATTACHMENT AMOUNT: $ 2,189.00 ` r\) Now, by Order of this Court, the Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation Benefits (OUCB), is hereby directed to attach the lesser of $503.77 per week, or 50%, of the Unemployment Compensation benefits otherwise payable to the Defendant, BRIAN L. FISCHBACH Social Security Number XXX -XX -5760 , Member ID Number 3573101974. OUCB is ordered to remit the amount attached to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). DPW shall forward the amount received from OUCB to the Domestic Relations Section of this Court for support and/or support arrearages. If the Defendant's Unemployment Compensation benefits are attached by another Court or Courts for support and/or support arrearages, DPW may reduce the amount attached under this Order so that the total amount attached does not exceed the maximum amount subject to garnishment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b)(2) and 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 4348 (g). This Order shall be effective upon receipt of the notice of the Order by the OUCB and shall remain in effect until the Defendant's entitlement to Unemployment Compensation benefits, under the Application for Benefits dated JUNE 29, 2014 is exhausted, expired or deferred. OUCB shall comply with this Order, unless it is amended or vacated by subsequent Order of this Court. All questions, challenges or obligations to this Order shall be directed to the Domestic Relations Section of this Court. Date of Order: JUL 1 5 21114 Service Type M BY THE COURT E.)44 )1, M.L. Ebert, Jr. OUDGE Form EN -530 Worker ID $IATT INCOME WITHHOLDING FOR SUPPORT Q ORIGINAL INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER/NOTICE FOR SUPPORT (IWO) Q AMENDED IWO O ONE-TIMEORDER/NOTICE FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENT Q TERMINATION OF IWO 114-0-7 5 D9- laa..l 9 CI v 11 009 1 VI ci R D 351 SaODR Date: 08/01/14 ❑ Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Agency ® Court 0 Attorney 0 Private Individual/Entity (Check One) NOTE: This IWO must be regular on its face. Under certain circumstances you must reject this IWO and return it to the sender (see IWO instructions httD://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/forms/OMB-0970-0154 instructions.pdf). If you receive this.document from someone other than a State or Tribal CSE agency or a Court, a copy of the underlying order must be attached. State/Tribe/Territory Commonwealth of Pennsylvania City/County/Dist./Tribe CUMBERLAND Private Individual/Entity Remittance Identifier (include w/payment): 3573101974 Order Identifier: (See Addendum for order/docket information) CSE Agency Case Identifier: (See Addendum for case summary) DAWOOD ENGINEERING INC 2020 GOOD HOPE RD ENOLA PA 17025-1237 Employer/Income Withholder's FEIN 251696385 Child(ren)'s Name(s) (Last, First, Middle) Child(ren)'s Birth Date(s) RE: FISCHBACH, BRIAN L. Employee/Obligor's Name (Last, First, Middle) 210-44-5760 Employee/Obligor's Social Security Number (See Addendum for plaintiff names associated with cases on attachment) Custodial Party/Obligee's Name (Last, First, Middle) NOTE: This IWO must be regular on its face. Under certain circumstances you must reject this IWO and return it to the sender (see IWO instructions htto://www.acf. hhs.gov/programs/cse/forms/ OMB -0970-0154 instructions WI). If you receive this document from someone other than a State or Tribal CSE agency or a Court, a copy of the underlying order must be attached. 2516963850 See Addendum for dependent names and birth dates associated with cases on attachment. ORDER INFORMATION: This document is based an the support or withholding order from CUMBERLAND County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State/Tribe). You are required by law to deduct these amounts from the employee/ obligor's income until further notice. C q $ 1,302.00 per month in current child support -o3 1- -i $ 0.00 per month in past -due child support - Arrears 12 weeks or greater? 0 yes n0 c :a: -:� $ 0.00 per month in current cash medical support z c5 $ 0.00 per month in past -due cash medical support -v'< A $ 887.00 per month in current spousal support .rte $ 0.00 per month in past -due spousal support z $ 0.00 per month in other (must specify) for a Total Amount to Withhold of $ 2,189.00 per month. � -I © • y› crt AMOUNTS TO WITHHOLD: You do not have to vary your pay cycle to be in compliance with the Order Information. If your pay cycle does not match the ordered payment cycle, withhold one of the following amount: $ 505,t7 per weekly pay period. $ 1,094.50 per semimonthly pay period (twice a month) $ 1,0ID.'3i per biweekly pay period (every two weeks) $ 2,189.00 per monthly pay period. $ Lump Sum Payment: Do not stop any existing IWO unless you receive a termination order. REMITTANCE INFORMATION: If the employee/obligor's principal place of employment is within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State/Tribe), you must begin withholding no later than the first pay period that occurs ten (10) working days after the date of this Order/Notice. Send payment within seven (7) working days of the pay date. If you cannot withhold the full amount of support for any or all orders for this employee/obligor, withhold up to 55% of disposable income for all orders. If the employee/obligor's principal place of employment is not within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State/Tribe), the employer can obtain withholding limitations, time requirements, and any allowable employer fees at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/employer/contacts/contact map. htm for the employee/obligor's principal place of employment. Document Tracking Identifier OMB No,: 0970-0154 Service Type M Form EN -028 11/13 Worker ID $IATT Fl Return to Sender by Emplnne Withholder]. Payment must be directed to an SDU in ,m ' accordance with 42 USC Tribal Payee Payments to SDU below). If payment is not directed to an SOU/Tribal Payee or this IWO is not regular on its face, you must check this box and return the IWO to the sender. Signature of ng Official (if required by State or Tribal Iaw): � Print Name ofJudge/Issuing Official: Title of Official: Date of Signature: AUG 1 5 If the for a Tribe that is differenfrom tho State or Tribe thatissued this order, a copy of this IWO must be provided to theemployee/obigor. 0 If checked, the employer/income withholder must provide a copy of this form to the employee/obligor. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EMCOME WITHHOLDERS Pennsylvania law (23 PA C.S. § requires remittance by an electronic paymentmethmd if an employer is ordered to withhold income from more than one employee and employs 15 or more persons, or if an employer has a history of two or more returned checks due to nonsufficient funds. Please caII the Pennsylvania State Collections and Disbursement Unit (PA SCDU) Employer Customer Service at 1-877-676-9580 for instructions. PA FIPS CODE 42 000 00 Make Remittance Payable to: PA SCDU Send check to: Pennsylvania SCDU, P.O. Box 69112, Harrisburg, Pa 17106-9112 IN ADDITION, PAYMENTS MUST INCLUDE THE DEFENDANT'S NAME AND THE PACSES MEMBER ID (shown above as the w/Ob8gqr's Case Identifier) OR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN ORDER TO BE PROCESSED. DO NOT SEND CASH BY MAIL. ., State -specific contact and withholding information can be (mind on the -Federal Employer Services website located at: http://wvww.aof.hhn.gnv/progmms/cmo/riewhi,w/emp|oyor/contaots/contant]noPhtm Priority: Withholding for support has priority over ariy other legal process under State lawogo|noltheuameinoome(USC42 §666(b)(7)). If a Federal tax levy is in effect, please notify the sender. Combining Payments: When remitting pamwntotoanSOU'orTriba|C8Eagoncy.youmoycomb|nowithha|demountohom more than one employee/obligor's income in a single payment. You must, however, separately identify each employee/ obligor's portion of the payment. Payments To SDU: You must send child support payments payable by income withholding to the appropriate SDU or to a Tribal CSE agency. If this IWO instructs you to send a payment to an entity other than an SDU (e.g., payable to the custodial party, court, or attorney), you must check the box above and return this notice to the sender. Exception: If this IWO was sent by a Court, Attorney, or Private Individual/Entity and the initial order was entered before January 1, 1994 or the order was issued by a Tribal CSE agency, you must follow the "Remit payment to" instructions on this form. Reporting the Pay Date: You must report the pay date when sending the payment. The pay date is the date on which the amount was withheld from the employee/oblig'o wages. You must comply wth the taw of the State (or Tribal law if applicable) of the employee/obligor's principal place of employment regarding time periods within which you must implement the withholding and forward the support payments. Multiple |W0m:|fthere iamore than One |VV<]against this employee/Obligor ondyouaneunab|e0uhm|lyhonoroU|VV0mduab» Federal, State, or Tribal withholding limits, you must honor all JW0s to the greatest extent possible, giving priority prionty to current support before payment of any past -due support. Follow the State or Tribal law/procedure of the employee/obligor's principal place of employment to determine the appropriate allocation method. Lump Sum Payments: You may be required to noU ' a State or Tribal CSE agency of upcoming lump sum payments to this employee/obligor such as bonuses, commissions, or severance pay. Contact the sender to determine if you are required to report and/or withhold lump sum payments. Liability: If you have any doubts about the validity of this IWO, contact the sender. If you fail to withhold income from the employee/obligor's income as the IWO directs, you are liable for both the accumulated amount you should have withheld and any penalties set by State or Tribal Iaw/procedure. Anti -discrimination: You are subjechoafine determined under State orTribal law for discharging anemployee/obligor from employment, refusing to employ, or taking disciplinary action against an employee/obligor because of this IWO. OMB Expiration Date — 05/31/2014. The OMB Expiration Date has no bearing on the termination date of the WO; it identifies the version of (he forrn currently 5 use, Form EN -O2811/13 Employer's Name: DAWOOD ENGINEERING INC Employer FEIN: 251696385 Name: FISCHBACH, BRIAN L. 3573101974 CSE Agency Case Identifier: (See Addendum for case summary) Onder|denU8ac(@ee^Nddendumfororden/dpckmt/nfb/n,mtimn) Withholding Limits: You may not withhold more than the Iesser of: 1) thepmountou||owmdbythmFedono|ConuumerOnoditPmtocUon Act(CCPA)(15 U.S.C. 1673(b)); or 2)the amounts allowed by the State orTribe of the employee/obligor's principal place of employment (see REMITTANCE INFORMATION). Disposable income is the net income left after making mandatory deductions such as: State, Federal, Iocal taxes; Social Security taxes; statutory pension contributions; and Medicare taxes. The Federal limit is 50% of the disposable income ifthe obligor is supporting another family and 60% of the disposableincome if the obligor is not supporting another family. However, those limits increase 5% - to 55% and 65% - if the arrears are greater than 12 weeks. If permitted by the State or Tribe, you may deduct a fee for administrative costs. The combined support amount and fee may not exceed the limit indicated in this section. For Tribal orders, you may not withhold more than the amounts allowed under the law of the issuing Tribe. For Tribal employors/income withholders who receive a State IWO, you may not withhold more than the lesser of the limit set by the Iaw of the junsdiction in which the employer/income withholder is located or the maximum amount permitted under section 303(d) of the CCPA (15 U.S.C. 1673 (b)). Depending upon applicable State or Tribal law, you may need to also consider the amounts paid for health care premiums in determining disposable income and applying appropriate withholding limits. Arrears greater than 12 weeks? If the Order Information does not indicate that the arrears are greater than 12 weeks, then the Employer should calculate the CCPA limit using the Jower percentage. Additional Information: NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION OR INCOME STATUS: If this employee/obligor are no longer withholding income for this employee/obligor, an employer must promptly notify the CSE agency and/or the sender by returning this form to the address Iisted in the Contact Information below: 2516983850 {� This person has never worked for this employer nor received periodic income. LJ This person no Ionger works for this employer nor receives periodic income. Please provide the following information for the employeelobtigor: Termination date: Last known phone number: Last known address: Final Payment Date To SDU/TribaI Payee: Final PaymenAmount: New Employer's Name: New Employer's Address: CONTACT INFORMATION: To Withholder: If you have any questions, contact WAGE ATTACHMENT UNIT (Issuer name) byphone nt(717)24U-G225.byfax ot(717)24O-G248.byemail orwebsite at: vmxm/.chUdouoporLobah*.pa.ma Send status notice and other correspondence to: DOMESTIC RELATJONS SECTION, 13 N. HANOVER ST. P,O. BOX 320. CARLISLE. PA. 17013 (Issuer address). To If the has questions, contact WAGE ATTACI-IMENT UNIT (Issuer name) byphone o1(717)24O'6225.byfax at(717)24O-8248.hyemail orwebsite otxm^wv.nhi|douppnrt.ohahe.po.us. IMPORTANT: The person completing this form is advised that the information may be shared with the employee/obligor. OMB No.: 0970-0154 Service Type M Page 3 of 3Worker ID $1ATT Form EN'U2M11/13 ADDENDUM Summary of Cases on Attachment Defendant/Obligor: FISCHBACH, BRIAN L. PACSES Case Number 468114075 Plaintiff Name HELEN C. FISCHBACH Docket Attachment Amount 09-6219 CIVIL $ 887.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB PACSES Case Number Plaintiff Name Docket Attachment Amount $ 0.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB PACSES Case Number Plaintiff Name Pocket Attachment Amount $ 0.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB Service Type M PACSES Case Number 979109980 Plaintiff Name HELEN C. FISCHBACH Docket Attachment Amount 00357 S 2008 $ 1,302.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DANYON M. FISCHBACH ALEXANDRA K. FISCHBACH DOB 05/16/97 06/17/02 PACSES Case Number Plaintiff Name Docket Attachment Amount $ 0.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB PACSES Case Number Plaintiff Name Docket Attachment Amount $ 0.00 Child(ren)'s Name(s): DOB Addendum OMB No.: 0970-0154 Form EN -028 11/13 Worker ID $IATT • HELEN FISCHBACH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V : CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN L. FISCHBACH, : 2009-6219 CIVIL TERM Defendant : IN DIVORCE IN RE: PETITION FOR BIFURCATION Proceedings held before the HONORABLE M. L. EBERT, JR., J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on May 31, 2012, in Courtroom Number 2. APPEARANCES: P. RICHARD WAGNER, Esquire For the Plaintiff MELINDA NAGY, Esquire For the Defendant • • INDEX TO WITNESSES WITNESS PAGE 1 - Brian L. Fischbach Direct examination by Ms. Nagy 4 Cross-examination by Mr. Wagner 14 Redirect examination by Ms. Nagy 29 Recross -examination by Mr. Wagner 32 INDEX TO EXHIBITS (No Exhibits Identified) Thursday, May 31, 2012 Courtroom Number 2 THE COURT: Please be seated. This is the matter of Helen Fischbach vs Brian Fischbach on Brian Fischbach's petition for bifurcation. The parties are present. I believe Mr. Fischbach is the moving party in this. It is Ms. Nagy? MS. NAGY: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. THE COURT: You may proceed. MS. NAGY: Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to open just to state that pursuant to the current statute regarding bifurcation, I need to show that Mr. Fischbach meets the requirement under the statute in that he has compelling circumstances for entering this divorce decree as well as providing economic protections for Ms. Fischbach. Would you like me to provide some of the facts of the case? THE COURT: I think that is necessary. I probably have to make some Findings of Fact with regard to the various requirements now in the statute, and pursuant to that case you cited, I would certainly give Mr. Wagner a chance to cross-examine. MS. NAGY: Sure. Would you like me to do direct examination or just put some facts on the record? THE COURT: Why don't you do direct? Just 3 • come forward here, sir. Whereupon, BRIAN L. FISCHBACH having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. NAGY: Q Mr. Fischbach, what your is date of birth? A December 13, 1967. Q And who is the woman in the courtroom? A Helen Fischbach. Q What is her relationship to you? A My wife. Q When were you married? A June 8, 1991. Q Do you have any children of the marriage? A Yes. Q How many? A Three. Q What are their names and birth dates? A Aden Clark Fischbach, August 11, 1994, Danyon Miles Fischbach, May 16, 1997, and Alexandra Keith Fischbach, 17th of June, 2002. Q Mr. Fischbach, was there a divorce complaint entered in this case? A Yes. 4 • Q Who entered that? A Helen Fischbach. Q Do you recall the date of that? A It was sometime in the late summer, early fall, I think of 2009. Q Prior to 2009, did the two of you live separate and apart? A Yes. Q When did that occur? A I guess officially before this complaint it was April of 2008. Q So after the divorce complaint was entered in 2009, were there settlement negotiations that took place? A Yes. Q How long did those take place for? A I believe I started communicating with Mr. Wagner sometime in early 2010 to try to get some sort of resolution to the matter. We held a settlement conference, I think in my previous attorney's office, that led really nowhere. Q In 2008 you stated that you separated. Did you move out of the residence? A Yes. Q Did you allow Ms. Fischbach to stay in the marital residence? 5 A Yes. Q Did you pay any support at that time? A Yes. Q What did you pay? A I had reached an agreement with Helen sometime, I'm going to say in 2008. It was August, September time, I think. I think at that time I was paying $3,800.00 a month. Q Was this an agreement through the court or an agreement between the two of you? A Just the two of us. It was reviewed by her attorney and my attorney, but a private agreement. Q So you stated you continued with going through settlement negotiations after the filing of the divorce. Did you have to file for a Master's hearing? A Yes. Q What year was that? A 2011. Q So between the time period of 2009 and 2011 what was taking place? Why was there such a lapse between filing for a Master's hearing? A I guess enough time had passed to the point where I got to the two year time requirement where I could actually try to push the issue. I would say that was primarily the force behind it. 6 S Q Prior to filing for that Master's hearing, up until that Master's hearing were you still paying support? A Yes. I had stopped paying support under the private agreement. I think we even ended up in the courtroom here. We reached a settlement, at which time I agreed to pay less, she agreed to accept less, for a certain period, until I think it was December of 2010, at which time she filed the necessary paperwork for the Support Master to enter an official determination, whatever they call it. Q In April of 2011, you had a Master's hearing for support. Is that correct? A Yes. Q Do you recall how much you were ordered to pay in 2011 for spousal, for APL? A The total was like $2,856.00. I don't remember what the split was. Q Do you recall if that included a mortgage contribution? A Yes, it did. Q In addition to those expenses, what are you currently now paying for spousal support? A Again, the total for child and spousal, as per the last hearing we had a month or so ago, I think it is roughly $1800.00. Q Does that include a mortgage contribution? 7 S A I believe so. Q Okay. Are you also paying health insurance? A Yes. Q For the children and Mrs. Fischbach? A I do not pay health insurance for Helen. I do for the children. It is a private agreement that I have with Helen to reimburse her on a monthly basis for her costs through her insurance. Q So it is safe to say that since the separation in 2008, you have been consistently paying support? A Correct. Q So after the filing for the Master hearing what happened? Did you have a hearing in front of Master Elicker? A Yes. We had the opportunity to meet for a few hours in the morning, I think it was in August of last year. He heard testimony from my wife's side, her financial consultant. Q Were there any experts called? A Yes. An expert on her behalf, her financial, and an expert on my behalf for the financial aspects. Q What specifically was the purpose of the experts? A To discuss the valuation of a business that I 8 had owned. S Q So has there been a discrepancy regarding what the value of your business was? A Yes. It is still in the works. Q It is still currently to this day in the works. Correct? A Correct. Q So since that hearing, was there a resolution at the end of that hearing? A No. I haven't been able to get back in front of him. It was postponed for lunch. I believe Mr. Wagner had an appointment that afternoon and couldn't continue. It got delayed until later that fall. I think it got postponed at that point in time, and then it got postponed to be a settlement conference. And he hasn't set another date. Q So just to get the dates correct, if I state January 24th would be the date that the Master's hearing took place, is that correct, for the first Master's hearing? A First Master's hearing? Q Yes. A No, I think that was August. Q August? A August 4 of 2011. Q So August 4, 2011, you began the testimony with the experts in the morning. Correct? 9 S i A Correct. Also I had a couple past employees of that firm come in and provide testimony too. Q So the hearing was never concluded? A No. Q Then it was postponed until December 13, 2011. Is that correct? A That sounds about right. Q After that it was postponed again. Do you recall why? A I believe it was because I was in the midst of switching my attorneys. Q Why did you have to switch your attorney? A Sam Andes had a conflict of interest cause he is also representing my partner in the business as well as in his divorce. Q So the case was then postponed from December until February 2012. Is that correct? A I believe so. I believe that is when he had a settlement conference. Q So you said there was a settlement conference. So the remainder of the hearing did not take place on February 23rd? A No. I have yet to be called back to a hearing. Q So a settlement conference took place 10 • instead, and you have yet to be called back. Correct? A Correct. Q Mr. Fischbach, why is it that you would ask the Court to grant you the divorce prior to reaching the economic resolution? A Really because it has been over four years that we have been separated. There is no potential for any type of further relationship with her, other than through my children. Q Mr. Fischbach, would you state that the marriage is irreparably broken? A Yes, it is. Q Would you consent to filing an affidavit of consent for the divorce? A Yes. Q Mr. Fischbach, are you currently engaged to another woman? A Yes. Q When the divorce is completed, do you intend to marry? A Yes. Q How long has this relationship taken place -- A Since -- Q Let me rephrase that question. How long has your intention to remarry this woman taken place? 11 • • A I have had the intention for quite awhile. But officially since November 19 of last year. Q Mr. Fischbach where is the residence located? A 101 Media Road, Carlisle. Q That is a very close proximity to where Mrs. Fischbach resides. Is that correct? A Correct. It is actually right next door. Q What was the intention of relocating so close? A I had purchased the house that I live in now as an investment property. The intention was to purchase the home, subdivide off a portion of the property, sell that to a builder to build a home, and then sell the house. That was the intention when I was still living at home. It happened that it came to fruition after I had left the marital residence. I rented that home after I purchased it for a period of time, a couple months, and then for the remainder of 2007. I was living in an apartment, paying two mortgages, plus the rent on the apartment, and just couldn't afford to live that way. So I left the apartment and moved into that house as a result. Q Does being in such close proximity to your former marital residence allow you a good relationship with your children? 12 i A Yes, it does. Q Was that a motivating factor in choosing to relocate so close? A Yeah. It was certainly a factor that was a benefit. I can't say that I moved there specifically for the children. It was more of a cost decision because I wasn't going to be able to sell that home for what I had just purchased it in 2007 for. So having the children there was certainly a great benefit. Q Mr. Fischbach, does your fiancee reside with you? A Yes. Q Do your children know that you are engaged? A Oh, yeah. Q Do you know if Mrs. Fischbach knows that you are engaged? A I believe the children told me that they did talk with her. Q Mr. Fischbach, are you at all concerned with how your children perceive the idea of you being currently engaged and yet still married to your wife? A I have talked with them. They do find it unusual. Although they do now know what my intentions are with Carrie Ann Gilbert. They have expressed that they are pleased. They are looking forward to it. They are happy. 13 • • MS. NAGY: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WAGNER: Q Thank you. When did you actually move into your current residence? A May 2008, I believe. Q When did you and your wife separate? A Officially in April of 2008. Q When did your current fiancee move into that residence? A Fairly immediately, I think almost from day one. Q So you separated from your wife in April of 2008, moved next door into a house with your girlfriend within about one month? A Correct. Q Would we be correct in saying that the relationship with your girlfriend, your now fiancee, then began before you separated from your wife? A Correct. I have stipulated that before. Q Now, would you say that the amount of time that your children are spending with you now is less than what it was a couple of years ago? Isn't it? A Yeah. 14 I • Q The kids decided not to see you as much as they did. Did they not? A That is what I was told. Q Okay. The kids told you that? A No. Q But the kids, in fact, see you less now than they did? A They spend less nights with me now because it is more of a convenience for them to be at their mother's on school nights. Q Okay. We have had, let me ask it this way, up until the beginning of 2011 you were in a partnership called Fischbach and Morgan. Is that correct? A Fischbach Morgan and Associates. Q That is, that was an engineering firm? A Landscape architecture, land planning, yes. Q You have an engineering degree? A Yes. Q Mr. Morgan has an engineering degree? A No. Q Does not. Now, you and Mr. Morgan dissolved that sometime in the early part of 2011. Is that correct? A We closed the doors. It is still being dissolved. Q Now, Mr. Morgan is also going through a 15 • • divorce. Is that accurate? A Correct. Q And his attorney at one point was Mr. Andes? A Correct. Q And your attorney during the same time frame was Mr. Andes? A Correct. Q So you each had the same attorney as divorce lawyers? A Correct. He was also our business attorney. Q Right. And now there is some difficulties or there is some legal issues with the dissolution of that business. Is there not? Isn't that what Mr. Andes told everybody, that he had to get out of representing you and Mr. Morgan? A Mr. Andes had to get out because he wasn't providing, in my opinion, reasonable representation to each party. Q Is he currently representing Mr. Morgan? A I don't know who is representing Mr. Morgan. Q Are Fischbach and Morgan legal issues totally resolved? A As far as I know, there is no legal issue. We are in discussions as to how to finalize the division of assets. 16 Q So the division of assets of that business has not yet occurred. Has it? A No. Q Up until some point in time during the divorce proceeding, Mr. Andes was also the business lawyer? A Correct. Q Are you aware that Mr. Andes represented that he had to get out because of the business conflict? MS. NAGY: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: I will allow that. Just trying to get some background here. BY MR. WAGNER: Q Are you aware of that? A Can you repeat the question? Q Yeah. Are you aware that Mr. Andes has suggested that the reason he had to get out of the case was because of the conflict in representing the business when you had business issues? A Yeah, it was probably the reason. That is why I thought that we weren't getting equal representation. Q When did Mr. Andes remove himself from the case and you get your current counsel? A Discussions with Sam probably started in late November of 2011. I believe he probably took some sort of an official action in January of this year. 17 • Q So a couple, three months, went by while you and he were discussing whether he should continue to represent, and the decision was made that he wouldn't and you hired the current counsel? A Correct. Q When did you hire current counsel? A Fairly quickly. Probably late January, early February. Q You had mentioned, Mr. Fischbach, the support issue, specifically the Support Master's report and recommendation dated the 25th of April of 2011. In that he indicates that the defendant, you, and his partner, Mr. Morgan, chose to cease operations effective March 31, 2011. Is that a correct understanding about the time you and he decided to cease operation? A Yeah. I think that is a simplistic version of it. Q Would you agree with me that at some, at various support proceedings, your gross income for Fischbach Morgan calendar year, business year of 2009 was a million dollars? MS. NAGY: Objection. What is the relevance of the financial information of the business? THE COURT: It seems to me that benefits you because he has the ability to provide her continued support. 18 • Right? MS. NAGY: Well, Your Honor, I just don't -- THE COURT: It is one thing if you want to bifurcate, one of the requirements is the economic background, a little background on that. If you were making a million, you certainly seem to have the assets to continue to support her and her children. Right? MS. NAGY: Correct. My concern is that I don't want to get bogged down in all the complex equitable distribution and support complications. THE COURT: We won't get into that. I am not going to have this be a deposition. MS. NAGY: Thank you. MR. WAGNER: That is not intended. BY MR. WAGNER: Q Is it correct that the various support proceedings, the gross income of Fischbach Morgan in the taxable year 2009 was about a million dollars? A That is not true. Q What was it in 2009? A It is not income. That's revenue. Q What is the gross income on your tax return, Fischbach Morgan for the calendar year 2009? A I don't know. I don't have that document in front of me. The revenues were a million dollars, I am sure 19 • • the costs were several hundreds of thousands of dollars. So what nets out on my tax return is what it is. Those documents were part of all those proceedings. So whether or not I made 5 million dollars in revenue, if I have four and a half million dollars in costs, I don't see any of that. Q Simple question. What was your gross income for the business? A If you have my 2009 return, I would be happy to point the number out. Q In 2010, was it $500,000.00? A That is revenue. Q Gross income for the business? A That is revenue in dollars that we billed out and collected. Q Sir, there isn't a hidden agenda. I'm just asking was the gross revenue in 2009 over a million dollars, the gross revenue in 2010 about $500,000.00? A Those numbers sound about right. Q Okay. Despite those numbers, you ceased operation March 31, 2011, which you told me earlier you ceased operation of Fischbach and Morgan. Correct? A That is correct. Q And the Master, did he not, in that April 25, 2011, recommendation indicate that that was a voluntary reduction of your income? He made a determination. Did he 20 • • not? A I am a principal of that firm. The situation we were in economically, you could see that it dropped in revenue in one year by $500,000.00. We saw the writing on the wall. Q Did the Master -- A We saw the writing on the wall that said we are going to be in debt unless we get out of this business. So did we voluntarily do it? Yes. We had to make that decision that said we are going to be in debt unless we get out of this situation. So voluntary, yes. But a decision as a principal of the firm had to make. Q I understand that. I am asking you a simple question. Did the Master decide that in his opinion you had a voluntary reduction of income? A Simplistically, yes. Q Now, just so we are clear, 2009, gross revenue, a million dollars, 2010, gross revenue, half a million dollars. Divorce complaint was filed when? 2009? A Correct. Q When is the divorce complaint filed for Mr. Morgan? A I have no idea. Q And you ceased operation March 31, 2011? A Correct. 21 Q You filed your Master's appointment January 24, 2011, approximately two months before you ceased the operation of the business. Right? A Sure. Q After coming off a million dollar gross revenue, half a million dollar gross revenue, you filed the Motion for Appointment of Master, two months later you shut down the business. Timing, that is the correct chronological order. Correct? A Lousy timing, yes. Q Now, I believe you have already indicated to us that the legal issues with Fischbach and Morgan have not been resolved. Not the legal, but the division of assets and some other factors? A Correct. Q The valuation of Fischbach and Morgan has also been something that has actually been heard before the Master. Correct? A Correct. Q Are you aware of the Master's letter of February 15, 2012, to counsel -- I would like you to answer, not her shaking her head -- are you aware of the February letter from the Master talking about setting a conference for all four lawyers? A What was the date of the letter? 22 • • Q February 15, 2012. A I am not sure that that letter set a date for a conference. Q The letter suggested that attorneys should contact the Master to set up a four party conference with the four lawyers because we have had different valuation issues between Mr. Morgan and yourself in front of the same Master. Are you aware of that letter? A Yes, I am aware. Q Can you tell me what dates you and your lawyer have proposed to Mr. Elicker to get together since this letter is now almost four months old? A Well, I know my attorney has been in touch with you trying to get you to depose Mr. Morgan as per either that letter or another letter from Mr. Elicker, which has gone unanswered. Q Sir, we will get to that in a moment. Can you tell me what dates your attorney has proposed in response to the February 15th, it is now almost four months old, the February 15th order or request from Mr. Elicker for a four party conference? A I don't know. Because I think she is waiting on Mr. Morgan to get an attorney. Q And Mr. Morgan has not yet obtained an attorney in his divorce. Has he? 23 A I don't know that. Q Because the valuation of Fischbach and Morgan is central to two different divorce cases, that is why the Master has asked for a four party conference. Correct? A I guess so. Q So the complexities of the_economicsare such that we are still waiting for Mr. Morgan to get an attorney so four people can get together with the Master and talk about a central valuation of the business. Correct? A Which will be zero by the time all this happens. Had your client pushed through the divorce in 2009 when she filed, it would be worth something. Unfortunately it is no longer worth anything. Q That is to be decided by the Master. A That is my opinion. Q I understand that, and I respect that. Now, your plan is to get married to your current fiancee. Is that correct? A Correct. Q If the Court grants this bifurcation, you intend to marry her? A Correct. Q And even -- let's assume the Court grants it today, do you have a date set? A I am told she would need at least six months 24 to plan it. Q That six months could very well be before there is an economichresolution of these issues before the Master. Could it not? A I suppose so. Q Your lawyer on one point objected, I just want to confirm with iyou, that she wanted to make sure, I am not going to get into them, but she objected on the basis that there are complefx issues of economics, business and support in this case.; Would you agree with that, that these are complex issues? A No. I think it is very simple. Q So you disagree with your attorney? A If she needs to argue that way legally, more power to her. I think this should all be wrapped up in ten minutes. We don't love each other. It should be over. Q Do you currently have any life insurance policies? A Yes. Q Who is the beneficiary of your life insurance policies? A I haveia principal life insurance policy. I believe it is Helen acid the children. A Met life. There is a business policy that Dave Morgan had held on me that we switched ownership. I think the beneficiaries are -- it is 25 a $500,000.00 policy. I believe the beneficiaries are primarily my children and then a small portion to Carrie Ann Gilbert. Q When was that policy taken out? A Oh, it was probably taken out the mid to late part of 2005. Q At one point was your wife Helen a beneficiary of that policy? A Probably. Q At some point -- A Well, I have to think about -- I held a policy on Dave Morgan with the beneficiary being me in order to pay his wife. So, no, I don't think she was ever the beneficiary on it. Q But the 500,000 life insurance on each other's life was because at some point you as partners determined the value of this business to be a million bucks, you had 500 to pay the other guy's estate off. Correct? A Yeah. Probably a lot of legal fees. It certainly wasn't worth that in 2005 when we took it out. Q Did you sell part of the business in 2008? A Yeah, I think it was 2008. Q Five percent of the business? A Correct. Q For $50,000.00? 26 • • A Which turned into over time 10 percent. Q If my math is correct, five percent at 50,000 is a million bucks? A No. She was to get one percent per year for the next five years. It was actually 50,000 for 10 percent. Q So at some point in 2008 you valued the business at a half million dollars? A I could value it at a hundred million dollars if she was willing to pay that. Q Have you changed any beneficiaries of any life insurance policies since separation removing Helen and naming somebody else? A Other than that business policy, which took place last year, I don't think I touched the principal, and that was the only life insurance policy I had. Q Tell me about that business policy of last year. Was that the $500,000.00? A Yes. Q When in last year did you acquire that policy? A Oh, I'd say summertime. Q Of 2010 or '11? A '11. Q Have you ever disclosed the existence of that asset? In any of these proceedings so far have you ever 27 • • disclosed that on any inventory on any form that you filed with the Master that you had a half million dollars life insurance policy that you took out in the Summer of 2011? A I didn't take it out in 2011. I took it out in 2005. Q You just said -- A I said I took it out in 2005. It transferred from, I told you that Dave Morgan's policy that he had on me, he no longer wanted to pay on it for me. He wanted his policy in his name.. So we switched policy owners. Q And you then have a half million dollar policy that you own? A How is that an asset? It is a life, twenty year life term policy. I pay a premium each year of $590.00 for it. Q I understand. This a policy taken out in 2005 on Mr. Morgan and you. In the summer of 2011, you switched ownership so that you own the policy on your own life? A Correct. Q And you named as beneficiaries of the policy your current fiancee and your children? A 500,000, $150,000 to each one of my three children and 50,000 on Carrie Ann. MR. WAGNER: I have no further questions. 28 Thank you. • I THE COURT: Anything else? MS. NAGY: Yes. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. NAGY: Q Mr. Fischbach, whether the equitable distribution issues can be labeled as complex or simple, in your words, wouldn't you agree that they are currently on hold because we are waiting for David Morgan, an unrelated party to your divorce case, to obtain an attorney? A Correct. Q So the equitable distribution resolution is postponed indefinitely until David Morgan obtains an attorney. Correct? A Correct. Q Mr. -- THE COURT: Why doesn't he get an attorney? What is the deal? MS. NAGY: We don't know, Your Honor. THE COURT: Wait. THE WITNESS: What I have heard was he was in talks with a -- MS. NAGY: We don't know whether or not he wants to go forward with the divorce. THE COURT: All right. 29 s BY MS. NAGY: Q Mr. Fischbach, have you fully cooperated in all proceedings regarding equitable distribution, in terms of providing financials, moving forward with trying to get the case settled? A Yes. Q And in the event that the bifurcation would be granted, is there any reason that you would postpone moving forward with the economic issues? A No. Q Why not? A I want to get it done with. There is no reason to postpone it. Q So in the event that the bifurcation is granted, you would still fully cooperate with all economic proceedings? A Yes. Q And you are currently ordered to pay spousal support including a mortgage contribution. Correct? A Yes. Q And you would continue -- would you continue to pay those amounts? A Yes. Q So you have all intentions to continue to pay spousal support until we determine the equitable 30 distribution? A I have agreed to do it. I am ordered to do it, and I have done it when I haven't had the money to do it. THE COURT: What are you doing now? THE WITNESS: I own my own business. THE COURT: So you are in the engineering business by yourself now without a partner? THE WITNESS: Correct. My partner left, he went to work for another firm, notified me of that. I was sort of put on the spot and said, what am I going to do. So I decided to continue doing my own thing and I have successfully done that. THE COURT: You have made all your support and mortgage payments. THE WITNESS: Yes. I have had to go back and ask for a reduction because my income is no longer what it used to be. But I am still doing the same thing I was before. Just nobody seems to understand that the economic situation out there has an impact on my type of business. BY MS. NAGY: Q Mr. Fischbach, prior to being granted the reduction in income how were you able to afford your child support and spousal support payments? A I unfortunately had my godfather, an uncle of 31 mine, passed away last April, he left me a little bit of a life insurance policy, some IRA type funds that were cashed out, and I used that to pay the support. Q So even when you could not afford the full payment, you used personal life insurance funds that you received as an inheritance to pay and support your current wife and children. Correct? A Correct. Q Mr. Fischbach, there was a lot of discussion about life insurance policies. How would you describe your current health condition? A Great. Q Have you within the past year had a physical? A I'm not sure if it was within the past year, but, yes, I have had a recent physical. Q All good news? A All good news. Q Okay. MS. NAGY: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. WAGNER: I just have one. RECROSS -EXAMINATION BY MR. WAGNER: Q At the last support hearing, the tax return that you presented for the calendar year 2011 was for your 32 S business called Appian Way? A No. Appian Associates. Q I'm sorry, Appian Associates. So that tax return, did it not show a consulting fee of some $6,000.00 that was paid to your girlfriend? MS. NAGY: Objection, Your Honor. Again, what is the relevance of the financial information with the bifurcation? MR. WAGNER: The relevance, Your Honor, is the complexity of this matter, going from a million to 500,000, having insurance policies for a half million dollars back and forth between he and his partner, divorces are filed, the business is suddenly shut down, he is paying his girlfriend a commission from the business he is running now, it all shows the complexity and the integral need to not allow the bifurcation to get remarried because we don't have any control over what happens with the new wife and we don't have -- we can't force her for discovery. We can't do any of that until the economic situation in this marriage is resolved. Bifurcating creates a greater potential for problems than not granting it. Trust me, my client doesn't want to remain married to this gentleman whatsoever. It's obvious. He moved out and moved in with a girlfriend next door. But granting the bifurcation creates yet another layer that we 33 s have to get through in order to be able to bring this to a resolution. It was evident by the fact that in his last year's tax return he gave her $6,000.00 as a consulting fee. MS. NAGY: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I am going to sustain that objection. I am not seeing, Mr. Wagner, how your client's position forcing him to remain married changes any of the economic situation for her as long as he is continuing to pay the support. MR. WAGNER: It changes it because if, in fact, this valuation turns out to be, as we are going to suggest, upwards of a half million dollars, the assets that he has or that he is able to provide to pay is going to suddenly show up in his wife's name. Mark that. If something unfortunately happens to him, we are dealing with an estate in which she has an interest and we have no way of controlling that. This whole, the focus of this -- our objection is not to stay married. We want to get divorced. But for right now, with the complexities of the economic issues, and the manipulation that has occurred, is it a coincidence that they filed for a Master, two months later cease operation of a business? Is it a coincidence that last summer they keep a half million dollar life insurance policy exchanged between themselves? Is it a coincidence 34 that they are doing a million dollars in 2009, half a million in 2010, the divorce complaints are filed, they shut the business? It is that manipulation in the domestic proceeding that we have, we have been arguing and intending to show. MS. NAGY: In the equitable proceedings, not here. MR. WAGNER: But the point is, if you grant the divorce, that creates an added shelter that we can't get through. If we are able to show that this was a manipulation and the court orders that he pay her X numbers of whatever dollars, his assets could be in his wife's name. MS. NAGY: Your Honor, may I remind counsel we are no longer under a Wolk V Wolk case where you were to weigh the advantages and the disadvantages of bifurcation, which Mr. Wagner, I'm sorry, Mr. Wagner, brought up the life insurance policy in the event that Mr. Fischbach might pass away. That is a Wolk V Wolk scenario of weighing the advantages and the disadvantages. Under the 2005 amendments, Mr. Fischbach is to show compelling circumstances for wanting the divorce, which in the Bonawits case meant convincing circumstances. They found four years was enough to be convincing. That didn't even include the idea that Mr. Fischbach had wanted to remarry. 35 • • In the case of Savage V Savage, the court granted bifurcation on the fact that the parties were separated for two years and intended to re -marry. The courts have been consistent with bifurcation on the idea of allowing the party to reconstruct their lives. Move on with their lives has been a consistent phrase used. In addition, he must show compelling, two compelling circumstances. He must show economic protections are in place for wife. That has been a big, again, consistent factor. And Mr. Fischbach has shown that by from day one, when they separated, prior to any court intervention, he has always supported his wife and children. He paid spousal support. He is paying a portion of the mortgage contribution. He is paying the children's health insurance. THE COURT: I appreciate the argument. But this was one question, I sustained the objection. Any other testimony from Mr. Fischbach? MR. WAGNER: I just have one. BY MR. WAGNER: Q Are you aware of any document, any filing, any inventory, any representation of record where you disclosed the half million dollar life insurance policy taken out in 2005 and then transferred in 2011? A I don't recall. 36 • Q So you will agree you have not disclosed all assets? MS. NAGY: Objection. He said I don't recall. That is not -- THE WITNESS: I don't think that's an asset. I don't view that as an asset. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. WAGNER: No further questions. THE COURT: You may step down. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Any further testimony? MS. NAGY: No further testimony. THE COURT: Mr. Wagner? MR. WAGNER: No. THE COURT: Now, go back to argument. I guess my problem with your position, Mr. Wagner, is that I do believe, again, it is equitable distribution, trying to hide assets or whatever, can't the Master deal with that? Can't the courts deal with that? MS. NAGY: Yes. THE COURT: You are saying he gets married and then everything gets transferred and she gets nothing. Nothing in equity can be done to compel him to pay his fair share of whatever this business was valued at? MR. WAGNER: What control do I have over the 37 • • new wife? She is not part of the proceeding. Any assets that get transferred into her name we can't get back out of her name because the court doesn't have any jurisdiction over her to order her to do that. We have no authority to change beneficiaries of life insurance policies. If it is in her name or she owns the policy or, more importantly, God forbid, something should happen, that it goes her way, we don't have any control over that. I understand all the cases in the litany, that is why it doesn't say shall grant, it says may grant. It is discretionary. And it says that because initially the Legislature intended it to be part of the post equitable distribution proceedings where exceptions were filed, and said within 30 days after exceptions the court may grant the bifurcation of the divorce. It was officially intended to deal with post economic, post Master hearing cases so people could go on with their lives while litigation was pending. Then we have this nuance, we tried to do it before those issues are resolved. And that is why this statute says may. It is designed to, to create some order to the assets and equitable distribution of those assets. And we think in this case it is important not to grant the divorce until we are in that particular position of being 38 • • able to sort through those economic issues. And, again, we ask the question, February of -- THE COURT: Let me ask this question. Again, I have read your cases and your argument seems fairly compelling. But given' Mr. Wagner's argument, why can't this get settled? MS. NAGY: Your Honor, that unfortunately is what brought us here in the first place. It's that our case is uniquely linked to another divorce case, the Morgan v Morgan divorce case, and has taken the issue out our control in terms of when we can go in front of Master Flicker again to finish the conclusion of the case. I would agree -- THE COURT: Why do you say that? I know his letter invited all four people, and it would be convenient to get it all done at once. But the value of that company is a known thing. Whether he gets divorced, doesn't get divorced, or whatever, that Master can determine what the value is. MS. NAGY: Your Honor, I would like to -- I have a letter that I wrote to Master Flicker asking him to forego the deposition and recall my client stating, rather than have all four attorneys sit down and try to stipulate the value of FMA, call my client and let's finish the proceeding. Mr. Flicker communicated with me via telephone stating, again referring to his letter, that he said until 39 • • -- he was unconvinced of the expert's testimony, and in the event that once Mr. Morgan hires an attorney, we do not agree on a figure, he will allow my client to then choose more expert witnesses to determine the value. THE COURT: I guess my problem with that is suppose Morgan never hires an attorney, he never does anything. MR. WAGNER: Well, if I may say, Laurie Saltsgiver represents Mrs. Morgan, and she is in contact with me and just recently asked for some additional information. She is actively moving that forward. But I think Bob's concern, Mr. Elicker's concern was that we don't do anything in a vacuum because it creates double litigation. MS. NAGY: Your Honor MR. WAGNER: I mean a set of experts come in for Mr. Morgan and a set of experts come in for Mr. Fischbach, and we have potentially two values of the same business. That is what he wants to avoid. It makes sense to do it that way. MS. NAGY: That's a problem. When we are talking about the value of FMA, we are talking about a difference between the business being worth zero and the business being worth $120,000.00 split between two partners. So split four ways essentially. 40 • • THE PLAINTIFF: Split between two wives. MS. NAGY: But the point of the bifurcation based on the statute is for the defendant to show convincing circumstances, which Your Honor has alluded you feel there are convincing circumstances, but more, in addition, economic protections. I believe there are economic protections in place for wife. She wants to argue that because the equitable distribution has not been settled yet, there is no protections in place. I disagree with that argument. I believe he has continually paid her support. Plus prior to the Support Order, paid the mortgage on the house. He has provided for her. And this equitable distribution will essentially be settled. The minute that we have the control again in terms of settling, again, after this bifurcation is granted or not, we will attempt to move forward to settle the economic claims because he wants this to be over. The emotional, trying times of not just the divorce itself, but also the financial elements that have entangled -- THE COURT: I am assuming you would not agree that the hypothetical position that Mr. Wagner is posing is that he gets remarried and then he will never owe her anything because the new wife will have all the assets. Can that happen? 41 • MS. NAGY: Well, Your Honor, no -- MR. WAGNER: Of course it can happen. THE COURT: Why can't it? He is going to have the -- MR. WAGNER: He has a house right now. Suppose the Master decides that the business has a value of $200,000.00. We are entitled to a percentage of that. Suppose he says you are entitled to $75,000.00, Mrs. Fischbach. The only asset that he has right now is the house he lives in. Transfers that into his wife's name, we can't touch it. THE COURT: What you are saying is I am going to render myself without income for the rest of my life so I don't have to pay my fair share to my ex-wife? MS. NAGY: Exactly, Your Honor, that is absurd. THE COURT: He has a new business. He is earning something. He is always going to owe whatever that amount is. MR. WAGNER: But we are talking differences. You are talking support, I'm talking equitable distribution. MS. NAGY: Your Honor, may I -- MR. WAGNER: The assets for equitable distribution right now consist of what little assets there are in his business and a home that he has. He sold the 42 • • piece of land that he talked about. The home that he has, if that home is insulated in any way, shape or form -- and a marriage will create that, cause it creates marital interests -- if that is insulated and a Master awards a judgment in our favor of X numbers of thousands of dollars as our share of the equity in that business, we have no source from which to collect. MS. NAGY: Your Honor, that is such a far-fetched argument. Essentially what he is saying is he owns a house that he bought post separation. The marital house is a part of equitable distribution that we will, that we will figure out in equitable distribution. What Mr. Wagner is arguing is that he is going to take his house that he owns now, that he bought post separation, and transfer it to his potential new wife just to avoid paying a potential claim that they might say that he owes. He can take out loans. Let's say that they order him to pay $75,000.00. He is saying, well, he is going to transfer the house into his wife's name so he can't pay that $75,000.00. He can take out a loan and pay that $75,000.00. It can come from another source. It doesn't have to come from a marital asset with his new wife. THE COURT: All right. MR. WAGNER: One final point. The Master 43 • • concluded, the Support Master, and he agreed, in 2010 he voluntarily reduced his income. That is important. The voluntary undertaking is the lynchpin of why we can't lose whatever little control we have now not being divorced. MS. NAGY: Your Honor, that was in a child support -- that has nothing to do -- THE COURT: Suppose he just said, I am not doing another thing. I am not going to work. I am going to become a hippy and I am just going to live on the streets. What is your remedy then? Am I going to hold him in contempt and put him in jail? I guess you could do that. But it is not getting your client anymore money. MR. WAGNER: If there is an equitable distribution order in my favor and there is no assets from which to collect, she has lost it. There are now assets from which to collect. MS. NAGY: Your Honor, my client is not going to dissipate his assets and put himself in the poor house just to avoid paying his wife. That is unreasonable. She says she wants this marriage. I believe or she wants this divorce. I believe she doesn't want to grant him the divorce out of spite. THE COURT: I don't believe that either. It is a very difficult situation and she is trying to insure 44 • • that she is getting her fair share. MS. NAGY: She will get her fair share, Your Honor. She absolutely will. That is what equitable distribution court is. And there are economic protections in place to insure regardless of if the equitable distribution court says Mr. Fischbach, we determine that you voluntary reduced your income, you owe her X amount of money in equitable distribution court, he will owe that regardless of whether he dissipated all the assets or not. THE COURT: Mr. Wagner's position though is, is there any way to get the money immediately or do I have an IOU for the rest of my life. I have got a new wife, and I probably have more interest in making sure she is comfortable than his ex-wife. That makes some sense too. Right? MS. NAGY: Your Honor, I think based on the history that they have been separated for over five years, he has always provided for his wife. THE COURT: That is very honorable that he did that. But things change. I think I understand this. I am going to take it under advisement. Anybody want to submit anything? It is a pretty simple record. MR. WAGNER: Unless the Court wants it, I am satisfied the record is okay. 45 THE COURT: Thank you very much. MS.. NAGY: Hang on, Your Honor. My client just wanted to make it clear for the record in terms of when we are talking numbers, because we did talk a lot about the equitable distribution, that whatever the Court decides the business FMA is worth, and it's divided four ways, her share of FMA will be less than what -- he plans to give her the house that she currently lives in, that he has been providing for all this time. It will be less than the equity in the house. So he is going to make plans to give her the house. Economic protections are in place, and we just wanted to make that clear for the record, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. We will stand in recess. MR. WAGNER: Thank you, Judge. (Whereupon, the proceeding was concluded.) 46 • • CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause,and that this is a correct transcript of same. aria T. Farley, Official Court Rep.` er The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. Date 11,` 17 l lei M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. Ninth Judicial Di_trict 47