Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-2220 civilDOROTHY E. SCHNEIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 93-2220 CIVIL : WILLIAM H. SCHNEIDER, :IN DIVORCE Defendant IN RE: EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, ~ ~l, I {~ ~, it is ordered and decreed that, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3502, the parties marital assets are to be distributed as directed in the opinion filed this date. Plaintiff's request for alimony is denied. By the Court, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff Jennifer L. Lehman, Esquire 3540 North Progress Avenue Suite 207 Harrisburg, PA 17110 For the Defendant DOROTHY E. SCHNEIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 93-2220 CIVIL : WILLIAM H. SCHNEIDER, :IN DIVORCE Defendant : IN RE: EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION HOFFER, P.J.: FINDINGS OF FACT Dorothy E. Schneider, Plaintiff, filed for divorce from William H. Schneider, Defendant, on July 8, 1993. The parties separated commencing January 18, 1993. They both remained in the marital home until May 22, 1994. The parties were married on October 7, 1977, in Hagerstown, Maryland after meeting in Ohio. Plaintiff had three children from prior relationships and had been married briefly before meeting the Defendant. Defendant had a prior marriage, with no children, from 1971 to 1975. The parties had two children during their marriage: Vanessa, born June 9, 1979, and Erika, born October 3, 1981. Legal custody of the children is shared by the parties and Defendant has primary physical custody. Vanessa is currently a full time student at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and lives with her father during summer and holiday breaks. Erika is a high school student. Defendant provides medical coverage and insurance for himself and his two daughters. 93-2220 CIVIL TERM Plaintiff has an undergraduate degree in Health and Physical Education from Hunter College and a Master's Degree in Physical Education from Ohio State University. At the time of the parties' marriage, Plaintiff was pursuing a Ph.D. at Ohio State. After marrying, the parties moved to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff worked at The Pennsylvania State University early in the marriage. During the marriage, Plaintiff has performed significant work on a volunteer basis. After she left the marital home, Plaintiff worked for a short time at the Bon- Ton Department Store. In the fall of 1995, Plaintiff moved to Ohio to continue to pursue, full time, her Ph.D. from Ohio State University. Currently, Plaintiff is able to pay her school tuition through gifts from her family. A hearing officer from the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office has attributed an earning capacity to the Plaintiff of $1,178.00 per month. Defendant has a high school diploma and training in the insurance industry. During most of the marriage, Defendant was employed by Equitable Insurance, selling life insurance. Defendant left Equitable Insurance in 1993 over a commission dispute. Since that time he has been self employed as an independent insurance agent. The Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office has determined Defendant's net income to be $1,967.00 per month. In August of 1995, Defendant was ordered to pay $741.00 per month to the Plaintiff in spousal support. For each of the next two years, Defendant applied for 2 93-2220 CIVIL TERM and was granted a reduction in support payments. In May of 1997, the support was terminated completely? The Domestic Relations Office found that, because Defendant had primary custody of the children and Plaintiff's earning capacity had risen to $1,178.00 per month, compared to Defendant's monthly earnings of $1,967.00, support for the Plaintiff was no longer necessary. The parties had the following assets at the time of separation: (1) the marital residence, with an equity value of approximately $63,000; (2) an investment property, with an equity value of approximately $73,000; (3) an IRA valued at $47,451.10 on June 30, 1993, cashed in by Defendant, with taxes due, mainly to pay madtal debt, in 1994; (4) an IRA in Plaintiff's name with a value of nearly $5,000; (5) a pension valued at approximately $100,000, received by Defendant through his employment at Equitable Insurance; (6) a pension, valued at $6,890.00, in Plaintiff's name which she received for teaching positions held pdor to and during the early years of the marriage; (7) two life insurance policies, one in each of the parties' names, with approximately the same cash surrender value; (8) three vehicles, a 1988 Pontiac Fiero and a 1985 Ford Country Squire in possession of ~ Defendant fell behind in the original payments. He was ordered to and shall continue to pay $100.00 per month to the Plaintiff until all past due amounts are paid in full. 3 93-2220 CIVIL TERM the Defendant and a van retained by the Plaintiff 2; and (9) various personal property. Since separation, Defendant has remained in the family home with the children. When Plaintiff left the residence, she took with her certain personal property, including a personal computer. The value of the property remaining in the marital residence has been valued at $3,220.00, according to an appraisal done by Chuck E. Bricker, Auctioneer. The value of the property removed from the home by the Plaintiff is in dispute. The parties agree that each should keep the property currently in their possession with the exception of a cherry dining room set. Defendant is in possession of the dining room furniture and Plaintiff would like it delivered to her. At the completion of a headng in this matter in December of 1996, Plaintiff requested certain additional personal property from the marital residence. An agreement for the amicable exchange of the items could not be reached. In March of 1997, Defendant placed the items Plaintiff requested in a storage unit at Carlisle Rent-A-Space, paid one month's rent and sent the key to Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff refused to take the items and returned the key to Defendant's counsel. Defendant did not want the items back and left them in storage so that the storage 2 Defendant paid the cost of transferring the title to the van to the Plaintiff in December of 1997. 4 93-2220 CIVIL TERM owner could sell them in lieu of rent. Plaintiff now informs the Court that she is willing to take possession of the items but does not believe that she should be responsible for the past due rent on the storage unit. The Court is now prepared to distribute the parties' marital property. The parties agree on a great number of issues. The main points of contention involve the $100,000 pension, the cherry dining reom furniture, the past due rent on the storage space at Carlisle Rent-A-Space and whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to alimony. DISCUSSION Equitable Distribution The Divorce Code sets out a number of factors to be considered in determining the equitable division of marital property. The relevant factors are as follows: (1) The length of the marriage. (2) Any prior marriage of either party. (3) The age, health, station, amount and source of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties. (4) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party. (5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income. 5 93-2220 CIVIL TERM (6) The sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits. (7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker. (8) The value of the property set apart to each party. (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. (10) The economic circumstances of each party, including Federal, State and local tax ramifications at the time the division of property is to become effective. (11 ) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any dependent minor children. 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3502. Taking into account the factors listed above, the Court finds that the marital property should be distributed as follows: (1) Defendant, Husband, will take full possession and title to the marital residence, with an approximate equity value of $63,000; (2) Plaintiff, Wife, will take full possession and title to the investment property, with an equity value of approximately $73,000; (3) the IRA cashed in, mainly to pay marital debt, in 1994 has no effect on equitable distribution because the funds were used to pay joint debt and were included in husband's income for 6 93-2220 CIVIL TERM 1994 3; (4) the IRA in Plaintiff's name will be retained by the Plaintiff; (5) Defendant's pension, with an approximate value of $100,000, shall be split evenly between the parties; (6) the pension in Plaintiff's name shall be retained by the Plaintiff; (7) each party will keep the insurance policy in their own name; (8) the 1988 Pontiac and the 1984 Ford shall be retained by the Defendant and the van shall be retained by the Plaintiff; and (9) each party will keep the personal property currently in their possession, including the cherry dining room furniture that will be retained by the Defendant. The past due rent on the storage unit is an obligation owed by both parties. Defendant rented the space and Plaintiff will take possession of the items in storage. As such, the past due rent for the storage unit at Carlisle Rent-A-Space shall be paid in equal amounts by both parties. Alimony The decision regarding whether to award alimony, and to what degree alimony should be ordered "requires an assessment, inter alia, of the needs and capabilities of the recipient and a consideration of those factors which might impede the recipient spouse's future economic independence." Zullo v. Zullo, 395 3 Original support payments were based upon Defendant's income in the early 1990's. Plaintiff received payments from the Defendant. The estimated incomes of both parties have changed and support has been terminated. 7 93-2220 CIVIL TERM Pa. Super. 113, 576 A.2d 1070 (1990), afl'd, 531 Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992). The relevant factors for consideration whether alimony should be granted are as follows: (1) The relative earnings and earning capacities of the parties. (2) The ages and physical, mental and emotional conditions of the parties. (3) The source of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits. (4) The expectancies and inheritances of the parties. (5) The duration of the marriage. (6) The contribution by one party to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other party. (7) The extent to which the earning power, expenses or financial obligations of a party will be affected by reason of serving as the custodian of a minor child. (8) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. (9) The relative education of the parties and the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking alimony to find appropriate employment. (10) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties. (11) The property to be brought to the marriage by either party. 8 93-2220 CIVIL TERM (12) The contribution of a spouse as homemaker. (13) The relative needs of the parties. (14) The marital misconduct of either of the parties during the marriage .... (15) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications of the alimony award. (16) Whether the party seeking alimony lacks sufficient property.., to provide for the party's reasonable needs. (17) Whether the party seeking alimony is incapable of self-support through appropriate employment. 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3701. The duration of the alimony, either definite or indefinite, shall be determined by what is reasonable under the circumstances. Id. Proper employment of judicial discretion includes the mandate to apply the Divorce Code in a compassionate and reasonable manner to effectuate the overriding goal of achieving economic justice between the parties. Murphy v. Murphy, 410 Pa. Super. 146, 599 A.2d 647 (1991). Upon consideration of the factors suggested in the Divorce Code, Plaintiff will not be awarded alimony. The Domestic Relations Office has determined the Plaintiff's earning capacity to be close to the income earned by the Defendant. The Defendant maintains primary physical custody of the children. Plaintiff has been given property with a slightly higher value in equitable distribution. Plaintiff retained the pension and IRA in her name and received the investment property 9 93-2220 CIVIL TERM with a higher equitable value. Defendant retained the marital residence and any benefit received from cashing in the IRA in 1994. The $100,000 pension was split evenly. Plaintiff is an educated person, capable of self support. Alimony is not necessary to achieve economic justice.