The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-2203 Civil JAMES LEE WHITSEL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : SABRINA LYNN WHITSEL, : Defendant : NO. 05-2203 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT’S EXECPTIONS TO DIVORCE MASTER’S REPORT BEFORE HESS, OLER and EBERT, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., July 31, 2007. For disposition in the present divorce case are exceptions to the Divorce Master’s 1 Report filed by Defendant pro se. The Divorce Master recommends that a divorce be 2 granted to Plaintiff under Section 3301(a)(5) of the Divorce Code. Defendant’s exceptions state in their entirety: “I [Defendant] am filing a disagreement to the motion of 3 finalization in the divorce proceeding of James Lee Whitsel and Sabrina Lynn Whitsel.” For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant’s exceptions will be dismissed and a final decree of divorce will be entered in accordance with the recommendations of the Divorce Master upon the filing of a praecipe to transmit record and a proposed decree. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, James L. Whitsel, filed a Supplemental Complaint in Divorce on January 10, 2006, requesting that he be granted a divorce from Defendant Sabrina Lynn Whitsel. Plaintiff claimed as a ground for divorce that, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §3301(a)(5), Plaintiff is an innocent and injured spouse and Defendant has been sentenced to 4 imprisonment for more than two years. 1 Defendant’s Exceptions to Master’s Report, filed December 26, 2006. 2 Master’s Report and Transcript of Proceedings, filed December 13, 2006, at 9. 3 Defendant’s Exceptions to Master’s Report, filed December 26, 2006. 4 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint in Divorce, filed January 10, 2006. A hearing was held on December 26, 2006, before the Cumberland County Divorce Master. Defendant was not present at the hearing because she is currently 5 incarcerated. Prior to the hearing, Defendant indicated that she would provide a telephone number and be available for contact during the hearing but did not, in fact, 6 provide any contact information in time for the hearing. At the hearing, Plaintiff introduced the docket record of Franklin County in the case of Commonwealth v. Sabrina Whitsel, (No. CP-28-CR-0000203-2003), as evidence that Defendant was sentenced to a minimum of eight years in prison in 2003 for two counts of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence and is currently serving 7 the sentence in a state facility. Based on Plaintiff’s testimony and the docket record, the Divorce Master was satisfied that Plaintiff was an innocent and injured spouse and that Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years. Accordingly, the Master recommended that Plaintiff be granted a divorce under Section 89 3301(a)(5) of the Divorce Code. No economic claims were raised by either party. DISCUSSION Section 3301 of the Divorce Code permits the court to “grant a divorce to an innocent and injured spouse whenever it is judged that the other spouse has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two or more years upon conviction of having 10 committed a crime.” Defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more 5 Master’s Report and Transcript of Proceedings, filed December 13, 2006, at 1. 6 Master’s Report and Transcript of Proceedings, filed December 13, 2006, at 1; letter from Defendant to Divorce Master (November 30, 2006); letter from Defendant to Divorce Master (December 7, 2006) 7 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Master’s Report and Transcript of Proceedings, filed December 13, 2006. 8 Master’s Report and Transcript of Proceedings, filed December 13, 2006, at 9. 9 Master’s Report and Transcript of Proceedings, filed December 13, 2006, at 6. 10 23 Pa. C.S. §3301(a)(5). 2 than two years. In addition, after reviewing the hearing transcript and the docket record, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is an innocent and injured spouse. Concerning the exceptions, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.55-2 states 11 that “each exception shall set forth a separate objection precisely….” Although Defendant’s exceptions were filed within the time limit prescribed by Pa. R.C.P. 1920.55-2(2)(b), they fail to meet the level of specificity required for exceptions to masters’ reports. In Barner v. Barner the court determined that a “general exception” fails to comply with the rule’s requirement that “exceptions state objections precisely.” Barner v. Barner, 527 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (citing Nord v. Devault Contracting Company, Inc., 460 Pa. 647, 334 A.2d 276 (1975. Defendant’s lone )) exception is a “general exception” to the divorce master’s recommendation in its entirety, 12 because it does not object to any “particular findings of fact” or “conclusions of law.” As such it is an ineffective exception and must be dismissed. A final decree of divorce will be entered in accordance with the recommendations of the Divorce Master upon receipt of praecipe to transmit record from Plaintiff ORDER OF COURT st AND NOW, this 31 day of July, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant’s Exceptions to Master’s Report and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, Defendant’s exceptions are dismissed and a decree in divorce will be issued upon the filing of a praecipe to transmit the record and a proposed decree. 11 Pa. R.C.P. 1920.55-2 (2) (b) (2007). 12 Pa. R.C.P. 1920.55-2 (2) (b) (2007). 3 BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. E. Robert Elicker, II, Esq. 9 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Cumberland County Divorce Master H. Anthony Adams, Esq. 49 West Orange Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Attorney for Plaintiff Sabrina Lynn Whitsel, OH-5721 P.O. Box 180 Muncy, PA 17756 Defendant pro se 4 5 JAMES LEE WHITSEL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : SABRINA LYNN WHITSEL, : Defendant : No. 05 – 2203 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT’S EXECPTIONS TO DIVORCE MASTER’S REPORT BEFORE HESS, OLER and EBERT, JJ. ORDER OF COURT st AND NOW, this 31 day of July, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant’s Exceptions to Master’s Report and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, Defendant’s exceptions are dismissed and a decree in divorce will be issued upon the filing of a praecipe to transmit the record and a proposed decree. BY THE COURT, _________________ J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. E. Robert Elicker, II, Esq. 9 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Cumberland County Divorce Master H. Anthony Adams, Esq. 49 West Orange Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Attorney for Plaintiff Sabrina Lynn Whitsel, OH-5721 P.O. Box 180 Muncy, PA 17756 Defendant pro se