Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-2728 Civil JOAN M. BEATTIE, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM H. BEATTIE, Defendant NO. 96-2728 CIVIL TERM OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, 1. August 31, 2005. In this divorce case which was commenced in 1996, both parties agree that they have lived separate and apart for at least two years and that their marriage is irretrievably broken. For disposition at the present time is a petition for bifurcation of the proceedings filed by Plaintiff wife; a hearing was held on the petition on August 3,2005, and August 25,2005. Plaintiff, who has unfortunately been diagnosed with a progressIve, incurable disease, wishes to proceed with her life unfettered by a marriage that is over. Defendant, who has twice previously been sanctioned in connection with discovery matters, and who has twice agreed to bifurcation and then withdrawn his agreement, opposes the petition. F or the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff s petitionurcation will be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff is Joan M. Beattie, 55; she resides at 75 Partridge Circle, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is William H. Beattie, 58; he resides at III Clemson Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties were married on December 6, 1969, and separated on AprilS, 1996. 4. The parties have been separated for at least two years and their marriage is irretrievably broken. 5. Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce in this matter on May 16, 1996. 6. Defendant on two occasions during the course of the proceedings agreed in writing to a bifurcation of the divorce proceedings and then withdrew his consent. 7. Defendant's lapses with respect to discovery have led to two court- ordered sanctions. 8. As a result of an automobile accident in 1993, Plaintiff remains in pain and receives prescription pain medication in the form of Vicodin and OxyContin; she also regularly takes an over-the-counter pain medication in the form of Tylenol. 9. In November of 2002, Plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a progressive, incurable illness which causes her weakness, pain, insomnia and tremors, and limits her ability to walk continuously for more than a few minutes, and for which she receives weekly injections of an experimental interferon compound called Avonex, at a cost of $1,000.00 per injection. 10. Plaintiff has found someone who is romantically interested in her. 11. Defendant had heart attacks in 1996 and 1997, and has had two stints inserted in connection with his heart; he testified that he has been told recently that further heart surgery would be advisable, but no medical testimony was presented to this effect. 12. As a federal retiree, Plaintiff has health insurance which has, at Plaintiff s expense, also been covering Defendant as her spouse. 13. By an election made within 60 days of a divorce decree, Defendant may continue to be covered by this insurance for a period of three years, with the cost of such coverage to Defendant being limited to the cost of the government's and emollee's share of the premium and an administrative fee of 2%. 1 1 Plaintiffs Ex. 5, Hearing, August 25, 2005. 2 14. There is also a possibility of eventual permanent coverage of Defendant by this insurance, depending upon the scheme of equitable distribution ultimately adopted.2 15. Based upon the foregoing, the purported concern of Defendant in opposing bifurcation based upon an anticipated loss of insurance coverage is not compelling. 16. There do not appear to the court to be any significant disadvantages to bifurcation in this case. 17. The advantages of bifurcation, including facilitation of Plaintiff s ability to restructure her life while some of its quality remains, outweigh any disadvantages. DISCUSSION Under Section 3323(c.l) of the Domestic Relations Code, "the court may enter a decree of divorce or annulment prior to the final determination and disposition of [ economic claims] if . . . the movmg party has demonstrated. . . compelling circumstances exist for the entry of the decree of divorce or annulment. . . and sufficient economic protections have been provided for the other party during the pendency of the disposition of [economic claims].,,3 "[B]ifurcation should not be made pro-forma." Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual 96.06, at 192 (1990). Rather, such a determination should be made only after the disadvantages and the advantages have been carefully explored and analyzed. Each case must be reviewed on its own facts and only following the court's determination that the consequences of bifurcating the case will be of greater benefit than not bifurcating, should it grant the petition. Walk v. Walk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 317-18, 464 A.2d 1359, 1362 (1983). 2Id. 3 Act of December 19,1990, P.L. 1240, ~2, as amended, 23 Pa. C.S. ~ 3323(c.l). 3 "Advantages cited by the Walk court for granting bifurcation include: The speedy resolution of the divorce which permits the parties to quickly begin restructuring their lives, encouragement of settlements, [and] tax advantages in being able to remarry and file jointly with a spouse and avoiding the status of married filing separately. . .." Hitt v. Hitt, No. 308 Civil 1990, slip op. at 6 n.l (Sheely, P.l, Cumberland Co., Feb. 12, 1992); see also Savage v. Savage, 1999 P A Super. 197, ,-r38, 736 A.2d 633, 645 (1999). Disadvantages can include, of course, a party's loss of medical insurance coverage dependent upon spousal status. See generally Taylor v. Taylor, 349 Pa. Super. 423, 503 A.2d 439 (1986). A decision on the question of bifurcation is relegated to the sound discretion of the trial court. Brian v. Brian, 2005 P A Super. 127, 872 A.2d 843 (2005). In the present case, considerations of the protracted duration of the present case to date, Defendant's less than exemplary contribution to the progress of the litigation, the need of Plaintiff to restructure her life while a degree of quality remains intact, the protection available to Defendant with respect to a continuation of medical insurance coverage, and the absence of any significant disadvantages discernible to the court from bifurcation have militated in favor of the following order, granting Plaintiff s petition for bifurcation: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiffs petition for bifurcation, following a hearing held on August 3, 2005, and August 25, 2005, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The divorce action is bifurcated as to the Issue of divorce and the issues involving economic claims; 2. Plaintiff may at any time hereafter file a praecipe to transmit the record requesting entry of a divorce decree under Section 3301(d) of the Domestic Relations Code. 3. No other relief is granted to either party at this time. * 4 BY THE COURT, sf 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Wayne F. Shade, Esq. 53 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Defendant *Defendant had requested an award of attorney's fees in connection with a request for special relief that Plaintiff joined with the petition for bifurcation, and then withdrew. See Order of Court, August 3, 2005. 5 6 JOAN M. BEATTIE, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM H. BEATTIE, Defendant NO. 96-2728 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiffs petition for bifurcation, following a hearing held on August 3, 2005, and August 25, 2005, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. The divorce action is bifurcated as to the Issue of divorce and the issues involving economic claims; 2. Plaintiff may at any time hereafter file a praecipe to transmit the record requesting entry of a divorce decree under Section 3301(d) of the Domestic Relations Code. 3. No other relief is granted to either party at this time. * BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Wayne F. Shade, Esq. 53 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Defendant *Defendant had requested an award of attorney's fees in connection with a request for special relief that Plaintiff joined with the petition for bifurcation, and then withdrew. See Order of Court, August 3, 2005.