The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-1399 Civil JONNIE A. LEAPHART, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW THOMAS NILES GOLLICK, SR. Defendant NO. 01-1399 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., February 20, 2006. This divorce action was commenced by the filing of a complaint, with a count for equitable distribution, in 2001.1 For disposition at this time is a petition for bifurcation filed by Plaintiff? A hearing on the petition was held on February 8,2006. F or the reasons stated in this opinion, the petition will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS The parties were married, according to Plaintiffs complaint, on February 19, 1998? Her complaint, filed on March 12, 2001, was based upon an alleged separation of two years and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage 4 A count for equitable distribution was included in the complaint,5 but according to Plaintiff s counsel the only item to be distributed is "some debt.,,6 1 Complaint under Section 300l(c) or 330l(d) of the Divorce Code, filed March 12, 2001 (hereinafter Complaint~. 2 Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, filed October 6,2005. 3 Complaint ~ 4. 4 Complaint ~ 6. 5 Complaint, Count 2, ~~ 1-3. 6 NT. ----" Hearing, February 8, 2006. Plaintiff did not, by her counsel's admission, vigorously pursue a resolution of the action.7 Much of her effort has been directed toward securing the exclusion of Defendant from medical insurance coverage provided by her employer at no cost to her. 8 An order was entered by agreement of counsel on October 13, 2003, whereby Plaintiff agreed to file a praecipe for appointment of a divorce master and to confirm the continued existence of the aforesaid medical coverage of Defendant.9 On January 30, 2004, Defendant filed a petition for contempt against Plaintiff, averring that she had "neither filed a Praecipe for Appointment of Master nor . . . confirmed for Defendant that he [ was] still covered by her health . ,,10 Insurance . . . . As of May 19, 2004, Plaintiff had still not filed a praecipe for appointment of a master and, pursuant to an agreement of the parties, she was adjudicated in contempt of the court's October 13, 2003, order.ll The divorce master was appointed by the court on May 24, 2004,12 but a hearing has not yet been held in the case,13 and it is apparent to the court that neither party has aggressively pursued a disposition of the case.14 The petition for bifurcation sub judice was filed by Plaintiff on October 6, 2005.15 It alleges that "Petitioner's employer is renegotiating its health insurance and Petitioner may be forced to exp[ e ]nd large sums of money to obtain health care coverage, and those sums of money will increase substantially if Respondent 7 NT. ----" Hearing, February 8, 2006. 8 See, e.g., Plaintiffs Petition for Special Relief and Bifurcation, filed May 14,2003. 9 Order of Court, October 13,2003. 10 Petition for Contempt, ~ 4, filed January 30, 2004. 11 Order of Court, May 19,2004. 12 Order Appointing Master, May 24,2004. 13 NT. -----" Hearing, February 8, 2006. 14 NT. -----" Hearing, February 8, 2006. 15 Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, filed October 6,2005. 2 remains on her health insurance,,,16 that "Plaintiff wishes to remarry,,,17 and that "[b ]ifurcation will not prejudice the rights of either party.,,18 Defendant filed an answer in opposition to the petition on October 31, 2005.19 At a hearing held by the court on Plaintiff s petition, the evidence tended to show that (a) Plaintiff has medical problems in the form of dry eyes and neck and back problems, (b) Plaintiff mayor may not have cancer, (c) medical insurance coverage is provided free of charge through Plaintiff s employer to Plaintiff and Defendant, (d) at some point in the future this insurance coverage may not continue to be free, (e) Plaintiff would like to remarry, (f) Defendant suffers from diabetes for which he takes Glucovance and Actos, (g) Defendant also suffers from a condition for which he takes Wellbutrin, and (h) the loss of insurance coverage provided by Plaintiff s employer would be a financial hardship for Defendant. 20 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].,,21 "[B]ifurcation should not be made pro-forma." Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual 96.06, at 192 (1990). 16 Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, ~ 5, filed October 6, 2005 (emphasis added). 17 Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, ~ 7, filed October 6, 2005. 18 Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, ~ 8, filed October 6, 2005. 19 Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation with New Matter, filed October 31, 2005. 20 NT. _-----" Hearing, February 8, 2006. 21 Act of December 19, 1990, P.L. 1240, ~2, as amended, 23 Pa. C.S. ~3323(c.l) (emphasis added). 3 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. Wolk v. Wolk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 317-18, 464 A.2d 1359, 1362 (1983). In the present case, where the economic issue between the parties involves only a division of debt, where Plaintiff could have long since secured a resolution of the case through the master's process and thus "gotten on with her life," where a bifurcation would cause a financial hardship to Defendant through the loss of insurance coverage, where any loss to Plaintiff through provision of continued coverage is entirely hypothetical at this time, and where Plaintiff s medical condition in terms of cancer is also hypothetical and Defendant's medical condition in the form of diabetes is not hypothetical, the court is unable to conclude ( a) that sufficient economic protections will be provided to Defendant should bifurcation be ordered, (b) that the consequences of bifurcating the case will be of greater benefit than not bifurcating, or (c) that "compelling circumstances" exist for entry of a divorce decree at this time. For these reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, and following a hearing held on February 8, 2006, the petition is denied. BY THE COURT, sf 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. 4 Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Herschel Lock, Esq. 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-1310 Attorney for Defendant 5 6 JONNIE A. LEAPHART, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW THOMAS NILES GOLLICK, SR. Defendant NO. 01-1399 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR BIFURCATION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition for Bifurcation, and following a hearing held on February 8, 2006, the petition is denied. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Herschel Lock, Esq. 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-1310 Attorney for Defendant