Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-2452 CivilMARGARET E. FOLMAR, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CARL T. FOLMAR, Defendant NO. 2452 CIVIL 1991 IN DIVORCE IN RE: BIFURCATION BEFORE OLER J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 1993, after careful consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Bifurcation of the divorce and economic claims in this matter, and following a hearing, the Petition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit aro p posed divorce decree to the Court, including thereon a notation that jurisdiction is retained as to those economic issues remaining in the case. Stephen J. Hogg, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Robert S. Mirin, Esq. 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111-5260 Attorney for Defendant :rc BY THE COURT, MARGARET E. FOLMAR, Plaintiff V. CARL T. FOLMAR, Defendant Oler, J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2452 CIVIL 1991 IN DIVORCE IN RE: BIFURCATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT For disposition in this divorce action is a Petition for Bifurcation filed by Plaintiff wife. The Petition is opposed by the Defendant husband. After a hearing held on Monday, February 22, 1993, the following Findings of Fact, Discussion and Order of Court are made and entered: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff and Petitioner is Margaret E. Folmar, an adult individual residing at 75 Bonnybrook Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant and Respondent is Carl T. Folmar, an adult individual residing at Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community, Marsh Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The parties were married on March 5, 1986. 4. It has been stipulated at the hearing that the marriage of the parties is irretrievably broken and that they have lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years. 5. The divorce complaint in this matter was filed on July 17, 1991. 6. The primary item of marital property appears to be a jointly owned mobile No. 2452 Civil 1991 home presently occupied by Plaintiff wife. 7. The balance due on the parties' mortgage on the mobile home ($14,000) exceeds the value of the home ($9,000). 8. Disputes in the area of equitable distribution include proper division of or credit for certain items of furniture, a Montgomery Ward debt in Defendant's name but of contested origin, and so forth. 9. The yearly income of each party is about $13,000; neither party has a substantial estate which might be subject to claim by a surviving spouse. 10. The parties have been unable to settle their differences as to equitable distribution. H. Plaintiff wishes this action bifurcated so that she can get on with her life. 12. Defendant wishes economic matters settled before a divorce is entered. 13. There are no tax, pension, medical insurance, or similar disadvantages to either party from bifurcation, nor would two hearings be occasioned by an order for bifurcation. 14. Bifurcation would have the advantage of permitting the parties to proceed with their lives unencumbered by a marital relationship which appears unfortunately to have proven unpleasant for each. 15. The consequences of bifurcating this case will be of greater benefit than not bifurcating. 2 No. 2452 Civil 1991 DISCUSSION Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.52(c), in a divorce action "[t]he court need not determine all claims at one time but may enter a decree adjudicating a specific claim or claims." See also Act of December 19,1990, P.L. 1240, §2, 23 Pa. C.S. §3323(c). However, "bifurcation should not be made pro -forma." Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual §6.06, at 192 (1990). Rather, such a determination should be made only after the disadvantages and 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). "The trend throughout the state ... has been to allow bifurcation so long as there is no economic prejudice to the dependent spouse as a result of bifurcation."' "Advantages cited by the Wolk 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 (Cumberland Co. 1992). "The disadvantages pointed out by the court include: The need for two hearings if 1 Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual §6.01, at 187 (1990). 3 No. 2452 Civil 1991 there is no settlement, delay in the resolution, inability of parties to file a joint tax return, and the effect on the right to receive the proceeds of insurance policies." Id. A decision on the question of bifurcation is a matter of judicial discretion,2 and in the present case a balancing of the considerations involved in such a decision leads the Court to conclude that the benefits of bifurcation herein outweigh any disadvantages. For this reason, the following Order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 1993, after careful consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Bifurcation of the divorce and economic claims in this matter, and following a hearing, the Petition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed divorce decree to the Court, including thereon a notation that jurisdiction is retained as to those economic issues remaining in the case. Stephen J. Hogg, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 2 Id., §6.07, at 194. BY THE COURT, 4 J. No. 2452 Civil 1991 Robert S. Mirin, Esq. 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17HI-5260 Attorney for Defendant :rc