HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-879 (2)
DENNIS M. BERDANIER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
v.
: DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
:
RANDA J. TODD, : No. 99-879 CIVIL
Defendant/Respondent : PACSES NO. 403000022
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a)
Ebert, Jr., J., August 21, 2012 –
On December 22, 2010, Dennis Berdanier, filed a Petition to Modify requesting
termination of his obligation to pay alimony. Non-Jury trial in the matter was held on
March 3, 2012. The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on June 6, 2012, an Order was entered by this Court granting Dennis Berdanier’s
Petition to Modify. His alimony obligation was terminated retroactive to December 22,
2010.
The Appellant appealed this Order on June 29, 2012. She raises the following
matters on appeal:
1. The trial court abused its discretion in concluding
that alimony should be terminated by misapplying the
factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3701…
2. The trial court erred in failing to find the
Plaintiff/Petitioner in Contempt.
3. The trial court erred in failing to award
Defendant/Respondent legal fees.
This opinion is filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (a) to supplement our prior
opinion filed on June 6, 2012 in this case. The record indicated that Appellee had
faithfully paid all his required alimony until he retired and filed his Petition to Modify on
December 22, 2010. The Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office had agreed to
hold the alimony order in abeyance pending this Court’s decision regarding the Petition
to Modify. Accordingly, this Court did not find that Appellee had willfully breached the
order of alimony and he was not held in contempt. Given this result and in the exercise
of its discretion, this Court did not feel that an award of attorney’s fees was appropriate.
Our previous opinion of June 6, 2012, adequately discusses the consideration of
the factors outlined in 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3701(b). The standard of review in cases such as
this is to determine “whether the trial court has, in deciding the case, abused its
discretion; that is, committed not merely an error of judgment but has overridden or
misapplied the law, or has exercised judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the
product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will as demonstrated by the evidence of
record.” Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 849 A.2d 582 (Pa. 2004). While the decision made by
this Court in this case, given the age, health and situation of both parties, was difficult, it
was not an abuse of discretion or a manifestly unreasonable judgment.
By the Court,
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Lori K. Serratelli, Esquire
Attorney for Berdanier
Ann V. Levin, Esquire
Attorney for Todd
2