Camper v. Werner

• Decision Date: 03 March 2023
• Docket Number: 3 EDA 2022,J-A26026-22
• Parties: CAROLYN T. CAMPER Appellee v. BRADLEY S. WERNER Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

CAROLYN T. CAMPER Appellee v. BRADLEY S. WERNER Appellant

No. 3 EDA 2022

No. J-A26026-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 3, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Decree Entered November 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s) A06-13-60988-D-37

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

KING J.

Appellant Bradley S. Werner ("Husband"), appeals from the decree entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, which finalized the divorce between Husband and Appellee, Carolyn T. Camper ("Wife"). In a separate order, the court completed the equitable distribution of the marital property. We affirm.

This Court previously set forth the relevant facts and procedural history as follows:

Husband and Wife were married in 2005 and separated in 2013. This was the second marriage for Wife, age 56. Wife has two adult children from her prior marriage. Husband is 58 years old and has had four previous marriages. Prior to his marriage to Wife, Husband formed Werner Athletic Management, LLC (WAM) and Pennsbury Racquet and Athletic Club, LLC (PRAC) in anticipation of purchasing a pre-existing tennis club, Pennsbury Racquet Club (tennis club). Husband, through PRAC, purchased the tennis club approximately 16 months prior to marrying Wife.¹

¹ While still married to her first husband, Wife contributed $110,000 towards the acquisition of PRAC and WAM. In exchange, Wife acquired a 3.57% ownership stake in PRAC. Later, Husband gifted Wife a 1% ownership share in WAM.

Wife filed a complaint in divorce on June 19, 2013,² seeking equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets, alimony, alimony pendente lite (APL), counsel fees, costs, and expenses. On August 1, 2014, an interim order of court (interim support order) was entered directing Husband to pay Wife $5,000 per month in APL.³ In addition to directing Husband to pay Wife APL, the interim support order also set forth Husband's and Wife's individual obligations with respect to three jointly-owned properties.⁴

² The parties stipulated that, for equitable distribution purposes, June 19, 2013, was also the date of separation.

³ The interim support order was later terminated.

⁴ By way of further background, Husband and Wife jointly owned and resided together in the marital residence (Yardley Road property) during their marriage. Additionally, the parties jointly owned a rental property (Blough Court property) and a vacation home (Beach Avenue property). Following the parties' separation, Wife remained in the Yardley Road property and paid all real estate carrying costs prior to its sale. Husband resided in the Blough Court property with his mother and sister from the date of separation through November 2014, when Husband decided to reside elsewhere. His mother and sister remained in the home until it sold in 2018. In addition to paying the carrying costs for that property, Husband was also directed to pay all costs for the Beach Avenue property. With respect to this property, the interim support order preserved Husband's "right to claim any credits he may have at the time of equitable distribution." Following the sale of all three properties, the proceeds were held in escrow pending equitable distribution.

On March 22, 2017, a master's hearing was held before Roger E. Cullen, Esquire (the Master), to address the issues of equitable distribution, alimony, and counsel fees. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Master entered a master's report recommending, inter alia, that the marital estate be distributed 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband.⁵ Pertinent to this appeal, the Master made recommendations regarding the proposed distribution of several assets, including: (1) the increase in value of PRAC and WAM during the parties' marriage; (2) Wife's irrevocable trust, gifted to her by her mother during the parties' marriage (the Trust);⁶ (3) a Merrill Lynch investment account titled in the names of both Husband and Wife as joint tenants with a right of survivorship (Merrill Lynch account); and (4) the proceeds from the sale of the parties' three properties.

⁵ The Master also recommended that Wife's claims for alimony and counsel fees be denied.

⁶ Wife's mother established the Trust for Wife on December 21, 2012 by depositing $10.00 into the Trust. That same day, Wife's mother made a second deposit, this time in the amount of $700,000. According to Wife's inventory, as of the date of separation, the value of the Trust was [estimated to be] $800,000.

Husband timely filed a motion for a hearing de novo, asserting that he took "exceptions to the recommendation of" the Master. Thereafter, the trial court presided over an equitable distribution hearing, which spanned three days. Upon the conclusion of testimony and the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties, the trial court issued an order, in which it concluded that "an equal split of the marital estate is appropriate." In relevant part, the trial court determined that the increase in value of PRAC and WAM during the marital coverture, which constituted marital property, was $2,300,000. Additionally, the court found that "Husband's personal use of and/or mismanagement of PRAC/WAM [p]rofits/[a]ssets" post- separation totaled $400,000, which the court determined was subject to equitable distribution. Neither the increase in value of the Trust nor the Merrill Lynch account was listed as a marital asset to be distributed. Additionally, neither party received any credits for the carrying costs the parties were directed to pay on their three jointly-owned properties.

Camper v. Werner, No. 2726 EDA 2018, unpublished memorandum at 1-4 (Pa.Super. filed December 3, 2019) (internal citations omitted) ("Camper I").

Husband subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the equitable distribution order. On December 3, 2019, this Court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. Among other things, this Court determined that the trial court failed to provide "any analysis of how the court arrived at a $2,300,000 valuation for PRAC and WAM." Id. at 10. This Court provided the following remand instruction:

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the portion of the trial court's order valuing the marital portion of PRAC and WAM at $2,300,000. Upon remand, we direct the trial court to address the … tax and cost of sale consequences [as set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(10.1)-(10.2)] and, if necessary, set forth a new valuation based on the same. Regardless of whether the trial court accepts the valuation offered by either expert, or again formulates its own valuation, the trial court shall set forth reasons on the record to support the chosen valuation.

Id.

We also addressed the increase in value of Wife's trust. "[W]hile the entirety of the Trust is not marital property, the trial court should have recognized that the increase in value of the Trust during the marital coverture constituted marital property." Id. at 17. Because the trial court did not address the increase in value of the Trust, we remanded for a determination on this point. Finally, this Court determined that Husband's post-separation actions with respect to PRAC and WAM funds should not have impacted the marital portion of these assets, and we vacated the portion of the equitable distribution order that awarded $200,000 to Wife. See id. at 10-15.

In response to the remand instructions, the trial court entered a new equitable distribution order on February 23, 2021. On November 17, 2021, the court entered a final divorce decree. Husband timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the new equitable distribution order on December 17, 2021.^[1] That same day, the court ordered Husband to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Husband timely filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on December 28, 2021.

Husband now raises three issues for our review:

Whether the [trial] court erred on remand by failing to properly consider the dispositional costs of [PRAC and WAM] under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(10.1) & (10.2) in its determination of their value.

Whether the [trial] court erred on remand by modifying its prior 50/50 equal division of the marital estate to a 60/40 division in favor of Wife without adequate lawful basis.

Whether the [trial] court erred on remand by disregarding Wife's judicial admission regarding the value of the marital component of the … Trust established at trial.

(Husband's Brief at 10).

The following principles apply to this Court's review of an equitable distribution order:

A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equitable distribution. Our standard of review when assessing the propriety of an order effectuating the equitable distribution of marital property is whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure. We do not lightly find an abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence. This court will not find an abuse of discretion unless the law has been overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the evidence in the certified record. In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole. [W]e measure the circumstances of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties and achieving a just determination of their property rights.

Moreover, it is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and decide credibility and this [c]ourt will not reverse

...