Goodwin v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 14 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2338 EDA 2019,2338 EDA 2019
• Citation: 244 A.3d 453
• Parties: Johanna L. GOODWIN v. Scott M. GOODWIN, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

244 A.3d 453

Johanna L. GOODWIN v. Scott M. GOODWIN, Appellant

No. 2338 EDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted July 14, 2020

Filed December 14, 2020

Reargument Denied February 17, 2021

Paul W. Rauer, Newtown, for appellant.

Shannon Kanavy Mercado, Doylestown, for appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

In this appeal Scott M. Goodwin ("Husband") challenges the trial court's equitable distribution of the marital estate in the divorce proceedings between him and Johanna L. Goodwin ("Wife"). After careful review, we affirm.

We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter from the trial court's September 16, 2019 opinion, and our review of the certified record. Husband, born in 1961, and Wife, born in 1966, married in 1990. Wife's son, Nicholas Campellone, Esq. ("Son"), was three years old at the time, and while he lived with the parties, Husband did not adopt him. ¹ The parties were never previously married, and no children were born to the marriage.

According to the trial court, both parties are high school graduates. ² (Trial court opinion, 9/16/19 at 2.) Husband suffers from a major depressive disorder

and began collecting Social Security Disability ("SSD") in 1999; he has not worked since 2002. ( Id. ) Throughout the marriage, Wife worked for the inside sales division of Benjamin Obdyke, Inc. ( Id. ) On February 17, 2009, Wife filed a complaint in divorce; subsequently, the parties reconciled, however, Wife did not withdraw the complaint. ( Id. )

Son died on January 1, 2017, at the age of 30 due to a pulmonary embolism

. (Wife's brief at 5.) He did not have any children or heirs, other than his mother (Wife), and died intestate. (Trial court opinion, 9/16/19 at 1.) Son acquired, through his employment, four life insurance policies; he named his mother, [Wife], as sole beneficiary. ( See id. ) Wife received all of the proceeds of these policies, $633,301.72. ³

Moreover, Wife received the funds enumerated below from Son's estate ⁴

North Western Mural IRA	$3,445.00
Bank of America Money Market [ ]	$2,926.96
Bank of America Checking [ ]	$306.16
Bank of America Checking [ ]	$900.99
Bank of America Savings [ ]	$637.40
Total	$8,216.51

Id. at 2. Husband and Wife agree Wife was the sole named beneficiary on the IRA. (Husband's brief at 13-14; Wife's brief at 26.) Despite this, the trial court did not make such a finding in its equitable distribution order or opinion.

The parties separated on March 27, 2017, approximately four months after Son's death. The marriage lasted 27 years. Wife used a portion of the proceeds from Son's estate to purchase a house. On April 6, 2017, Wife filed a praecipe to reinstate her 2009 divorce complaint. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim seeking alimony.

The trial court summarized the parties’ income history as follows. Husband's 2017 federal income tax return reflected gross income totaling $17,612. (Report of master, 8/31/18 at 2.) Wife's 2017 tax return reported a gross income of $103,314. (Trial court opinion, 9/16/19 at 2.) In 2018, however, Wife lost her job; "she received a fifteen-week severance of $1,931 per week[,] from November 2018 to February 2019. Thereafter, Wife began receiving unemployment compensation in the amount of $561 per week." ( Id. ) Meanwhile, as of January 1, 2019, Husband received SSD in the amount of $1,759.50 per month. ( Id. ) Starting on August 30, 2017, Wife paid Husband $1,600 per month in spousal support. (Report of master at 2.) "On April 1, 2019, Wife was diagnosed with anxiety and depression for which she takes medication. ... Wife was also diagnosed with Heterozygote[;] however the condition has not impaired her ability to work." (Trial court opinion, 9/16/19 at 2-3.)

The trial court also discussed the parties’ assets as follows:

The marital residence is located at 169 Indian Creek Drive, Levittown, Pennsylvania. In 2017, Wife purchased a heater at a cost of $3,628.05 for the marital home, as well as a new air conditioning unit in the amount of $784.94. The residence has since been transferred into Husband's name only and Wife's name has been removed from all corresponding liens and mortgages. The value of the home was assessed at $145,000.

At the time of separation, Wife and Husband kept separate bank accounts. Wife had two accounts [with balances of $4,873 and] $1,205. Husband's ... checking account ... had a balance of $10,318. In 2014, Wife received a loan from Lending Club in the amount of $10,000 and another in 2015 for $25,000. On April 1, 2017, Wife paid the balance on the 2014 loan[,] $1,947. On February 8, 2017, she paid the balance of the 2015 loan[,] $20,024. Wife also paid off total marital credit card debt in the amount of $45,985.48 as well as their 2016 joint tax in the amount of $4,400. Wife's Benjamin Obdyke 401(k) plan has a marital value of $239,862.

At the time of separation, Wife leased a 2016 Chevrolet Equinox and Husband owned a 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser valued at $711 and free from any encumbrances.

Trial court opinion, 9/16/19 at 3.

The parties attended a master's hearing on August 20, 2018. The master issued a report on August 31, 2018, recommending Husband receive 66% of the marital estate, Wife 34%, and Wife pay "alimony at the current spousal support rate of $1,600 through August [of] 2026." (Report of master at 9.)

On September 11, 2018, Husband filed a motion for a hearing de novo . The court granted the motion and conducted evidentiary hearings on February 2, March 29, and May 13, 2019.

On July 22, 2019, the trial court issued the underlying order, directing the parties to be divorced and distributing the marital estate as follows:

[The trial c]ourt first made a determination that the life insurance proceeds and additional funds of the [e]state of [Son] received by Wife were not marital assets nor marital property. All investments, real estate or any other assets purchased or acquired by Wife from her [S]on's [e]state were likewise not marital property or assets.

The [trial c]ourt allocated the marital property in an equitable manner consistent with 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3502. Specifically, [the trial c]ourt equitably distributed the marital assets as follows: (a) Wife received all right, title and interest of the remaining and separate portions of her Benjamin Obdyke 401(k) plan, her [two bank accounts], and her leased 2016 Chevrolet Equinox; (b) Husband received all right, title and interest in his [checking account], his PT Cruiser, and an additional $50,000 via a rollover from Wife's Benjamin Obdyke 401(k) plan. Wife assumed responsibility for repayment of all marital liabilities and held Husband harmless regarding the same of the 2016 taxes, heater bill, air conditioning bill, total marital credit card debt and the Lending Club loans. Upon distribution, Wife would receive a total of $119,170.53 and Husband would receive a total of $206,029, effectuating a 37% award to Wife and a 63% award to Husband. Importantly, Wife was also obligated to pay alimony at the current spousal rate for an additional seven and one-half years through January 1, 2027.

Trial court opinion, 9/16/19 at 4.

Husband filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors to be raised on appeal. Subsequently, the trial court issued an opinion.

On appeal, Husband raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, commit an error of law and reversible error when it failed to find that the life insurance proceeds and IRA money that Wife received as a named beneficiary, and the investments made and assets purchased with the proceeds, were marital property subject to equitable distribution?

2. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it failed to designate and apply a percentage to the equitable distribution scheme in its [o]rder, and then failed to make a clear distribution scheme in its [o]pinion? 3. Did the trial court commit reversible error, abuse its discretion, and fashion an equitable distribution award that was manifestly unreasonable by failing to consider all of the relevant factors in 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3502, by adding words to factors to change their meaning, and by not properly applying the factors?

Husband's brief at 6.

All of Husband's issues challenge equitable distribution. A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of equitable distribution. Dalrymple v. Kilishek , 920 A.2d 1275, 1280 (Pa.Super. 2007). 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." Smith v. Smith , 904 A.2d 15, 19 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted). We do not lightly find an abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Id. 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." Wang v. Feng , 888 A.2d 882, 887 (Pa.Super. 2005). In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole. Id. "[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." Schenk v. Schenk , 880 A.2d 633, 639 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

Moreover, it is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and decide credibility and this [c]ourt will not reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by the evidence. We are also aware that a master's report and recommendation, although only advisory, is to be

...