Perry, L. v. Perry, W. ( 2014 )

J-A02020-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
LINDA MARIE PERRY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WAYNE J. PERRY
Appellant No. 363 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered December 28, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 2009-FC-1619
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.
FILED JULY 29, 2014
claims do not entitle him to relief, and that this case should be remanded for
counsel fees. However, because I
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award
receive but did not, I respectfully dissent.
It is well- pension funds accrued during
marriage is marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Endy v.
Endy, 603 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, the parties and the trial
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A02020-14
pension. When the pension initially entered pay status, Wife received 100%
of the marital portion of her pension, and Husband received nothing.
Husband requested that he be awarded these missed payments in his
The trial court denied this petition. In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925,
the trial court justifies this decision by stating that Husband delayed the
preparation of a QDRO and the entry of the divorce decree, and that he
12/28/2012, at 15.
T
initial refusal to sign the QDRO while exceptions were pending cannot be
deemed a meritless delaying tactic where, as here, the trial court granted
those exceptions in part. Admittedly, Husband did not sign the QDRO
immediately after his exceptions were resolved. However, APL was
It does not appear that Husband was receiving any sort of financial benefit
from Wife after that date, and he would have had no incentive to delay the
proceedings unnecessarily.
Thus, I conclude that Husband was entitled to the relevant portion of
-2-