Thomas, R. v. Thomas, J. ( 2021 )

J-A24025-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RONALD L. THOMAS JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
JANE C. THOMAS : No. 378 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 2017-30519
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 20, 2021
Appellant, Ronald L. Thomas, Jr. (“Husband”), appeals from the
February 8, 2021 Amended Divorce Decree which, inter alia, provided for the
equitable distribution of the marital assets of Husband and Appellee, Jane C.
Thomas (“Wife”), and awarded alimony to Wife. Husband asserts that the
trial court failed to consider the 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) equitable distribution
factors and failed to set forth the percentage of distribution for each marital
asset pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506. Upon review, we vacate in part and
remand for further proceedings.
A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary
to our disposition. Husband and Wife were married for approximately forty
years and separated for approximately ten years prior to Husband filing a
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A24025-21
Divorce Complaint in October 2019. After presiding over two hearings, the
Divorce Master filed a Report and Recommendations on September 25, 2020
(“Report”) and an Amended Report and Recommendations on October 5, 2020
(“Amended Report”). Husband filed Exceptions asserting, inter alia, that the
Report and Amended Report fail to discuss the Section 3502(a) equitable
distribution factors and fail to specify the actual distribution of all the assets
to each party. The trial court denied the Exceptions without explanation. On
February 5, 2021, the trial court entered an Amended Decree of Divorce which
incorporated the Report and Amended Report.
Husband timely appealed. Both Husband and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
We review an award of equitable distribution for an abuse of discretion.
Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380, 382 (Pa. Super. 2009). “An abuse of discretion is
not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence”
that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal
procedure. Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15, 18 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted). “A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of
equitable distribution[,]” but at the very least must consider the eleven factors
enumerated in Section 3502(a). Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520, 523–24 (Pa.
Super. 2019).
Section 3502 provides, inter alia, the court shall equitably divide the
martial property “in such percentages and in such manner as the court deems
just after considering all relevant factors.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). Moreover,
-2-
J-A24025-21
Section 3506 provides that in an equitable distribution order, “the court shall
set forth the percentage of distribution for each marital asset or group of
assets and the reason for the distribution ordered.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506.
Finally, “[w]hen determining the propriety of an equitable distribution award,
this Court must consider the distribution scheme as a whole.” Hess, 212 A.3d
520 at 523 (citations omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the Report and Amended Report
fail to consider and discuss the Section 3502(a) equitable distribution factors
in a meaningful way. Moreover, while the Report states the equitable
distribution percentages that Wife requests, it does not clearly state whether
the Master recommends that the trial court adopt those percentages.1 In turn,
the trial court incorporated the Report and Amended Report into the Divorce
Decree without ordering a clear equitable distribution percentage scheme.
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the Divorce Decree that
incorporates the Report and Amended Report to effectuate equitable
distribution and award alimony. We remand for the trial court to consider the
Section 3502(a) equitable distribution factors and comply with Section 3506.
In light of our disposition, and this Court’s obligation to review the equitable
____________________________________________
1 In its only reference to equitable distribution percentages, the Report states,
“Wife asks a 58% to 42% division in her favor. The proposed division is
actually more generous but equitable when viewed together with the
recommendation regarding alimony which follows.” Report, 9/25/20, at A-5.
It is unclear if the Master is proposing a more generous division or if Wife’s
request is more generous than the Master’s proposed division. In any event,
the Report and Recommendation adopted by the Divorce Decree never sets
forth a clearly recommended equitable distribution percentage scheme.
-3-
J-A24025-21
distribution scheme as a whole, we decline to address Appellant’s remaining
issues.
Order vacated in part. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. Case
is stricken from the November 3, 2021 remote oral argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/20/2021
-4-