Grezak-Sklodowska, G. v. Grezak, W. ( 2021 )

J-A19014-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
GRAZYNA GREZAK-SKLODOWSKA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
WIESLAW GREZAK : No. 2312 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered September 30, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 5575 CV 2016,
No. 55750 CV 2016, No. 751 DR 2005
GRAZYNA GREZAK-SKLODOWSKA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WIESLAW GREZAK :
:
Appellant : No. 2313 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered September 30, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 5575 CV 2016,
No. 55750 CV 2016, No. 751 DR 2005
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2021
Grazyna Grezak-Sklodowska (“Wife”) and Wieslaw Grezak (“Husband”)
both appeal from the September 30, 2020 Order entered in the Monroe County
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19014-21
Court of Common Pleas that distributed the proceeds from the sale of the
divorced parties’ former marital residence. Upon careful review, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary
to our disposition. Briefly, Wife and Husband were married in 1982, Wife filed
a Complaint in Divorce in 2016, and the trial court entered a Divorce Decree
on March 28, 2019. The divorce proceedings have been highly contentious,
with Wife filing motions on a regular basis, sometimes daily, resulting in a
delayed completion of equitable distribution. Relevant to this appeal, on
August 27, 2018, after a hearing, a Divorce Master filed a Report and
Recommendations recommending, inter alia, that Wife receive 55% and
Husband receive 45% of the marital estate after liquidation of the former
marital residence. Both parties filed Exceptions. On March 28, 2019, the trial
court entered a final Divorce Decree, granted and denied various Exceptions,
ordered the parties to select a realtor for the sale of the marital residence,
and ordered that the selected realtor set the listing price for the property.
Order, 3/28/19.
Wife continued to reside in the marital residence and failed to cooperate
with the sale of the home. On June 10, 2019, the trial court ordered Wife to
cooperate with the sale of the home and granted Husband authority to procure
a realtor and sign the listing agreement if Wife failed to cooperate. Wife
continued to contravene court orders and refused to allow Husband and the
realtor to have access to the home, even when Husband and the realtor, on
-2-
J-A19014-21
multiple occasions, arrived accompanied by constables. After Husband filed
numerous petitions to the court requesting relief, on October 9, 2019, the
court ordered that Husband shall have exclusive possession of the marital
residence on November 1, 2019, at 1:00 PM and Husband “shall continue to
have exclusive authority to list, market and sign all documents necessary to
sell the marital residence at a price recommended by a realtor.” Order,
10/9/19.
On July 1, 2020, Husband filed a Petition for Special Relief averring that
the marital residence was under a contract to sell with a closing date of July
31, 2020 and requesting that the court Order Wife to pay overdue taxes, pay
for half of the cost of cleanout and repairs of the residence, and remove her
personal property from the home no later than July 24, 2020. On July 17,
2020, the trial court ordered the following:
1. All closing costs related to the sale of marital residence located
at 144 Wyndham Drive, Cresco, Monroe County, Pennsylvania
shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale and collected at the
time of closing;
2. The balance of the proceeds of the sale of the marital
residence, along with a copy of the HUD-I Settlement
Statement, shall be deposited with the Monroe County
Prothonotary's Office within 72 hours of the closing and shall
be distributed only upon written agreement of the parties, or
further Order of Court;
3. The cost of any cleanout or disposal service, including use of
dumpsters, shall be paid at the time of closing from the sale
proceeds and reflected on the Settlement Statement;
4. The cost of all repairs necessary for safety issues in the marital
residence shall be paid at the time of closing from the sale
proceeds and reflected on the Settlement Statement;
-3-
J-A19014-21
5. [Wife] shall remove all of her personal property from the
marital residence in the presence of a constable, with or
without the assistance of a professional moving company no
later than July 28, 2020, at 6:00 p.m., after giving [Husband]
24 hours of notice of her intent to do so;
6. In the event that [Wife] fails to remove her personal property
on or before July 28, 2020, at 6:00 p.m., [Husband] shall be
authorized to arrange for the orderly removal of [Wife’s]
personal property and placement of the same at a secure local
storage facility with the costs to be assessed against the [Wife]
upon final distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the marital
residence;
7. [Wife] is PROHIBITED from entering upon the real property at
144 Wyndham Drive, Cresco, Monroe County, Pennsylvania on
any other date and time other than the day during which she
may enter the premises to remove her personal property in the
presence of a constable.
8. Following the closing on the marital residence and deposit of
the sale proceeds with the Court as set forth above, if no
agreement is reached regarding division of the proceeds, either
party may file a motion requesting the Court to determine the
amount to be distributed.
Order, 7/17/20.
On July 31, 2020, the marital residence sold for approximately
$325,000, and on August 31, 2020, the court held a hearing on the distribution
of proceeds from the sale of the home. During the hearing, the court
acknowledged that a prior equitable distribution order awarded Wife 55% and
Husband 45% of the marital property but instructed the parties to present
evidence regarding any requested credits, including expenses related to the
sale of the marital residence or taxes. When Wife began to have heart
palpitations during the hearing, the court proposed to end the hearing, leave
the record open for five days, allow parties to submit documentary evidence,
-4-
J-A19014-21
take the matter under advisement, and decide based on the submitted
documents. The court asked if either party objected to proceeding in this
manner, and Husband responded that he did not want an affidavit from the
constable to come in. The court acknowledged that it had previously ruled
that the affidavit was hearsay, and that Wife may submit it, but that the court
would probably not consider it. The court further explained that the parties
should submit any documents that the parties would like the court to consider,
and the court would choose which documents to consider. Both parties agreed
to the hearing proceeding in this manner. See N.T. Hearing, 8/31/20, at 30-
47.
On September 30, 2020, after both parties filed timely “Proffers of
Evidence,” the court entered a detailed Order that itemized Husband’s
submitted invoices and Wife’s submitted tax receipts, concluded that Husband
and Wife were jointly responsible for owed real estate taxes in a ratio
compliant with the 45/55% equitable distribution scheme, credited both
parties for paid taxes, credited Husband for reimbursement of cleanup,
constable fees, gas, and storage fees related to the marital residence, and
awarded Husband approximately $136,000 and Wife approximately $175,000
-5-
J-A19014-21
from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.1 Order, 9/30/20. Both
parties filed Motions for Reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
Wife field a timely pro se Notice of Appeal; Husband filed a timely cross-
appeal. Both parties and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
Husband raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion when the trial
court gave [] Wife credit for a payment of taxes in the
amount of $22,172.84 when she failed to present receipts
for these taxes to [] Husband for review and response to the
court?
II. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by giving []
Wife a credit for payment of taxes in the [amount] of
$22,172.84 when a large portion of those taxes were likely
due for a time period where [] Wife had exclusive possession
of the marital residence?
III. Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion in
determining that the parties were jointly responsible for real
estate taxes in the [amount] of $49,336.27 when a large
portion of these taxes were likely from a time period when
[] Wife had exclusive possession of the [] marital residence?
Husband’s Br. at 4 (some capitalization omitted).
In her pro se Brief, Wife raises the following issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1 Specifically, with regards to marital residence real estate taxes, the trial
court found that $13,562.27 remained due by September 30, 2020; the
parties together made payments totaling $35,774 in real estate taxes; the
amount of taxes paid at closing was $49,336.27; the application of the
45/55% equitable distribution scheme makes Husband responsible for
$27,134.95 and Wife responsible for $22,172.84; Husband presented receipts
totaling $13,601.16, leaving Husband a balance of $13,533.79; and Wife
presented receipts totaling $22,172.84, leaving Wife a balance of $28.48.
Order, 9/30/20, at 3 (unpaginated).
-6-
J-A19014-21
I. Whether Wife should be awarded with requested proceeds
from the sale of marital property, and other requests, as
equity and justice requires.
II. Whether the record supports non-native English speaker
sick Wife’s due process violation when she proceeded with
the best due diligence to have full opportunity to present
eye-witness testimony and her other documentation during
marital distribution, despite the denial of her continuous
requests for APL to retain an attorney to have full equal
professional service.
III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a
matter of law when did not find Husband’s continued
intimidation of Wife, and his premediated disposal of the
marital cat, the marital property property, her personal
property, all located in formal marital house, to sanction him
for a long term of perpetrating a fraud in order to solidify
Wife’s life threatening sickness and inability to proceed
during the entire process of the distribution.
IV. Whether the record supports the fatal defect apparent upon
the fact of the record.
V. Whether the order distributing proceeds from the sale of the
marital [residence] to Husband had legal force.
VI. Whether no authority existed that permitting not to consider
Wife’s documentation submitted with the court, and charge
her with constable’s fees.
Wife’s Br. at 4 (some capitalization omitted; reordered for ease of disposition).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
It is well established that our standard of review is limited, and this
Court will not reverse an award of equitable distribution absent an abuse of
discretion. Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380, 382 (Pa. Super. 2009). “In addition,
when reviewing the record of the proceedings, we are guided by the fact that
trial courts have broad equitable powers to effectuate economic justice[.]” Id.-7-
J-A19014-21
(citation omitted). “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). Moreover, “the finder of fact is free
to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and the Superior Court will not
disturb the credibility determinations of the court below.” Lee, 978 A.2d at
382 (citation omitted).
In fashioning an equitable distribution award, the trial court is required
to consider, at the very least, the enumerated factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.[]
§ 3502(a)(1)-(11). Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 888 (Pa. Super. 2005)
However, this court has noted that, “[t]here is no simple formula by which to
divide marital property. The method of distribution derives from the facts of
the individual case.” Id. (citations omitted) “The list of factors [enumerated
in Section 3502(a)] serves as a guideline for consideration, although the list
is neither exhaustive nor specific as to the weight to be given the various
factors. Thus, the court has flexibility of method and concomitantly assumes
responsibility in rendering its decisions.” Id. (citations omitted). “The trial
court has the authority to divide the award as the equities presented in the
particular case may require.” Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448, 462 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[w]e do not evaluate the
propriety of the distribution order upon our agreement with the court’s actions
nor do we find a basis for reversal in the court’s application of a single factor.”
Id. (citations omitted). “In determining the propriety of an equitable
-8-
J-A19014-21
distribution award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole.
We 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.” Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892, 895
(Pa. Super. 2009) (citations omitted).
HUSBAND’S ISSUES
Issue 1 – Wife’s Tax Receipts
In his first issue, Husband avers that the trial court abused its discretion
when the court gave Wife credit for payment of taxes based on copies of tax
receipts she presented to the court but failed to provide to Husband.
Husband’s Br. at 17. Husband contends that Wife filed a Proffer of Evidence
in the trial court with exhibits attached but provided Husband a copy of the
Proffer without exhibits, depriving Husband of the right to cross-examine or
respond to the exhibits. Id. at 17. This claim of error is waived.
As discussed above, both Husband and Wife agreed to the unique
procedure of completing the equitable distribution hearing by filing “proffers
of evidence” with exhibits attached after Wife fell ill during the proceeding.
Husband not only agreed to the format but failed to request an opportunity to
review the submitted exhibits or cross-examine Wife regarding the submitted
exhibits.
It is well settled that “[f]ailure to timely object to a basic and
fundamental error will result in waiver of that issue.” In Interest of A.W.,
187 A.3d 247, 252-53. (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). This court will
-9-
J-A19014-21
not consider a claim of error when an appellant fails to raise the claim in the
trial court at a time when the error could have been corrected. Id. at 253;
see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Accordingly, this claim of
error is waived.
Issues 2 and 3 – Marital Residence Real Estate Taxes
In his second and third issues, Husband avers that the trial court erred
when it concluded that the parties were jointly responsible for real estate taxes
owed during Wife’s exclusive possession of the home, and when the court
gave Wife a credit for payment of taxes that were due and owed during her
exclusive possession of the marital residence. Husband’s Br. at 19, 21.
Husband avers that Wife had exclusive possession of the former marital
residence from June 2017 through November 2019 and argues that because
he did not receive a rental credit, equity dictates that Wife should not receive
a credit for taxes paid during that time. Id. at 20. Husband further argues,
without citation to legal authority, that taxes paid by Wife prior to the 2018
divorce master’s hearing should have been credited at the time of that
hearing. Id.
The trial court considered the Section 3502(a) factors, as well as the
fact that Wife had exclusive possession of the home for certain time periods,
to conclude that Husband and Wife were jointly responsible for marital
residence real estate taxes and Wife was entitled to a credit for paid taxes.
The trial court opined:
- 10 -
J-A19014-21
In determining distribution in this case, we considered the length
of the marriage, the age, health, station, amount and sources of
income, employability, liabilities, needs of each of the parties and
economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of
property is to become effective. Although [Wife] had exclusive
possession, we considered the above factors and determined that
[Wife] should get credit for the taxes she paid on the [] marital
residence. We find no error in our determination[.]
Trial Ct. Op., 12/22/20, at 1 (unpaginated). We agree and discern no abuse
of discretion.
Husband cites Lee, supra, to support his convoluted claim that he was
entitled to a rental value credit that the trial court failed to award, and,
therefore should not be responsible for real estate taxes. Lee explains that a
trial court has discretion to award rental value, or “a credit for one-half of the
fair rental value of the marital home” to the dispossessed party, as part of
equitable distribution. Lee, 978 A.2d at 385. But Husband fails to recognize
that “[t]his award . . . is not mandatory.” Middleton v. Middleton, 812
A.2d 1241, 1248 (Pa. Super. 2002) (emphasis added). Husband fails
demonstrate that the trial court was even required to provide rental value
credit, let alone that the absence of a rental value award should impact who
is responsible for paying real estate taxes.
Moreover, Husband provides no legal authority for his arguments that
the trial court erred in concluding that the parties were jointly responsible for
marital residence real estate taxes, or that the taxes paid by Wife prior to the
2018 divorce master’s hearing should have been credited at the time of that
hearing. Without more, Husband fails to demonstrate that the trial court
- 11 -
J-A19014-21
abused its discretion in concluding that the parties were both responsible for
marital residence real estate taxes.
WIFE’S ISSUES
Issue 1 – Husband’s Alleged Misconduct
In her first issue, the crux of Wife’s argument is that the trial court erred
when it failed to conclude that Husband’s alleged misconduct and bad faith
barred him from receiving proceeds from the sale of the marital residence.
Wife is not entitled to relief. Wife’s Br. at 10-11.
Section 3502(a) of the Divorce Code clearly states that a trial court
should not consider marital misconduct when determining the equitable
distribution of marital property, providing: “the court shall equitably divide,
distribute or assign, in kind or otherwise, the marital property between the
parties without regard to marital misconduct in such percentages and in
such manner as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors.”
23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Wife’s argument that
the trial court should have considered Husband’s misconduct lacks merit.
Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Wife’s remaining issues are difficult to discern as stated and as argued.
Wife makes various allegations of error that are disorganized, repetitive,
untimely, and at times incoherent. In arguing these issues, Wife cites boiler-
plate law but fails to apply the law to the facts of this case in a meaningful
and coherent manner as required by our Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs). Our Rules
- 12 -
J-A19014-21
of Appellate Procedure clearly state that each question an appellant raises is
to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.
Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020). While this
Court is willing to liberally construe pro se filings, ”pro se status generally
confers no special benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons,
833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super. 2003). It is not our role to develop an
appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere cursory legal discussion.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa. 2009). Simply put,
this Court will not act as counsel. In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super.
2012). “[W]hen defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to
be waived.” Id. (citation omitted).
Wife’s failure to develop her remaining issues in a meaningful and
coherent way severely hampers this Court’s review of the issues and,
therefore, we are constrained to conclude that Wife’s issues two through six
are waived.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
distributed the proceeds from the sale of the parties’ marital residence and
awarded Husband approximately $136,000 and Wife approximately $175,000.
Order affirmed.
- 13 -
J-A19014-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/22/2021
- 14 -