CourtListener opinion 4277379

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

J-S70042-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 SAMUEL A. MORGANTE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 : PENNSYLVANIA
 Appellant :
 :
 :
 v. :
 :
 :
 KELLY S. MORGANTE : No. 597 MDA 2017

 Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2017
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
 Civil Division at No(s): 11-20,065

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MAY 22, 2018

 Samuel A. Morgante (Husband) appeals from the order entered March

7, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, finding him in

contempt and ordering him to pay Kelly S. Morgante (Wife) a lump sum

payment of $31,888.85 on or before May 31, 2017, to make monthly

payments to Wife, commencing April, 2017, in the amount of $911.11 either

directly from the Navy retirement pay and/or through direct payments from

Husband, and to pay Wife's counsel fees in the amount of $750.00. The trial

court's order provides Husband's obligation to pay counsel fees to Wife's

counsel would be suspended upon the condition that Husband make the lump

sum payment to Wife of $31,888.85 on or before May 31, 2017. See Order,

June 9, 2014, at ¶4.

 Husband contends the trial court erred in (1) finding him in contempt

and awarding Wife counsel fees, (2) ordering him to pay Wife an equitable
 J-S70042-17

distribution sum from monies Wife elected to include in his income to calculate

child support, (3) ordering him to make direct payments to Wife, (4) failing to

consider the tax consequences of the lump sum and monthly payments, (5)

failing to require Wife's payment from his retirement to be distributed by a

Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), (6) failing to give him credit

toward the lump sum because he had paid child support, alimony pendente

lite, and mortgage contributions based on his retirement income, and (7)

utilizing June 9, 2014, as the retroactive date under the order. Based upon

the following, we affirm.

 By way of background, the parties were married on May 16, 1987, and

separated on February 14, 2010. Husband's Navy pension is in pay status. A

final decree in divorce was entered on January 14, 2014.

 The facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal have been

summarized by the trial court in its opinions filed March 7, 2017, and May 31,

2017. For purposes of our discussion, we reiterate the court's summaries, as

abbreviated, below:

 By way of background, a Master's Hearing in regard to Equitable
 Distribution was held on August 31, 2012; October 12, 2012;
 December 9, 2012; supplemented by an Order of Court dated
 March 5, 2013. A Master's Report and Recommendation in regard
 to Equitable Distribution was filed on June 25, 2013. …
 Subsequently, Husband filed Exceptions on July 10, 2013, and
 Amended Exceptions on July 15, 2013. …

 An Amended Master's Report on Equitable Distribution was issued
 on November 19, 2013. …

 -2-
 J-S70042-17

 On November 20, 2013, Husband filed Exceptions to the Amended
 Master's Report. On December 30, 2013, the [trial court] heard
 argument by the parties on the outstanding Exceptions. On June
 9, 2014 th[e trial c]ourt issued an Opinion and Order ruling on
 Husband's Exceptions. … Husband filed a Notice of Appeal on June
 30, 2014, and Amended Notice of Appeal on July 9, 2014. On
 June 26, 2015, the Superior Court issued an Opinion affirming the
 Trial Court's O[rder] of June 9, 2014. [Morgante v. Morgante,
 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015).]

 … Pursuant to the Master's Report dated June 25, 2013, and this
 Court's Order dated June 9, 2014, which was affirmed by the
 Superior Court Order dated June 26, 2015, Wife shall receive the
 sum of $567,201.26 as her equitable distribution portion of the
 marital estate. It was further ordered that this payment would be
 made by Wife receiving a monthly payment from Husband's
 disposable retirement income. To protect Wife's interest in the
 equitable distribution portion of the marital estate, the Court
 Order further indicates that if Husband's Navy Pension (retirement
 income) is reduced in any way which reduces the amount or share
 of retired pay to which Wife is entitled, such as receipt of disability
 pay, then Husband will make direct payments to Wife to indemnify
 and hold her harmless from any reduction, costs or damages
 which she may incur. The minimum payment which Wife is to
 receive either directly from the Navy Pension and/or through
 direct payments from Husband is $911.11 per month, plus
 consideration of the associated COLAs [Cost of Living
 adjustments]. The Court's Order further directed that a qualified
 domestic relations order [QDRO] would be prepared directing
 payments to Wife of 47.652%[1] of Husband's monthly Navy
 Pension to be prepared and submitted by Husband's attorney
 within thirty days of the date of the Court's Order of June 9, 2014.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/2017, at 1-4.

 Wife filed her Petition for Contempt on September 23, 2016,
 alleging that Husband and his attorney have been uncooperative
 since September 2015 in providing additional information
 requested by Wife's actuarial consultant, and therefore the QDRO
____________________________________________

1 "The Master … found that the $567,201.26 payment owed to Wife in
equitable distribution is 47.652% of the present value of Husband's disposable
retired pay." Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 392 (Pa. Super. 2015).

 -3-
 J-S70042-17

 had not been prepared. Wife further alleges that Husband had not
 made any payments of the $911.11 minimum to which she was
 entitled under the Order of June 9, 2014. A hearing was held on
 January 9, 2017. At that time, Husband argued that the $911.11
 minimum monthly payment obligation did not commence until the
 QDRO was in place and distributed directly to Wife from his Navy
 Retirement pay. He further argued that the full amount of his Navy
 Retirement pay is included in his income for child support and
 spousal support calculation purposes and, therefore, it would be
 considered impermissible "double-dipping" for Wife if she were to
 receive her payments directly from Husband prior to the QDRO
 being implemented. …

Trial Court Opinion, May 31, 2017, at 3-4.

 By Order entered March 7, 2017, the trial court found Husband in

contempt for his failure to comply with the court's order of June 9, 2014. The

trial court ordered him to pay Wife a lump sum of $31,888.85 (representing

monthly payments of $911.11 from June 2014 through March 2017) by May

31, 2017, to pay Wife $911.11 monthly, commencing April, 2017, either

through his Navy Retirement pay or directly from Husband, and to pay Wife

$750.00 in counsel fees. However, the obligation to pay attorney fees was to

be suspended upon Husband making the required lump sum payment to Wife

by May 31, 2017. This appeal followed.2 Subsequently, Husband filed a

request for a stay, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1731,

and the trial court denied the request in part, and granted the request in part.3

____________________________________________

2Husband timely complied with the order of the trial court to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.

3 The trial court explained:

 -4-
 J-S70042-17

 In his first issue, Husband contends the trial court erred in finding him

in contempt and awarding attorney fees because the order was not clear,

definite and specific and he did not act with wrongful intent. Husband argues

there is no language in the order that specifies immediate, direct payment to

Wife. He asserts the only explicit language is to prepare a QRDO within 30

days and submit it to Wife, and to pay $911.11 directly to Wife when the

amount received by Wife is reduced below that amount. Husband maintains

he complied with the order by submitting a QDRO within the timeframe

directed by the trial court. Husband further contends that even if the order is

____________________________________________

 Husband filed a Motion for Stay of the Order on April 5, 2017, and
 an Amended Motion for Stay of the Order on April 19, 2017. A
 hearing was held on May 5, 2017, regarding the Motions. By Order
 dated May 8, 2017, Husband's request for a stay of the monthly
 payment to Wife in the amount of $911.11 commencing in April
 2017, was denied. Husband's request for a stay with regard to the
 lump sum payment in the amount of $31,888.85 on or before May
 31, 2017, was granted. The Court found that there were
 reasonable grounds for a difference of opinion as to whether or
 not the lump sum payment ordered by the Court in its March 7,
 2017, Order was appropriate. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1731(b),
 Husband was directed to pay a bond in the amount of $31,888.85
 in cash or property with the Prothonotary of Lycoming County on
 or before May 31, 2017. Husband's request for a stay of the
 required payment of $750.00 in counsel fees, which would have
 been suspended upon payment of the lump sum amount on or
 before May 31, 2017, was granted, and the payment was stayed
 pending a decision from the Superior Court on the lump sum
 payment.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/31/2017, at 4-5.

 -5-
 J-S70042-17

found to confer a duty on him to make direct payments to Wife regardless of

whether a QDRO is in place, the order is ambiguous and there is a reasonable

interpretation to the contrary. In this regard, Husband points to the trial

court's order granting, in part, his request for a stay, finding that "there are

reasonable grounds for a difference of opinion as to whether or not the lump

sum payment in the amount ordered by the Court is appropriate." Stay Order,

5/8/2017 at 2.

 Our standard of review is well settled:

 \When considering an appeal from an [o]rder holding a party in