J-A11003-18 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

PAUL ADAMCHICK 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF PENNSYLVANIA    

 Appellant    

   v.   

   CHARLENE R. ADAMCHICK   

    Appellee   No. 1655 MDA 2017 

Appeal from the Order Entered October 3, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County 

Civil Division at No: 4205-2012  

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and PLATT, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 11, 2018 

Appellant, Paul Adamchick (“Husband”), appeals from an order relating 

to the equitable distribution of property in the marital estate.  We affirm.    

 The facts of this case are undisputed.1  On April 3, 2012, Husband filed 

this divorce action.  On August 13, 2014, a divorce master held a hearing.  

Two and a half years later, on May 11, 2017, the master issued his report and 

recommendation relating to equitable distribution of the parties’ assets.  On 

October 3, 2017, the trial court entered an order adopting the master’s report 

and recommendation.  On October 23, 2017, Husband filed a notice of appeal 

____________________________________________ 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

 1 These facts are taken from the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion filed 

on December 14, 2017. 

J-A11003-18 

- 2 - 

to this Court.  Subsequently, Husband filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, 

and the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. 

 Husband raises the following issues in this appeal: 

 I. Does the recognition of thirty-nine (39) items of personal 

property as marital assets amount to a “double dip” in that the same items were considered as income in [Wife’s] request for 

spousal support]?]  

II. Does the fact that the master’s report and recommendation was filed two and one-half (21⁄2) years after the date of hearing 

violate Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.55-2(a)(1)(ii)2 and does the delay [a]ffect [Husband’s] ability to make a distribution “in 

kind”?  

Appellant’s Brief at 1. 

After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude 

that the trial court correctly addressed Husband’s first issue on appeal.  See 

Trial Court Opinion, 12/14/17, at 3-7.   

In his second argument, Husband argues that he suffered prejudice from 

the master’s 21⁄2 year delay in issuing his report and recommendation.  The 

master recommended that Husband have the option of distributing marital 

assets to Wife in-kind.  According to Husband, however,  

 during the [master’s] two and one-half (2-1/2) year delay 

[Husband] was unaware of the . . . intentions of the [m]aster and continued to buy and sell the items of personal property.  

Certainly, no freeze order was entered.  By the time he received the [master’s report], it was too late to take advantage of a 

distribution in-kind [because Husband had already sold the items 

____________________________________________ 

2 Rule 1920.55-2(a)(1)(ii) requires the master to file his report “within thirty days from the last to occur of the receipt of the transcript by the master or 

close of the record in contested actions.”   

J-A11003-18 

- 3 - 

in question].  It is unknown what the [m]aster’s opinion as to the value of these items would have been if he did not make an in-

kind distribution available.  Husband’s Brief at 6-7. 

 Husband has waived this issue by failing to raise it in his Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement.  Barton v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 124 A.3d 349, 

356 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consumer who claimed that lawnmower he bought 

from major retail chain caught fire and burned down his barn waived right to 

raise “malfunction” theory of strict liability in appeal due to failure to raise 

issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal).   

 Even if Husband had preserved this issue for appeal, it is devoid of merit.    

As the plaintiff in this action, Husband “[bore] the risk of not acting within a 

reasonable time to move a case along . . . It is plaintiff's duty to move the 

case forward and to monitor the docket to reflect that movement.”  Golab v. 

Knuth, 176 A.3d 335, 339 (Pa. Super. 2017).  The record does not indicate 

that Husband requested the master to issue his decision during the 21⁄2 year 

hiatus.  By not seeking a decision, Husband bore the risk that in-kind 

distribution would no longer be possible at the time of the report.   

We affirm the trial court’s order and direct that a copy of the December 

14, 2017 trial court opinion be attached to any future filings in this case. 

J-A11003-18 

- 4 - 

Order affirmed.   

Judge Platt joins this memorandum. 

Judge Nichols concurs in the result.  

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/11/2018 

Circulated 05/31/2018 01:24 PM 

PAUL ADAMCHICK 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

CHARLENE R, ADAMCHICK 

Defendant 

: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

OF LUZERNE COUNTY 

CIVIL ACTION- LAW 

IN CUSTODY 

NO. 4205 OF 2012-) 1655 MDA 2017 

r 

" - 

; r-r- rrl (--)cp rr Cj' Cr: 

.L -< Col 

OPINION ISSUED PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925 (a) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 

This Court entered a Divorce Decree on October 3, 2017. On October 23, 

2017, the Plaintiff, hereinafter, "Husband" filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior 

Court referencing the October 3, 2017 Divorce Decree. On October 26, 2017, the 

Court issued a request that Husband file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained 

of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (b). Husband filed the Concise Statement 

of Errors Complained of on Appeal on November 13, 2017, regarding the court's 

adopting the Master's Report and Recommendation regarding equitable 

distribution of the parties' assets. 

The divorce action was filed by Husband on April 3, 2012. The Master was 

appointed on May 27, 2014 and the Master's hearing was held on August 13, 2014. 

The Master's report was issued on May 11, 2017. 

Vu