### J
- A12010
- 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RONALD L. WILLIAMS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. VIRGINIA LARAINE WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 2406 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered July 9 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2011
- 04136
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * 

### MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 11, 2016 Virginia Laraine Williams (Wife) appeals from the court’s order, dated July 1, 2015, and entered on July 9, 2015, that sustained Ronald L. Williams’ (Husband) exception to the master’s award of indefin ite alimony. Specifically, the court’s order directed Husband to pay to Wife alimony in the amount of $6,750 per month only until December 31, 2018, rather than for an indefinite time. After review, we affirm. The parties were married in September of 1986, and are the parents of two daughters. On April 13, 2011, Husband filed a complaint in divorce, which eventually led to a number of hearings held before a master. The master’s report, issued on May 12, 2014, recommended a 60%
- 40% split

____________________________________________
* 

### Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

### J
- A12010
- 16

- 2
-

of the mari tal property with Wife receiving the larger share. The master also recommended an award of alimony to Wife for an indefinite period of time. Husband filed an inordinate number of exceptions, which the court overruled. However, the court sustained Husban d’s exception to the indefinite period of alimony and awarded Wife alimony only until December 31, 2018. Wife appealed and now raises the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining Husband’s [o]bjection [to] the [m ]aster’s award of indefinite alimony by failing to consider the composition of the assets awarded to Wife[?] 2. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining Husband’s [e]xception to the [m]aster’s award of indefinite alimony by failing to consider Wife’s inability to maintain her prior lifestyle on the very limited income
- producing assets awarded to her[?] 3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in sustaining Husband’s [e]xception to the [m]aster’s award of indefinite alimony by failing to consider Husband’ s income in excess of $750,000 per year ($40,000 per month), from which the alimony of $4,000 is deductible from Husband’s income[?] 4. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in sustaining Husband’s [e]xception to the [m]aster’s award by failing to consider t hat a large portion of the assets awarded to Wife were either monies previously received or phantom assets or airline points which are not income producing[?] Wife’s brief at 6. 1

____________________________________________ 1 

### We note that Wife’s brief does not contain a copy of the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b). Furthermore, the argument section of Wife’s brief does not comport with (Footnote Continued Next Page)

### J
- A12010
- 16

- 3
-

We conduct our review of the issues raised by Wife according to the follow ing standard:

The role of an appellate court in reviewing alimony orders is limited; we review only to determine whether there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Absent an abuse of discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order, this Court will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court. Smith v. Smith , 904 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 2006). Likewise:

The purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met. In determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court must consider all relevant facto rs, including those statutorily prescribed for at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701. Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1188 (Pa. Super. 2003). Dalrymple v. Kilishek , 920 A.2d 1275, 1278
- 79 (Pa. Super. 2007). (Footnote Continued)

_______________________ 

### Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which requires that “[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part ... the particul ar point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Instead, the argument section of Wife’s brief begins by alleging that the trial court “relied on only one of the seventeen (17) factors” set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701, and then lists all the factors and provides discussion about each one. Moreover, in the argument section of the brief, there is no specific reference to the issues listed on page 6 of Wife’s brief, which in turn renders our review mo re difficult.

### J
- A12010
- 16

- 4
-

Despite our reference in footnote 1 to the incorrect format of Wife’s brief, we are able to understand the errors Wife alleges, as did the t rial court. Therefore, having reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough and well
- reasoned analysis provided by the Honorable James P. MacElree II of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County in his op inion, entered on July 9, 2015, and his Rule 1925(a) opinion, entered on September 22, 2015, we conclude that Judge MacElree considered the statutory factors as they applied to the facts of this case and correctly disposed of the issues presented by Wife. Accordingly, we adopt his opinions as our own and affirm the order on that basis. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/11/2016: 1



# l i 

### l1 ' 'I l, 

## 1, of Fox
- Rothchild LLP. an attorney. is fifty-four years old, and is a highly compensated partner with the law firm sales representative and as a consultant, but was laid off from her last fulHime job in 2009. Wife's mental health issues have since limited her earning capacity. Husband is (d.o.b. 10/14/99). Wrfe is 

### fitty-slx years old and has a bachelor's degree in nursing and
a master's degree in health care administration. Wife once earned a high salary as a 

## i Report of Master Lynne Snyder, Esquire. 

### 1 · Factual and Procedural History Virginia Williams (Wife) and Ronald Williams (Husband) were married on September 

# I 6, 1986. They are the parents of two daughters, Rebecca (d.o.b. 5/16/98) and Lyndsey This matter is before the Court on Ronald Williams' Exceptions to the 

### May 12, 2014, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, pro se Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin, Esquire, 

### Attorney for Defendant VIRGINIAL 

### L. WILLIAMS,

Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - IN DIVORCE 

## v.

: NO, 2011-04136 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


### : CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ; i RONALD L. WILLIAMS, 

# I Plaintiff 

# I 

# ! i 

# I Circulated 07/25/2016 02:18 PM

### 2



# I ·I I , I , 

# .. . Hu sba n d m a k es no s i g n i fi ca nt c hall e ng e to thi s d is tri b u t ion, and o ur r e vi ew r e veal s no 

# i

e rr o r
. T h us , we add ress thi s m a tt e r n o further. J t 

## i 

# I t ; ; and fo und it e qu i t a bl e t hat W i f e r ec eive 60 % o f t h e ma rit a l a ss e t s. In hi s ex c ep ti ons pa rti cu lar c ase mand a t e h o w the s e cti o n 3502 f a ct o r s will be app li e d

. Ga l es v . G a tes, 

# - I 93 3 A.2 d 10 2, 1 0 5 ( Pa.S up e r. 20 07 ). I ns t a ntly, th e M a st e r a p p li ed a ll s t at ut ory f act or s p o w e r s to e ffe ctuat e ju s tic e, a nd a re to an a lyz e a nd a p p ly th e f a cto r s s e t forth In 23 Pa

. 1 

### I C.S. A. 

### § 35 0 2

. G ill 

### v. Gi ii, 6 77 A. 2d 1 2 14, 1 216 ( Pa .S upe r. 199 6). Th e f act s 

### o f t he - d o llars
. In fash i oning an eq ui ta bl e di s tribution a w a rd co urt s h a v e br oa d e quit ab le th a t Hu s band p a y alimony, indefinitely, to W i fe

. On J une 2 , 2 0 14 , Husb a nd filed nin ety - 

## j five exc ept i on s t o the M a ster' s report. I I I EXCEPTIONS l 

# I T h e m a rital asse t s in thi s matt e r a re s i g nifi ca nt, and a r e va lu e d at ov er four m i lli o n l ma r it a l e s t a te b e divi d ed 60% to Wife a n d 40 % to Husband

. Sh e also re c o m mend e d I 

# I On Octo be r 2 3 and 24, 2013, and D e c e m b e r 18 , 2 01 3, th e Mas t e r heard 

# l
• i te s timony o n th e part ies ' equ i tabl e di s tributi o n c l a i ms
. The reco rd wa s kep t o p e n , and 

# I
th e Ma s t e r hear d addition a l ev id e n ce on Wife' s e a rni n g c a pacity on Fe b ru a ry 2 0, 201 4

. 1 

### 1 Th e Ma s ter i ss u e d her r eport on May 

### 1 2 , 2014

. In 

### it, th e Ma s ter r e commend e d that the and settl e ment conferen c es o n September 19, 2 0 12 and March 8, 20 13

. Ma s ter on April 3 0 , 2012

. The Ma s ter h e ld a prelimin a ry confer e n c e o n J un e 1, 201 2 , : I I Hu sb and filed for divor ce on A p ril 13, 2 011 , and requ e st e d the a pp ointment of a ' I 

# l! I

### 3 (2) The ages and the physical, mental and emotion a l conditions of the parti e s. (1) The relative earning s and earning capacities of the partie s
. factors li s ted in 23 Pa.C.S.A

. 

### § 3701(b). They are: alimony is necessary, and its amount and dur a tion, a court is to consider the seventeen l awarding i n d efinite alimony wa s error
. We agree. I I I ' 23 Pa

. C.S.A

. 

### § 3701 (a) provide s that a court entering a d i vorce de c ree may also ; ' 1 award alimony, 

### if It finds that such an award is neces s ary In determin i ng whether j I marital r esidence would be paid off) and t hereafter alimony in th e amount of $4,000 per 

# I
; month indefin i tely

. Husband strenuously objects to the Master's award, arguing that ; I alimony in the amount of $6,750 per month until 2019 (when the mortgage on the exceptions, the award of alimony. The Master re c ommended that Husband pay Wife l
I We turn now to the only issue Husband analyzes in his brief 

### iri support of his 

## l 1 I PACSES No. 977112551. In his exceptions to the Master's report, Husband raises many, 

### many exceptions to 

# I
the decision to impute to Wife an earning capacity of only $8.25 per hour. However, the 

# ! ! I issue of Wife's earning capacity has been discussed, and decided, in th e parties 1 ; support action

. On June 29, 2015, we authored an opinion and entered an order that 

# I
overruled Husband ' s exceptions to the H e aring Officer's recomm e ndation on this i s sue
. 

# I i We incorporate that discussion herein

. See: 

### Williams v. William s , No

. 01108N2011 , : I I 

## !i ti 

### !! 

## ,, 

# II II l! 

# n

' I 1 :4



# L 

# II 1 1 1 1 

## , , •I 

# j l i i 

# ii l I (15) T h e F ed e ra l , State a nd lo ca l t ax ram ific a ti o n s of t h e a l im o n y aw ar d

. (1 6 ) Wh e th e r t h e part y s e e ki ng a li m ony l ac ks s uffi c i en t p r op e rty , i n c l ud i ng
. bu t n o t limi t e d t o, pro p e rty di s tribut e d un de r Ch a p t er 35 (r el a ti ng t o p r ope rty ri g ht s), t o p r o vi de fo r th e p a rty' s r easo n a bl e n ee ds

. ( 14 ) T h e m a ri t al m isco ndu ct of e i t h e r o f th e p a rti es durin g th e m a rri age. Th e m a rit a l mi scond u ct o f e i t h e r o f th e p a rti e s fr om t h e d a t e o f fi na l se p ara ti o n s h a ll no t b e c onsid e r e d by th e c ourt in it s d e t e rmin a tion s r e l a tiv e t o ali m ony, excep t th at t he court sh a ll c onsid e r th e a bu se o f o n e p a rty 

### b y th e o th e r party. As u s e d i n th i s pa r a graph , "ab u se " s h a ll h a v e t h e m e ani ng g iv e n t o it und e r se cti o n 610 2 ( re l a tin g t o d e finition s ). (12) The c ontribution of a spous e as h o m e m a k e r. ( 1 3) Th e r e l a tiv e ne e d s of th e p a rti e s
. (11) T he pr o p e rty brought t o th e m a rri age by either party

. (1 0 ) The r e l a tiv e asse t s a nd li ab ili t ie s o f th e p a rti es
. (9) The r e lativ e e du ca ti o n o f th e parti es and th e tim e n ec es sary to acq ui re s uffi c i e nt e du ca ti o n o r training t o e n a bl e th e party seeki n g a li mon y to fi n d ap pro p ri a te e mpl o ym e nt

. ( 8 ) T he s t a nda r d of li v ing of th e p a rtie s e s t abli s hed du ri ng the m a rri age. (7) The exte nt t o which th e earning power, e x p e nses or finan ci; al o bli g at i on s o f a pa rty will b e aff ected 

### by r e a so n of se rving as th e c u s t od i a n of 

### a min o r c hild. ( 6 ) The contribution by one 

### party to the e ducation, training 

### or increase d ea rning po w er of the o ther party

. ( 5 ) The dur a tion of the marriag e. (4) The ex pectanci e s and inh e rit a nce s o f the p a rties

. ( 3 ) The so urce s o f i nc o me of both part ies , i nclu d in g , b ut n ot li m it e d t o , medical, r e tirem e nt, in s u ra nce or other benefits. 

# Ii i '

. ! 

### i i 

# I

I 

# l l5 For the reasons stated above, we enter the following: 

# I Husband's exception 

### on this issue will be sustained.

11 

# ' [
I I 

### l ' (17) Whether the party seeking alimony is incapable of self
- support through appropriate employment. r : 1 : 

### 'I !: ~ 1 ti 

# u ·< '! 

### !J ;1 : 1 

### I i 

# II 1r 

## ·1 II It 

## il 

# I! : 

# I The Master, after considering these factors recommended indefinite alimony. The !
r 

# I Master based this decision in part, because Wife could not provide for her reasonable 

# i
t

1 1 needs without "spending down" her equitable distribution award. Report of the Master, 

### j i 5/12/14, pp. 28-29. However, an award of alimony after a divorce is a secondary j I

. • 

## I 

# I remedy that "is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the 

# I

r parties cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution award." Teodorski v. J

. I Teodorsl<i, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). 

# I i In this matter, economic justice can be achieved through the equitable distribution of 

# I I the parties' significant marital assets and an award of alimony that terminates on 

# l I 

# I ! December 31, 2018. Thus, we agree with the Master's recommendation that Husband J 

## l ! pay to Wife alimony in the amount of $6,750 per month until December, 2018, at which f 

### I time the mortgage on the marital re.sidence will be paid off. In addition , Wife is to 

# l

receive 60% of the marital estate l n equitable distribution, assets totaling nearly two and 

### I 

# l ' one-half million dollars ($2,436,744), an amount more than sufficient to meet her 

## j
r easonable needs in the future. Indefinite alimony is a remedy not needed here, and j I j 

# I i6 

# ~rX
- - - -- ~ MESf>.MacELREE II 

### J

. BY THE COURT: ORDER ON EXCEPTIONS P l ai ntiff , pro se Lynn e Z. Gold-B iki n , E squ ir e , Atto rn ey for D e fend a nt '- 

# f\lEO JUL 9 

# 201 5


# ~ , ; , 3 ~ 

# 5 ?.> 

# prn NO

. 2 011
- 041 36 : C IVIL ACTI O N - IN DIV ORCE 

## v . : CHESTER C OUNTY , PENNS Y LVANIA 

# i f I 

# I I ' 

### i f 

### i f 

### l



# . 

# . 

# I l I 

### I
AND N O W , t his / fl 

### day of July, 2 015 , up o n co nsid e r a t i on o f Pl ai ntiff s 

# I

, I E x ception s t o th e R e p o rt and Re c o m me ndation of the Ma s te r dat ed M a y 12 , 2 0 1 4, i t is 

# l I hereby ORDERED a nd DECREED th a t Pla i nt iff s Exc e p tion 

### to t he M as t e r' s a w a rd of 

# I in de fi n i t e alimo n y i s SUSTA I NED

. Pl ain ti ff s hall p a y to Def en d a nt ali mony i n t h e 

# I
I amo unt of $6 , 75 0 p e r mon t h until D e c e m be r 3 1 , 2 018 , a t wh ic h t i m e P la i n ti ffs ali m o n y 

# I
ob li g ation s hall te rm i nat e
. Th e r e m a inder of Plain ti ff' s ex cepti ons ar e OVERRULED

. 

# I : IN THE C OU RT OF CO M M O N P LEAS !i 

# : i !. I i if 

### lj I , 

## ! · i :1 1 1 H I i j 

## j RO NALD L

. W I LLI A MS, 

## i 

# I Pl ai ntiff 

# Ii 

# /'

I 

# I VIRGINIAL 

### L. WILLI A M S ,

D efe nd a ntfifty-four years old and is a highly compensated partner with the law firm of Fox-Rothchild

daughters, Rebecca and Lyndsey, who are now seventeen and fifteen years old. Appellee is September 6, 1986, and divorced by order dated July 6, 2015. They are the parents of two Virginia Williams (Appellant) and Ronald Williams (Appellee) were married on 

### Factual and Procedural History ', 1 mandate of Pa.R.A.P. l 925(a). estate, she is also entitled to an award of indefinite alimony. \\le write now pursuant to the appeal she claims that, in addition to the 2.4 million dollars she will receive from the marital exception to the Master's recommendation that he pay his ex-wife indefinite alimony. On P e nnsylvania from our order of July 1, 2015, in which we sustain e d Ronald Williams' she retains) will be satisfied. Ms. Williams' has now filed an appeal to the Superior Court of month in alimony until December 31, 2018, when the mortgage on the marital residence (which $4,061,240.20 marital estate in equitable distribution. She will also receive $6, 7 50.00 per Pursuant to this Court's order, Virginia William s is to receive 60% of the patties '



### OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Ronald 

### L. Williams, 

### pro se Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin, Esquire, Attorney for Virginia Williams \ --· 

### VIRGINIA L. \VILLIAMS CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN DIVORc'if ._ 

### v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS RONALD L. 

### \VILLIAMS Circulated 07/25/2016 02:18 PM

### 2 Legal Analysis

tn~ her statement of matters complained of on appeal Appellant asserts that the Court erred when denying her indefinite alimony by 1) failing to consider the composition of the assets awarded to her, 2) failing to consider her inability to maintain her prior lifestyle with the limited income-producing assets she was awarded in equitable distribution, 3) failing to consider that Appellee ' s income would not be significantly impacted by an award of alimony, and 4 ) failing to consider that a portion of the assets awarded to her had previously been received or were "phantom" assets. None of these claims entitle her to appellate relief. Appellee filed numerous exceptions to the Master's report. On July 1, 2015 , this Court overruled all exceptions save for one. Because we found that an award of indefinite alimony was not wan-anted in this case, we sustained Appellee's exception to the award. This appeal followed. LLP. Appellant is fifty-six years old , holds both bachelor's and master's degrees, and was once a highly paid sales representative and consultant. Now, due to continuing mental health issues,

· ' she is unable to work in a professional capacity, and has had imputed to her an earning capacity of $8.25 per hour. 

### i ' Appellee filed for divorce on April I 3, 2011, and requested the appointment of a master. The Master heard three days of testimony on the 

### parties ' equitable distribution claims prior to issuing her report on May 12, 2014. · In her report, the Master recommended that Appellant receive 60% of the marital estate, and also that she receive indefinite alimony from Appellee.

### 3 (I) The relative earnings and earning capacities of the parties. (2) The ages and the physical, mental and emotional conditions of the parties. (3) The sources of income of both patties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits. (4) The expectancies and inheritances of the patties. (5) The duration of the marriage. ( 6) The contribution by one patty to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party. (7) The extent to which the earning power, expenses or financial obligations of a party will be affected by reason.of serving as the custodian of a minor child. (8) The standard of living of the patties established during the marriage. (9) The relative education of the parties and the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking alimony to find appropriate employment. ( 10) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties. ( 11) The property brought to the marriage by either party, ( 12) The contribution of a spouse as homemaker. ( 13) The relative needs of the parties. ( 14) The marital misconduct of either of the patties during the marriage. The marital misconduct of either of the parties from the date of final separation shall not be considered by the court in its determinations relative to alimony, except that the court shall consider the abuse of one patty by the other party. As used in this paragraph, "abuse" shall have the meaning given to it under section 6102 (relating to definitions). I The 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3 70 l (b) factors are: listed in 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

### § 3701(b). 1 Instantly, the parties' ages, earnings and earning capacity, alimony is necessary, a court is to consider all relevant factors , including the seventeen factors Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). In determining whether by the parties during their marriage, as well as the payer's ability to pay." Teodorski v. "based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established necessities of life. 

### Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654, 659 (Pa.Super, 2010). Alimony is to be finds that it is necessary to provide the receiving spouse with sufficient income to obtain the that alimony is necessary." 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

### § 370l(a). A court should award alimony only if it Where a divorce decree has been entered, a court may allow alimony "only if it finds4 ( 15) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications of the alimony award. ( 16) Whether the party seeking alimony lacks sufficient property , including, but not limited to, property distributed under Chapter 35 (relating to property rights) , to provide for the party's reasonable needs. (17) Whether the party seeking alimony is incapable of self-support through appropriate employme nt. Appellant was awarded assets valued at over 2.4 million dollars. accounts valued at $493,378.62. Also included were advances totaling $298,616.83. In total, ac c ounts valued at $113,484.54; an investment account valued at $500,711.41; and retirement $240,000; the proceeds from the sale of property held by the Wooding Trust valued at $265,41.4 i cars valued at $33,912; net rents valued at $40,266.77; checking and savings her award were th e marital residence valued at $450,960; an investment condominium valued at needs. Here, Appellant was awarded 60% of a four million dollar marital estate. Included in property, including property distributed in equitable distribution, to provide for her reasonable case was our consideration of factor 16 , whether the party seeking alimony lacks sufficient However, of primary importance to our decision that no alimony was appropriate in this of the statutory factors are either not applicable or favor neither party. cannot meet these expenses through "appropriate employment." The majority of the remainder monthly expenses to be $8,319 per month. Because her earning capacity is limited, Appellant her report, the Master adjusted certain of these expenses, and found Appellant's reasonable submitted a statement claimin g that her expenses totaled 

### $ l 2 , 160 per month. Exhibit D-18. In standard Appellee can easily maintain through his salary. Before the Master, Appellant in this opinion. The parties enjoyed a very good standard of living during their marriage , which duration of the marriage and Appellant's mental health issues have previously been mentioned

# ., PM t .ft met&&±±ff 

### 5

D A TE B Y T HE CO URT:



# 92 / #1 <;{_ ~ J AM ES P. M ac ELREE II J

. e ntitl e d to no re li e f in thi s ca s e . In s t antly , i t wa s n ot, and it was u n n ec e ssary to res ort to thi s " s e co nd ary re me dy

. " App e ll ant i s the s t andard i s w h e th er ali m ony i s n ee ded to ac hi e v e econo mic ju s ti ce b etw een th e parti es . li qui dati onof a sse ts is not the s t andard fo r th e award o f in d e finite al imony . As s t ate d p re v i ou s ly , additi on, alth o u g h all of th e asse t s Ap p e ll ant re c ei v e d m ay n o t b e ea s ily li quidate d , e as y

.. . > Ap p e ll ant to u s e s ome o f h er s ub stanti al a s s e ts fo r h er o w n suppo rt is n o t unreas on abl e . I n 

### . App e ll ant wou l d not h ave to " s p e n d dow n " h er e qu it able di s trib u tion aw ard

. How e ver , re quirin g impairment s in m akin g that aw ard. Here , th e M as ter recommended ind e finite alim o ny s o th at at $213 , 60 1. 94 in 1 9 87) i n e qu itab le di strib u tion, and th e court h ad c on s idere d h er phys i cal fifty

- fiv e y ear o l d w i f

e p ermanent alimo ny, w h en s h e rece i v e d 60 % o f the m ari tal e s t ate (value d th e P e nn sy l vania Supre me C ourt he l d th at th e tri al court di d not abuse i ts di s creti on in denyin g a h ere throug h equ itabl e di stribu ti o n. 

### In O ' C a lla g h an v. 0 'Calla g ha n, 6 07 A.2d 7 3 5 (Pa. 1 9 9 2), ind efi ni te alimo ny, i t wa s error to reco mmen d th at h e d o s o, as eco n omi c jus ti c e was ac hi e ve d K en !, 16 A. 3 d I 1 58 , 11 6 1 (P a . S uper. 2011). Ev e n thou g h Ap p e ll e e h a s th e ab ili ty to p ay av ail ab le o nly wh en ec on omic j us tic e c ann o t b e ac hie v ed thro u gh e qu it ab l e di strib u ti on . K e n t v. partn er in their m arri ag e. A fter a div o rce , an award of alimo ny i s a se cond ary re me dy , and is ' 

### ' a s sets valu e d at $ 2,4 3 6,74 4, an aw ard $ 81 2,2 48 g reater than th at aw ard e d to Ap pe lle e, the o ther ! s h e w ill b e si x ty ye ars old and her h o me will b e full y pai d fo r. S h e was al s o aw ard e d marit al 

# i Ap pell ant is to re c e iv e $6,7 5 0 p er month i n ali m o ny unti l Dec e mb er 20 1 8, at whi c h ti me