J-S25039-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

GEORGE SEAMAN, JR., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LISA A. SEAMAN,

Appellant No. 1931 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered October 23, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County

Civil Division at No.: A.D. No. 32 of 2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MAY 06, 2015

Appellant, Lisa A. Seaman (Wife), appeals from the order of equitable 

distribution. Wife asserts that the order failed to provide economic justice 

and greatly favored her former husband, Appellee, George Seaman, Jr., 

(Husband). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

The parties were married on March 31, 2006. (See Special Master’s 

Report, 8/26/14, at 3). Both were born in 1963. It was the second 

marriage for each. They separated in December of 2012. The marriage 

produced no children. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S25039-15

- 2 -

Both parties are high school graduates, and are in apparent good 

health. During the marriage the couple lived in property already owned by 

Husband. Wife also owned pre-marital residential property (consisting of a 

mobile home on real estate) in West Virginia. 

Husband is employed in the family cattle trading business, G. William 

Seaman, LLC, started by his parents. During the marriage, Husband 

acquired a 49% ownership interest in the business. Wife became employed 

in the family business as well, but did not acquire any ownership interest. 

Following the separation, Wife’s employment was terminated. She has since 

obtained part-time employment elsewhere at a lower salary. 

During the marriage Husband and Wife also operated their own cattle 

business, 2SCattle. They used a line of credit, a home equity loan, and 

profits to finance the purchase of cattle for their business. After the 

separation, Husband began operation of 2SCattle for himself, as the Bill 

Seaman Cattle Company. 

The special master held a hearing on May 5, 2014. After the hearing 

he submitted a report and recommendations. Wife filed exceptions. The 

trial court denied the exceptions in its order granting divorce and equitable 

distribution. (See Order, 10/23/14, at unnumbered pages 1-4). The overall 

scheme of the equitable distribution was to award Wife 53% of the marital 

estate and 47% to Husband. (See id. at unnumbered page 3; see also

Special Master’s Report, at 26). 
J-S25039-15

- 3 -

Wife filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on 

November 6, 2014. This timely appeal followed on November 20, 2014.1 

Wife presents six questions for our review:

I. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in awarding 

the marital residence to Husband, when Husband clearly has the 

greater earning capacity and is more capable of obtaining 

another mortgage given that Wife remained in the home during 

separation?

II. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in failing to 

direct Husband to reimburse Wife for all Husband’s personal 

expenditures from marital funds, including but not limited to, 

payment of federal and state income tax assessed on an asset 

that was found by the master to be Husband’s non-marital 

asset?

III. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in reducing 

the equity in the marital residence by speculative costs and 

expenses such as realty transfer tax and real estate agent 

commission when there was no direction that the real estate be 

sold?

.

IV. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion by 

considering the value of the Wife’s premarital real estate 

together with the value of a mobile home thereon when those 

items were transferred to Wife separately in making an 

assessment of increase in value of the asset(s)?

V. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in failing to 

direct Husband to pay to Wife some portion of her counsel fees 

and expert expenses?

VI. Did the trial court err/abuse its discretion in failing to 

consider that both marital funds and marital loan accounts were 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court did not order a statement of errors. The court entered an 

order on December 2, 2014, adopting and referencing the Special Master’s 

Report as explanation for its final order and decree. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 
J-S25039-15

- 4 -

used to purchase livestock that formed part of the marital 

estate? 

(Wife’s Brief, at 4-5) (most capitalization omitted).

Wife argues that the overall scheme of equitable distribution failed to 

provide economic justice. (See id. at 7). She maintains that the trial 

court’s decision, which generally adopted the Special Master’s Report and 

Recommendation, was highly favorable to Husband and detrimental to her, 

and should be vacated. (See id. at 18). We disagree.

We review an equitable distribution order for an abuse of 

discretion. 

A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an 

award of equitable distribution. Our standard of review when 

assessing the propriety of an order effectuating the equitable 

distribution of marital property is whether the trial court abused 

its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow 

proper legal procedure. We do not lightly find an abuse of 

discretion, which requires a showing of clear and convincing 

evidence. This Court will not find an abuse of discretion unless 

the law has been overridden or misapplied or the judgment 

exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in 

the certified record. In determining the propriety of an equitable 

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.

Reber v. Reiss, 42 A.3d 1131, 1134 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 62 

A.3d 380 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted). Similarly, “[o]ur scope of review 

requires us to measure the circumstances of the case against the objective 

of effectuating economic justice between the parties in discerning whether 
J-S25039-15

- 5 -

the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedure.” 

Gates v. Gates, 933 A.2d 102, 105 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). 

Here, preliminarily, we observe that the argument in Wife’s brief 

consists principally in the presentation of a collection of objections to the 

order with the implicit common theme that the case should be remanded for 

her to receive a more favorable result. (See Wife’s Brief, at 7-18). 

However, Wife fails to develop an argument that the allocations of which she 

complains are the result of a misapplication of the law or failure to follow 

proper legal procedure. 

Furthermore, aside from a few (four) citations to caselaw, mostly for 

simple recitation of general principles, Wife fails to support her claims with 

pertinent precedent, or develop any arguments that the trial court’s decision 

in any way violated controlling authority. (See id.; see also Husband’s 

Brief, at 3) (“The issues raised by Wife . . . are simply not supported by any 

legal precedent, caselaw, or record created in this case.”). 

Therefore, Wife has failed to make the required showing of an abuse of 

discretion by clear and convincing evidence. See Reber, supra at 1134. 

Nor has she demonstrated how the law has been overridden or misapplied or 

that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in the certified 

record. (See id.; see also Wife’s Brief, at 7-18). 
J-S25039-15

- 6 -

We recognize that Wife’s disappointment is general and palpable. 

Nevertheless, we conclude that she has not demonstrated an abuse of 

discretion. Moreover, we decline Wife’s implicit invitation to re-weigh the 

arguments in her six claims to afford her a more agreeable result. We are 

also mindful that the scheme of distribution is to be considered as a whole, 

not piecemeal. See Reber, supra at 1134. Under our standard of review, 

none of Wife’s claims merit relief. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/6/2015