J-A29020-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JON S. BOWMAN

v.

SHANNON C. BOWMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 655 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Decree Entered March 12, 2020,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,

Civil Division at No(s): 2016-01738.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2021

Appellant Shannon C. Bowman (Wife) appeals the order’s denying her 

exceptions to the master’s report and recommendation, which divided the 

marital estate she shared with Appellee Jon S. Bowman (Husband). Although 

the court divided the estate in Wife’s favor, her possession of the property 

necessitated that she transfer a sum to Husband in order to effectuate the 

distribution. After careful review, we affirm.1

The history of this case involves a short marriage and long divorce, 

replete with a predictable degree of acrimony, which we need not restate. The 

pertinent factual and procedural background is as follows. The parties’ wed 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We note that Wife filed another appeal, 798 MDA 2020, which is separately 

listed before this panel.
J-A29020-20

- 2 -

on October 12, 2013, separated approximately 28 months later on February 

8, 2016, and litigated their divorce until the entry of the decree on March 12, 

2020. The couple had one child during the marriage.

Husband filed a divorce complaint in March 2016. The court held 

settlement conferences throughout 2017 and 2018. Part of the delay can be 

attributed to the shifting nature of the litigation; once the parties were 

separated for statutorily required timeframe, Husband was entitled to a 

divorce under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(d) (irretrievable breakdown) without 

proving fault and without Wife’s consent. After no settlement was reached, 

the court set an equitable distribution hearing before a master. The master 

held hearings on November 1, 2018, and January 22-23, 2019, which 

culminated with the master’s report and recommendation on April 25, 2019. 

In the report, the master determined that Wife earned $116,703 per 

year and received $1,066.48 for the support of the parties’ child. Husband 

earned $74,883 per year and anticipates an annual bonus of approximately 

$11,000. The parties were married for approximately 2 1⁄2 years before they 

separated. Husband was 39 years old, and Wife was 41. The court’s equitable 

distribution scheme provided that Wife receive 60% of the marital estate to 

Husband’s 40%, but that Husband be responsible for 60% of the negligible 

marital debt to Wife’s 40%. 

Specifically, the master accounted for certain marital assets and debts, 

which are the crux of this appeal: Wife’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) retirement 

account; Wife’s Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pension; and 
J-A29020-20

- 3 -

the increase in the value of Wife’s premarital residence, where they lived 

during the marriage. However, the master was not persuaded by Wife’s 

demand that she be compensated for allegedly helping Husband repay his 

premarital debt. Nor was the master persuaded to compensate Wife for her 

decision to utilize paid time off, accrued prior to the marriage, to maximize 

her maternity leave. See Master’s Report and Recommendation, 4/25/19, at 

1-26.

Following the master’s report and recommendation, Wife filed 19 

exceptions to the trial court. The court ultimately denied her exceptions and 

adopted the master’s recommendation by order of December 11, 2019. The 

December order was made final by the entry of the divorce decree on March 

12, 2020. Wife filed a timely2 notice of appeal.

____________________________________________

2 Wife filed a notice of appeal on April 24, 2020, which was 13 days beyond 

the allowable 30-day timeframe provided by Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). This Court 

issued a rule to show cause, directing Wife to explain why the instant appeal 

should not be quashed as untimely. In response, Wife cited our Supreme 

Court’s declaration of a general, statewide judicial emergency on account of 

COVID-19. See In re: General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 228 A.3d 

1281 (Pa. 3/16/20) (per curiam). She correctly noted the Supreme Court’s 

suspension of “all time calculations for purposes of time computation relevant 

to court cases or other judicial business, as well as time deadlines.” See id.

Indeed, the High Court specified thereafter: “Legal papers or pleadings...which 

are required to be filed between March 19, 2020 and May 8, 2020, generally 

shall be deemed to have been filed timely if they are filed by the close of 

business on May 11, 2020. In re: General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 

230 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 4/28/20) (per curiam). Because the Supreme Court’s 

orders extended Wife’s filing date to May 11, 2020, her notice of appeal, dated 

April 24, 2020, is timely.
J-A29020-20

- 4 -

She presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the lower court err by violating (without any 

analysis) federal law and ordering an immediate offset 

payment of Wife’s [Federal Employees Retirement 

System (FERS)] benefit?

2. Did the lower court err by overinflating the immediate 

offset value of Wife’s FERS benefit?

3. Did the lower court err by valuing Wife’s non-marital 

asset (her [thrift savings plan (TSP)] retirement plan) 

as a martial asset both in calculating growth beyond 

the date of separation as well as failing to credit for 

premarital funds used to repay a premarital loan?

4. Did the lower court err by not accounting for or 

considering that Husband paid off his pre-marital debt 

with marital money?

5. Did the lower court err by not crediting Wife for having 

expended her significant amount of accrued sick leave 

to pay for household expenses?

6. Did the lower court err in accepting the master’s 

valuation of the marital home on the date of 

marriage?

7. Did the lower court’s equitable distribution order fail 

to effectuate economic justice because the court 

refused to account for Wife’s substantial contributions 

toward the marriage?

Wife’s Brief at 2-3.

At the outset, we underscore that the objective of equitable distribution 

is to effectuate economic justice between the parties and to achieve a just 

determination of their property rights. See Hess v. Hess, 868 A.2d 554, 558 

(Pa. Super. 2005). Our scope and standard of review of equitable distribution 

awards is settled:
J-A29020-20

- 5 -

We review a challenge to the trial 

court's equitable distribution scheme for an abuse of 

discretion. We do not lightly find an abuse of discretion, 

which requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence. 

We 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. [...] When determining the propriety of 

an equitable distribution award, this Court must consider 

the distribution scheme as a whole. We 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. Rather, we look at 

the distribution as a whole in light of the court's overall 

application of the 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a) factors for 

consideration in awarding equitable distribution. If we fail to 

find an abuse of discretion, the order must stand. Finally, it 

is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence 

and decide credibility and this Court will not reverse those 

determinations so long as they are supported by the 

evidence.

Conner v. Conner, 217 A.3d 301, 309 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

FERS Pension

Wife’s first and second appellate issues concern her FERS pension. First, 

Wife contends that the court lacked authority to divide her FERS pension; 

second, in the alternative, she argues the master overvalued the FERS 

pension, causing the court to err when it adopted the master’s 

recommendation.

Wife is employed by the federal government and is entitled to a FERS 

pension. Her contributions began before the marriage, and thus, only some 

portion of this pension is marital property, and an even smaller portion could 
J-A29020-20

- 6 -

be claimed by Husband. The master recommended dividing the FERS pension

via the “immediate offset” method; i.e., where the court determines the 

present value at the time of equitable distribution and factors it into its

ultimate equitable distribution scheme. The immediate offset method differs 

from the deferred distribution method, which requires the court to retain 

jurisdiction, perhaps for decades, while the parties wait to see what the 

ultimate value of the pension becomes. 

We have explained these methodologies as follows:

Pennsylvania law provides two methods for distributing a 

pension when dividing marital assets. The first method, 

“immediate offset,” awards a percentage of the marital 

portion of the value of the pension to the party earning it, 

and offsets the marital value of this pension with other 

marital assets at equitable distribution. This method is 

preferred where the estate has sufficient assets to offset the 

pension, because it does not require the court to retain 

jurisdiction indefinitely. The second method, “deferred 

distribution,” generally requires the court to retain 

jurisdiction until the pension is collected, at which point the 

pension is divided according to the court's order. This 

method is more practical where the parties lack sufficient 

assets to offset the marital value of the pension.

We have recognized that neither distribution scheme will be 

appropriate to all cases. Rather, the trial court must 

balance the advantages and disadvantages of each 

method according to the facts of the case before it in 

order to determine which method would best effectuate 

economic justice between the parties.

Conner, 217 A.3d at 312 (emphasis added, citations omitted).

Given the brevity of the marriage, the master determined that the 

marital portion of Wife’s FERS pension was relatively small. Furthermore, the 
J-A29020-20

- 7 -

master based its determination on the assumption that Wife would retire at 

age 62, as opposed to age 48 1⁄2 (the earliest she would be entitled to collect

the pension). By assuming Wife would retire at 62, the master effectively 

reduced the marital portion of the overall pension. According to Husband’s 

expert evaluator, if Wife retired early, the marital portion of the FERS benefit 

would be $87,366; however, by assuming Wife would retire at 62, the marital 

portion would be $26,961. The master then recommended the immediate 

offset of this lesser figure, in accordance with its 60/40 percentage in Wife’s 

favor. All told, the master determined that Husband was entitled to

approximately $10,784.40 of Wife’s FERS pension. The trial court adopted 

the master’s findings.

The court explained that an immediate offset was the preferred method 

here, because the marital estate had sufficient assets to offset the pension, 

and it did not require the court to retain jurisdiction. Trial Court Opinion

(T.C.O.), 12/11/19, at 7. The court also reasoned that an immediate offset 

avoided undue speculation on Wife’s future employment decisions and allowed

the parties to move forward. “This Gordian knot must be cut now.” Id.

But Wife argues that the court violated federal law, because her FERS 

pension may not be paid out by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

before Wife is entitled to collect the pension. See Wife’s Brief at 8-9. She 

cites federal regulations, which provide: “employees, retirees, and State court 

may not assign...FERS benefits except as provided in this part.” See 5 C.F.R. 

§ 838.111. More specifically, the regulations provide: “Under...FERS, 
J-A29020-20

- 8 -

employee annuities...are payable on the first business day of the month 

following the months in which the benefit accrues[;] [i]n honoring and 

complying with a court order, OPM will not disrupt the payment 

schedule...despite any provision in the court order directing a different 

schedule of accrual or payment of amounts due the former spouse....” 5 C.F.R. 

§ 838.132 (a)-(b).

We understand these federal regulations, but we do not agree with

Wife’s contention. Contrary to Wife’s characterization of the facts, the court 

did not order OPM to immediately payout Husband’s portion of Wife’s FERS 

pension. Money is fungible, and the master’s recommendation merely 

obligated Wife to transfer to Husband the cash equivalent of his share of the 

FERS pension. Fashioning an equitable distribution award in this manner is 

entirely consistent with the immediate offset method. Thus, it was entirely 

appropriate of the trial court to adopt the master’s recommendation. Wife’s 

first claim is without merit.

Wife’s second appellate issue also concerns the FERS pension. 

Notwithstanding the argument above, Wife claims the master should have 

valued the FERS pension based on the testimony of her expert witness, as 

opposed to the testimony of Husband’s. See Wife’s Brief at 9.

The valuations offered by the competing witnesses diverged quite 

drastically. Wife’s expert valued the FERS pension at $9,113.18; Husband’s 

expert valued the pension to be at either $87,366 or $26,961, depending on 

when Wife retired. Each expert used different methodologies. Wife’s expert 
J-A29020-20

- 9 -

utilized a 5% discount rate, based on his experience with federal pensions. 

Husband’s expert based his discount rate on what it would actually cost to 

purchase a guaranteed-lifetime-income plan in the private marketplace; he 

also relied on publications from federal organizations, taken together with 

mortality tables. The mortality rate was another difference in methodology. 

Wife’s expert relied on IRS table 2000 CM, but he conceded these tables are 

not precise, as they are not updated often. Husband’s expert, who is an 

actuary, used the same literature he employed to determine the discount rate. 

The experts also used different coverture fractions, valuation dates, and cost 

of living adjustments. Ultimately, the master agreed with Husband’s expert, 

finding him to be more credible. The court adopted the master’s findings.

In her Brief, Wife essentially reiterates the above differences in 

methodology, but she does not explain how the court’s decision to adopt the 

master’s findings constituted an abuse of discretion. She merely requests that 

this Court reweigh the evidence and adopt her expert’s valuation instead of 

Husband’s. As we noted above, issues of weight and credibility are within the 

province of the factfinder, so long as the determinations are supported by the 

record. See Conner, 217 A.3d at 309. This claim also fails.

TSP Account

We turn now to Wife’s third appellate issue, which involves Wife’s TSP 

retirement account. Like the FERS pension, Wife’s TSP account predated the 

marriage and thus had a marital and non-marital component. The most 

obvious example of the marital component is the contributions Wife made to 
J-A29020-20

- 10 -

the retirement account during the marriage. However, there is another aspect 

of the marital component that the court must consider. Pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a.1), the increase of value of any nonmarital property shall 

also be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. There was 

still another quirk affecting to the valuation of the TSP account. Prior to the 

marriage, Wife borrowed from the TSP account, incurring a premarital debt. 

This debt was eventually repaid during the marriage, partially with comingled 

funds.

Regarding the TSP valuation, the court again relied on Husband’s expert

over Wife’s expert. Husband’s witness valued the increase of value of the 

nonmarital component to be $11,004. He further valued the marital 

contributions to the TSP account, including a portion of the TSP debt

repayment, to be $52,955, for a sum total of $63,959 – representing the 

marital portion of the TSP benefit. The court adopted the master’s 

recommendation that this asset be divided 60/40 in favor of Wife.

On appeal, Wife argues that the master’s valuation was erroneous for 

two reasons. We begin with the first. While Wife acknowledges that the 

increase in value of the nonmarital property constitutes a marital asset, she 

maintains that contributions to the TSP account during the marriage should 

not have been considered. Consequently, her expert’s valuation of the TSP 

account did not account for the marital contributions and their ongoing 

growth. For support, Wife cites 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a.1), which codifies the 

methodology for measuring the increase of value of a nonmarital property:
J-A29020-20

- 11 -

The increase in value of any nonmarital property acquired 

...shall be measured from the date of marriage or later 

acquisition date to either the date of final separation or the 

date as close to the hearing on equitable distribution as 

possible, whichever date results in a lesser increase. [...]

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a.1) (emphasis added).

In other words, Wife argues the master should not have included her

marital contributions to the TSP account during the marriage, because such 

inclusion would result in a greater – not lesser – increase. Put another way, 

Wife seeks to utilize Section 3501(a.1) as a maneuver to kick out marital 

contributions from the TSP account. For support, Wife cites Biese v. Biese, 

979 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2009), wherein this Court determined that the 

increase in property value of a nonmarital house should have been determined 

as of the date of separation (where the increased value was lesser), and not 

at the date of the equitable distribution trial (where the increased value was 

higher). Wife’s reliance on Biese is inapposite.

Here, Wife’s TSP account had a nonmarital and marital component, just 

like the house in Biese. But unlike in Biese, the marital component of the 

TSP account has two distinct elements: 1) the increase in value of the 

nonmarital component (Section 3501(a.1); and 2) the contributions made to 

the benefit during the marriage. Certainly Section 3501(a.1) governs the 

proper methodology for determining the increase of nonmarital property. 

However, Wife ignores the second element of the marital component of her 

TSP account – that is, the contributions she made during the marriage. 

Section 3501(a.1) has no bearing on this component of the TSP account. 
J-A29020-20

- 12 -

As the master explained:

[P]roperty earned...over the course of the marriage is 

marital and adding it to premarital accounts does not 

convert it to a non-marital asset. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a), 

(b); Nagle v. Nagle, 799 A.2d 812, 818 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

Additionally, it would appear the ability to accurately trace 

premarital funds is required to avoid a determination that 

premarital assets have comingled with marital assets and 

are therefore transformed into marital assets for the 

purposes of equitable distribution. See Dean v. Dean, 98 

A.3d 637, 641 (Pa. Super. 2014); Busse v. Busse, 921 

A.2d 1248, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2007). Finally, it is important 

to note that the court is given great discretion in 

determining the value of a marital asset. Carney v. 

Carney, 167 A.3d 127, 131 (Pa. Super. 2017); Mundy v. 

Mundy, 151 A.3d 230, 236 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Master’s Report and Recommendation, 4/25/19, at 10.

The trial court adopted this recommendation, and we find no error of 

law, nor abuse of discretion. Our Supreme Court explained the difficulty in 

labeling and distributing an employee-spouse’s pension in Smith v. Smith, 

938 A.2d 246, 253 (Pa. 2007):

An employee-spouse’s pension benefit does not fit cleanly 

into either the marital or the post-separation category. On 

one hand, the pension can be viewed as a fruit of the 

marriage and the product of both spouses’ efforts during the 

marriage, thus warranting consideration as marital property 

subject to distribution to the non-employee-spouse. On the 

other hand, the eventual pension benefit may also result 

partially from the employee-spouse’s continued 

employment after separation, and thus, partially, would be 

non-marital property not subject to distribution.

Id.
J-A29020-20

- 13 -

The same logic prevails here. Wife’s contributions prior to the marriage, 

and after the date of separation, are of her own labor. But the court cannot 

ignore that aspect of the TSP account that is the fruit of the marriage, i.e.

marital property.

Nonetheless, Wife advances a second reason the court overvalued the 

TSP account. Regarding the premarital TSP loan, which Wife repaid during 

the marriage, Wife argues that she repaid the TSP loan with nonmarital funds. 

See Wife’s Brief at 14-17. The master observed that each party generally 

kept their respective funds separate, and that each spouse repaid their 

respective expenses and premarital debts with their own funds. However, 

Husband’s expert testified that Wife used some marital funds, from a 

comingled account, to repay some of the premarital loan she borrowed from 

her TSP account. The master determined Wife could not refute Husband’s 

expert, and factored the loan repayment into its valuation of the increase of 

the nonmarital portion of the TSP account. We observe that “it is within the 

province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and decide credibility and this 

Court will not reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by 

the evidence.” Brubaker v. Brubaker, 201 A.3d 180, 184 (Pa. Super. 2018).

The court adopted master’s recommendation, and we fail to discern an abuse 

of discretion.

Husband’s Premarital Debt

In her fourth issue, Wife argues that the court failed to consider Wife’s 

marital contributions toward repaying Husband’s premarital debt. When the 
J-A29020-20

- 14 -

parties married, Husband had credit card debt, student loan debt, and a car 

note. Only Husband’s student debt remained at the time of equitable 

distribution. 

Wife cites Hicks v. Kubit, 758 A.2d 202 (Pa. Super. 2000) for the 

proposition that “[o]ut of fairness to Wife, Wife must be compensated for her 

contribution that enables Husband to eliminate a premarital debt.” See Wife’s 

Brief at 17. However, this excerpt does not appear in Hicks. Rather, it is a 

quotation from a trial court opinion, as cited by our non-precedential decision 

in Topel v. Topel, 2018 WL 1783162, 1-6* (Pa. Super. 2018). 3

In Topel, the husband’s premarital home was underwater; i.e., the 

mortgage was greater than the value of the house. The wife provided 

significant funds to the husband in order to get him out of debt so he could 

sell his premarital home. The premarital home sold, and husband was then 

free and clear of his debt. The wife then refinanced the mortgage of her home 

– the one she lived in with the husband before their separation. The trial court 

in Topel recognized that the wife was de facto paying for Husband’s premarital 

home, because when she refinanced the her mortgage, she took on new debt 

to Husband’s benefit. Thus, to effectuate economic justice at the parties’ 

____________________________________________

3 We note that Topel has no persuasive value as it was filed prior to our rule 

change. Per 210 Pa. Code § 65.37 (Non-Precedential Decisions (formerly 

titled Unpublished Memorandum Decisions), non-precedential decisions filed 

after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value. See also Pa.R.A.P. 

126(b) (Citations of Authorities). Nevertheless, we discuss Topel to 

underscore the deficiency of Wife’s argument.
J-A29020-20

- 15 -

equitable distribution hearing, the trial court determined that wife needed to 

be compensated. We agreed. Id. at *6.

Here, the parties left to themselves their premarital responsibilities. As 

noted above, the master determined that Husband repaid his debts using his 

own funds from an account that was not comingled with the parties’ marital 

assets. The master noted that, for the most part, the parties chose to 

maintain separate accounts in their individual names, with each contributing 

to a joint account from which they utilized for their joint expenses (such as 

utilities, groceries, taxes, the mortgage – and later – child expenses). 

Thus, unlike in Topel, Wife did not contribute to the repayment of 

Husband’s premarital debt, much less incur debt herself to unburden Husband. 

We note, however, that the master acknowledged Wife contributed more 

toward the parties’ joint expenses, in large part because she earned 

considerably more income than Husband. Still, we find no error. To the extent 

that Husband was able to pay down much of his premarital debt during the 

course of the brief marriage, the same was reflected in the master’s equitable 

distribution scheme whereby Wife received 60% of the assets. And although 

the master determined the total marital debt was relatively miniscule 

($604.16), the master recommended that Wife only be responsible for only 

40% of the marital debt. We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s 

decision to adopt the master’s report.

Wife’s Sick Leave
J-A29020-20

- 16 -

In her fifth appellate issue, Wife argues the court ignored Wife’s 

contribution to the marriage when it did not consider Wife’s accrued sick leave. 

See Wife’s Brief at 18. Wife used her premarital sick leave, in conjunction 

with her allotted maternity leave, so she could enjoy 3 1⁄2 months’ worth of 

paid-time-off after the birth of the parties’ child. In essence, Wife claims that 

she had to use her sick leave after the child’s birth, because Husband refused 

to increase his financial contributions to the household. Wife totals the 

financial value of the sick leave to be $26,076.26, all of which she accrued 

prior to the marriage. Thus, according to Wife, the utilization of this premarital 

paid-time-off should have been considered as a contribution toward the 

household, for which she deserves some credit in the court’s equitable 

distribution calculations. 

Husband argues that Wife chose to utilize her paid sick leave so she 

could have an extended maternity leave, even though she could have saved 

this accrued paid-time-off and opted for a shorter maternity leave. The 

master’s report mentioned Wife’s sick leave only in passing, in a miscellaneous 

category that includes inter alia the wear and tear on the hot water heater 

in the marital residence. See Master’s Report and Recommendation at 20. 

The master concluded: “These miscellaneous issues, while not listed 

exhaustively or addressed specifically, have been sifted for relevance and 

considered by the [m]aster in the recommended distribution.” Id. In adopting 

the master’s recommendation, the trial court opined: “Again, it is not a matter 

of failing to consider Wife’s contention, it is a question of adopting it as valid. 
J-A29020-20

- 17 -

Ultimately, we are unconvinced that Wife should be compensated for using 

her leave.” T.C.O., at 9.

Although Wife cites no legal authority to support her argument, we 

recognize that a relevant equitable distribution factor is “the sources of income 

of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance 

or other benefits.” See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(6). We are hesitant to 

speculate, but we certainly see how Wife’s benefits could have factored into 

the equitable distribution of the marital estate. However, “[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. Rather, we look at the distribution as a whole in light of 

the court’s overall application of the 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a) factors for 

consideration in awarding equitable distribution.” Harvey v. Harvey, 167 

A.3d 6, 17 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation and internal brackets omitted) 

(emphasis added). Put plainly, while the court could have given more weight 

toward Wife’s contribution of paid sick leave, the court did not err for failing 

to do so. Wife’s fifth contention is without merit.

The House

In her sixth appellate issue, Wife claims that the court erred by 

accepting the master’s valuation of her home. See Wife’s Brief at 20. When 

the parties married, Husband moved into Wife’s premarital residence. 

Because the residence was nonmarital, only its increase in value was subject 
J-A29020-20

- 18 -

to equitable distribution, per 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a.1), supra. Again, Wife’s 

contention is little more than a battle-of-the-experts. The master explained:

Husband claims that there was an increase in value, as 

determined by his expert. In accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

3501(a.1), Husband’s expert [...] appraised the property on 

the date of marriage, the date of separation, and at a date 

close to that of the hearing on the issue. Subtracting the 

date of marriage value from the date of separation valued 

yielded the lesser increase and Husband claims that 

increase in the value of the house was $13,000. In lieu of 

using her own expert to value the real estate on the date of 

separation and close to the hearing date, Wife wishe[d] to 

stipulate to Husband’s date of separation valuation without 

agreeing that Husband’s expert utilized the appropriate 

valuation methodology. Utilizing Wife’s date of marriage 

valuation and Husband’s date of separation valuation would 

yield a decreed in value of $2,000 over the course of the 

marriage.

[...]

At the hearing on the real estate valuation, both Husband 

and Wife presented testimony and reports from experts[....] 

Both experts presented credible testimony and acknowledge 

that the valuation of real estate often requires the appraiser 

to apply their discretion in determining the appropriate 

value attached to different aspects of the property, such as 

the craftsmanship of the home and the materials used. Of 

note, it would appear that each expert came up with a 

different square footage measurement for the property [a 

difference of 310 square feet] which affected their overall 

value determinations. [...] In his testimony, Wife’s expert 

acknowledged that he did not find anything wrong with 

Husband’s expert’s testimony outside of the square footage 

discrepancy and generally subjective valuation issues. 

[Wife’s expert] further testified that if he were to use 

[Husband’s expert’s] square footage numbers their 

respective valuations of the property on the date of the 

marriage would be closer together.

As [Wife] did not provide any independent valuation of the 

property beyond that of the date of marriage, Wife asserts 
J-A29020-20

- 19 -

that Husband’s expert correctly valued the property at the 

date of separation, but incorrectly valued the property at 

the date of marriage. This contention is untenable.

Master’s Report and Recommendation at 15-16.

The court adopted the master’s recommendation. On appeal, Wife 

cannot articulate how the trial court abused its discretion. As we noted above, 

weight and credibility determinations are within the province of the fact-finder. 

See Brubaker, supra. In our review, we conclude that the master’s 

determinations were supported by the record, and thus we conclude Wife’s 

claim is without merit.

Economic Justice

In her seventh and final appellate issue, Wife sets forth a catchall claim 

that the court’s adoption of the master’s report failed to effectuate economic 

justice. As mentioned above, the master recommended Wife receive 60% of 

the marital estate and that she be responsible for 40% of the negligible marital 

debt. To achieve this distribution, the master recommended, inter alia: Wife 

transfer $18,965.80 from her TSP account to the tax-deferred account of 

Husband’s choosing; that she transfer $10,000 in cash to Husband; and that 

she pay Husband $817 in 28 monthly installments.

Wife surmises that Husband effectively “leached off of Wife during the 

marriage,” which we construe as her disapproval of Husband’s contributions 

to the marriage and its estate. See Wife’s Brief at 29; see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 3502(a)(6)-(7) (“The sources of income of both parties, including, but not 

limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits[; t]he contribution 
J-A29020-20

- 20 -

or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or 

appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as a 

homemaker.”). Wife argues that a just distribution would reflect her retention 

of 71%-79% of the marital assets. For support, she relies on Wang v. Feng, 

888 A.2d 882, 886 (Pa. Super. 2005), a most unusual case wherein this Court 

affirmed the decision to award a wife 100% of the marital estate. See Wife’s 

Brief at 28-29. Those circumstances are not present in the instant matter.

We recognize that the court’s equitable distribution scheme required 

Wife to transfer a relatively large sum to Husband, because Wife was in 

possession of the marital property. Of course, Wife takes no comfort in the 

fact that the court awarded her the lion’s share of the marital property. 

Beyond her general dissatisfaction, Wife cannot articulate how the law was 

“overridden or misapplied or [how] 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 Carney v. Carney, 167 A.3d 

127, 131 (Pa. Super. 2017). 

In sum, Wife fails to appreciate the broad discretion this Court affords 

to the trial court in equitable distribution matters, specifically when it comes 

to weighing the Section 3502(a) factors and determining the credibility of the 

witnesses. After reviewing the court’s decision to adopt the master’s report 
J-A29020-20

- 21 -

and recommendation, we discern no abuse of discretion. “If we fail to find an 

abuse of discretion, the order must stand.” Harvey, 167 A.3d at 17.4

Application for Relief denied. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/09/2021

____________________________________________

4 Given our disposition, Husband’s Application for Relief is denied as moot.