J-S07017-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

PENNY L. FRANKLIN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DENNIS J. FRANKLIN

Appellant No. 736 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered March 31, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County

Civil Division at No(s): 2008-1154-CP

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 04, 2016

Dennis J. Franklin (Husband) brings this appeal from the order entered 

on March 31, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, 

and made final by the divorce decree entered July 23, 2015. The March 31, 

2015 order disposed of Husband’s exceptions to the amended Master’s 

Report and Recommendations, dated December 9, 2014, and directed the 

Recommendations to be made an order of court. In this appeal, Husband 

presents three issues: (1) “[D]id [the Master’s Report, issued on September 

12, 2013,] become a final order which was binding on the court at the time 

of its March 31, 2015 decision”, (2) “When the court directed the Master to 

determine the amount of spousal maintenance, did the Master make that 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S07017-16

- 2 -

determination based on appropriate standards,” and (3) “In establishing the 

amount of maintenance, should the Master have utilized a division of the 

royalty payments as his basis for awarding a payment in lieu of 

maintenance?” Husband’s Brief at 4. Based upon the following, we affirm 

on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. 

As we write primarily for the parties who are well acquainted with the 

factual and procedural history, we need not discuss the background of the 

case here. We proceed directly to Wife’s argument that this Court should 

quash Husband’s appeal. On August 17, 2015, Wife filed an application to 

quash Husband’s appeal. This Court, on October 7, 2015, denied the 

application without prejudice to raise the issue to the merits panel. In her 

brief, Wife has renewed her request that we quash this appeal.

When deficiencies in a brief hinder this Court’s ability to conduct 

meaningful appellate review, this Court may dismiss the appeal entirely or 

find certain issues to be waived. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Irwin Union Nat. Bank 

and Trust Co. v. Famous, 4 A.3d 1099, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2010). Where 

breaches of the rules of appellate procedure do not prevent meaningful 

review, the merits of the appeal may be addressed. See Savoy v. Savoy, 

641 A.2d 596, 598 (Pa. Super. 1994).

Wife claims that Husband’s counseled brief and reproduced record are 

defective for failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Wife notes, first, that the brief fails to include the statement of 

scope and standard of review, a Rule 1925(b) averment, the trial court’s 
J-S07017-16

- 3 -

answers to the questions involved, Pa.R.A.P. 2116, and a copy of the trial 

court’s opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3), 2111(d), 2116, and 2111(b), 

respectively. Second, Wife states Husband’s statement of the case is 

incomplete as Husband fails to provide references to the record, and 

therefore fails to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 2117(c). Third, Wife states 

Husband’s argument sections are not properly divided as required by 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119, and that the argument does not set forth the place in the 

record where the issue was raised or preserved, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(e). Fourth, Wife faults Husband’s failure to cite to legal authority in 

both his statement of jurisdiction and his argument, as mandated by 

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), 2114, and 2119(b). Finally, Wife complains not only 

are the contents of the reproduced record not designated, but the 

reproduced record is also wholly inadequate. Wife states Husband has 

produced no transcripts and only four exhibits, and failed to provide a copy 

of his own exceptions that led to the appeal, or the trial court’s opinion 

regarding his exceptions. In this regard, Wife cites Pa.R.A.P. 2154.

Our review confirms Wife’s position that Husband’s brief is fraught with 

violations of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, while 

this Court is greatly displeased with the brief submitted by counsel, we will 

not dismiss this appeal. See Long v. Ostroff, 854 A.2d 524, 527 (Pa. 

Super. 2004) (merits of appeal considered despite party violating rules of 

appellate procedure where violations did not impede review). Rather, we 

have reviewed the record, the arguments presented by Husband, and the 
J-S07017-16

- 4 -

relevant statutes, rules and case law, and conclude Husband’s claims are 

meritless.1 

Contrary to Husband’s position, it is clear that the Court’s March 31, 

2015 order is the final, appealable order in this case,2and we affirm on the 

basis of the trial court’s March 31, 2015 opinion, filed in support of its order 

denying Husband’s exceptions and making the amended Master’s report and 

recommendations of December 9, 2014 an order of court.3

____________________________________________

1

“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.” Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654, 662–663 (Pa. 

Super. 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Additionally, 

“[f]ollowing divorce, alimony provides a secondary remedy and is available 

only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot 

be achieved by way of an equitable distribution.” Id. at 659.

2 See Wilson v. Wilson, 828 A.2d 376, 378 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“It is well 

settled that a pre-divorce decree distributing marital property is an 

interlocutory order.”); Verdile v. Verdile, 536 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Pa. Super. 

1988) (“[equitable] distribution order is reviewable once rendered final by 

entry of a divorce decree”).

3

In the event of future proceedings, the parties are directed to attach a 

copy of the trial court’s March 31, 2015 opinion, to this memorandum.
J-S07017-16

- 5 -

Order affirmed. Application to quash appeal denied.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/4/2016
872-CA. 

KENNETH W. SEAMANS, S.J. 

. . . .. . ...... , ... ' 

": - 

COURT 

.: . . •' ..... , . ' 

··-. . . 

. .... , ..... 

Land Services shall be distributed wholly to him. 

Road property shall be paid to Dennis Franklin, his heirs and assigns. 

. . . 

now and in the future to Penny Franklin, her heirs and assigns. The balance = sixty-five percent 

(65%) of the one-third interest of Dennis Franklin of oil and gas royalties as to the Brooklyn 

as to the one-third interest of Dennis Franklin as to the Brooklyn Road property shall be paid · 

paid by Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation and/or its assignees, if any, in the pasJ and in the future 

For the sakeof clarity, we note that thirty-five percent (35%) of the oil and gas royalties 

hereto are made an Order of the Court. 

masters' report and recommendations, and order that the recommendations of the master attached 

Opinion, we dispose of the Petition before the Court, generally regarded as exceptions to the 

... ~ .. ..... ::.-.:, 

.. 

NOW, this 31st day of March, 2015, for the reasons articulated in our acc~inpaiiying: ., 

·t·· 

ORDER 

: NO.: 2008 -1154 C.P. 

DENNIS FRANKLIN 

Defendant. 

The $7,500.00 payment given over to Penny Franklin by Western Land Services shall. be •.::.-.~ 

distributed wholly to her. Likewise, the $7,500.00 payment made to Dennis Franklin by Western l;,: 

~ 

,~CJ' 1-: 

·-- U) 

: 

·:,:.~ ·--:-·: 

~ :.~ i~~ 

.... -- .. -·. 

... 

- ·~ 

... 

: CNILACTION 

v. 

: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

:OFSUSQUEHANNACOUNTY, .. 

: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNS~Y,~ 

...... ·: :, 

-~·~ i ••• . 

PENNY FRANKLIN 

Plaintiff, 

( Circulated 02/18/2016 12:17 PM
.. , ... 

1 

Catlin Road and Brooklyn Road. 

gas rights leased by the parties became personal property, severed from the real properties at both 

developing company in 2007, one year before their separation in 2008. As such, all the oil and 

concerning their interest and husband's interest in the oil and gas rights to an exploration and 

Franklin, husband. The record indicates that the parties together executed an oil and gas lease 

and the Brooklyn Road non-marital real estate acquired as to a one-third interest of Dennis 

an oil and gas lease concerning the subterranean areas of both the. Catlin Road marital real estate 

the two real properties involved had become personal property, the parties both having executed 

The master correctly found according to prevailing law that the gas rights and royalties of 

better chance of producing income post-divorce. 

other, that both worked to support the household on and off the farm and that husband had a 

Generally, the master found the parties to be of similar ages, within six (6) years of each 

recommendations. 

below, we find the master did not commit an abuse of his discretion in either his feelings and/or 

distribution, alimony, costs, and attorney's fees in the captioned matter. For the reasons discussed 

discretion in his determinations and resulting recommendations with respect to equitable 

determine whether or not a master in divorce, appointed by the Court, committed an abuse of 

We have been asked by submitted petitions, generally in the form of exceptiooi;to ; .. :: 

·-·, .. ...... OPINION 

: NO.: 2008 - 1154 C.P. 

DENNIS FRANKLIN 

Defendant. 

: CIVIL ACTION 

v. 

: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

: OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, ... 

: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN'iA 

;·.-. .» 

.- ... 

·-- ~: r., .., •• ,., .. . '-· . 

.. :-. .... -: .... • 1 .. :· 

~.:~ . .. ·.:::-·-~i :··j . 

'-) ""?• .. -;-·'":, 

PENNY FRANKLIN 

Plaintiff, 
2 

j property. 

I 

to Defendant Husband in relation to a pipeline right of way over the Brooklyn Road real 

Services was gratuitous and did not in any way diminish that right of payment or actual payment 

We are also satisfied that the $7,500.00 payment to Plaintiff Wife by Western Land 

post-separation and no support/alimony/maintenance was warranted. 

and personal marital property, the division was appropriate to the parties' financial circumstances 

The master appropriately reasoned that with the proposed equitable distribution of real 

personal property. 

2007 during their marriage and thus before their separation in 2008, it became their marital 

because of the parties' execution of the oil and gas lease covering both the oil and gas interests in 

That assignment was not alimony, but was a distribution of personal property which 

Brooklyn Road property, no alimony was awarded to Wife. 

royalties of Defendant Husband's one-third ownership interest in the real property known as the 

assignment to Plaintiff Wife, her heirs and assigns of thirty-five percent (35%) of the oil and gas 

Moreover, in that among other items recommended to be distributed to wife was an 

( (