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, iss ued 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 base d 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 followin g, 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 th at 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 Ru le 1925(b) averment, the trial court’sJ

- 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 se t 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. 21 11(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 faile d 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 despit e party violating rules of appellate procedure where violations did not impede review). Rather, we have reviewed the record, the arguments presented by Husband, and theJ

- 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, 2 and we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s March 31, 2015 opinion, filed in support of its order denying Husband’s excepti ons 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 effectua ting 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 S ee 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 i s 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. KENNE T H W. SEAMANS, S.J.

. . . .. . . .. .. . , . . . ' ": - C O URT

. • ' .... . , . '

. : .

· ·- . . . . ... . , . . . .. L and Serv i ces s h al l be distri bu ted w holly t o him

. Road property shall be paid to D ennis F r anklin, his heirs and assigns. . . . no w and in the future to Penny Franklin, h er heirs and assigns. The balance 

# = sixty

- five per c en t (65%) o f t h e one-third interes t of D ennis Franklin of oil and gas royalties as to the Brookly n as to the one-third interest of D ennis Franklin as to the B rooklyn Road pro p erty shall be p aid · p ai d by Cabot O i l and G as Co rporat i on and/or its assignees, i f any, in the pasJ and in the future For the sakeo f c l arity, w e not e th at thirty-five p ercent (3 5 %) of the oil and gas royalties he r eto are made an Ord e r of t he Court. masters' report and recommendations, and order that the recommendations of th e maste r attached Op inion, we dispose o f the P etition before the Court, general l y regarded as exce p tions to the . . . ~



## .. .. . . . : :.-.:,



## .. NOW, this 3 1 st day o f March, 2015, for the reasons articulated in our acc~inpaiiying : ., ·t· · 

### O RD E R : NO.: 2008

- 1154 C. P

. D ENNI S FRANKLIN Defendant.

The $7 , 500.00 payment given over to Penny F ranklin by Western Land Services shall

. be • .:: .- . ~ distributed wholly to her. Likewise, the $7 , 500.00 payment made to D ennis F ranklin by Western 

# l;,: ~

, ~ CJ' 

# 1 -: 

# · -- U) : ·: ,:. ~ · -- :- · : 

### ~ :
. ~ i ~~

. .. . -- .. 

### - · . . .. 

### - · ~

.. . : CNILACTION 

### v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON P LEAS :OFSUSQUEHANNACOUNTY,

.. : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNS~Y,~

.. . ... · : 

### : ,

-~· ~ i •• • . PE NNY FRANKLIN P laintiff, 

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

1 Cat l in Road and Brooklyn R oad. gas rights l eased 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, a ll the oil and concerning their inte r est and husband's interest in the oil and gas rights to an exploration and Franklin, husband. T he record indicates that the parties together executed an oil and gas lease and the Brooklyn R oad 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 R oad marital real estate the two re al prope rt ies involved had become personal property, the parties both having exec u ted The master co rr ectly found according to prevailing law that the gas rights and royalties of bette r chance of prod u cing 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. be l ow, 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 de t ermine whether or not a master in divorce, appointed b y the Court, committed an abuse of We have been asked by submitted pet i tions , generally in the form of exceptiooi ; to ;
. . : : · - · , 

### . . . . .. .. 

### OPINION : NO.: 200 8 - 11 5 4 C. P. DENNIS 

### FRANKL IN Defendant. : CIVIL AC T ION 

### v. : IN T HE COUR T OF COMMON P LEAS : OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY,

. . . : COMMONWEALTH OF PE NN S YLVAN'iA 

### ; · .-. . »



## . - ... 

# ·-- ~: r

. , .., •• ,., .. . '- · . .. :-. .... -: .... • 1 .. : · ~.: ~ . .. · .:::- · - ~ i

: · ·j

. '- ) "" ? •
.. -;- · '" : , PENNY 

### FRANKLIN P laintiff,2

j property. 

## I t o D efend ant H us ban d in r e l ation to a pipe lin e ri ght o f way over the Brooklyn R oad real Services was gratui t ous and did not in any w a y diminish that right of payment o r actual p aymen t We are also satisfied that the $7,500.00 payment to Plain ti ff Wife by Western Land pos t

- separat i on an d n o s u p po rt/alimo ny /maintenance was warranted. and personal marital property, the di vi sion was appropriate to th e parti e s' financ i al c i rcumstances The master appropria t ely reasoned that with the proposed equitable distribution of real p e r sonal pro perty. 2 00 7 during their marriage an d thus before their separation in 2 0 08, it b ecame the ir marital because of the parties' execution of the oil and gas l ease covering both the o il and gas interests in Th a t assignment was not alimony, but was a distribution of personal property which Brooklyn R oad property, no alimony was awarded to Wife. roya l t i es of Defendant Husband's one
- third owner s hi p interest in the real property known as the assignment to P laint i ff Wife , her heirs and assigns of thirty-five percent (35%) of the oil and gas Moreover, in that among oth e r items recommended to b e distributed to w i fe was an ( 

### (