J-A09003-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NEIL R. ENGLEMAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JANINE M. ENGLEMAN

Appellant No. 1163 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order June 15, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County

Civil Division at No(s): 1606 of 2010

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STABILE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2017

Janine M. Engleman (“Wife”) appeals from the June 15, 2016, order

entered in the Columbia County Court of Common Pleas, granting Neil R. 

Engleman’s (“Husband”) petition to distribute proceedings from sale of real 

estate. On appeal, Wife raises the following three issues: (1) the trial court 

erred and/or committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider an order 

previously entered by a different judge, who considered and rejected 

Husband’s claims regarding his sole payment of the mortgage, insurance, and 

taxes; (2) the proceeds from the sale of the property at issue should have 

been divided differently; and (3) the court erred and/or abused its discretion 

in finding certain facts regarding Husband when fashioning the June 15, 2016, 

order. Based on the following, we affirm.
J-A09003-17

- 2 -

The facts and procedural history are as follows. The parties were 

previously married and divorced by decree on March 11, 2008. Prior to the 

divorce, the parties had entered into a Property Settlement Agreement 

(“PSA”) on January 4, 2008. Their divorce decree incorporated the PSA. 

Pertinent to this appeal, the parties jointly owned a parcel of real estate 

located at 35 Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania (“Horse Farm”). 

The parties each owned one-half interest in the Horse Farm. The distribution 

of the Horse Farm was set forth in the PSA as follows:

9. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

(a.) SALE OF REAL ESTATE

The real estate located at 35 Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg, 

PA 17815 shall be listed for sale immediately at a price reasonably 

acceptable to both parties. 

Upon the sale of the property, the net proceeds shall be 

divided equally 50% (fifty percent) to Husband and 50% fifty 

percent) to Wife. The net proceeds are defined as the gross sales 

price minus the first mortgage balance, second mortgage balance, 

lien(s), realtor’s commission, and the reasonable and customary 

costs of sale only. 

The parties agree that Husband’s primary residence is 35 

Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg, PA 17815 and that Husband may 

continue to exclusively reside in the single family home therein 

until the sale of said property. The parties also agree that Wife’s 

primary residence is also at 35 Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg, PA 

17815, and that she shall be entitled to exclusively reside in the 

living quarters of the Indoor Arena until the sale of the property. 

The parties further agree Wife shall continue to operate her 

business from 35 Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg, PA 17815 until 

the sale of the property.

The parties shall pay and be equally responsible for one half 

of any net capital gains taxes attributable to the sale of the 
J-A09003-17

- 3 -

property. The parties shall cooperate and provide each other with 

all the necessary documents in order to establish the effective tax 

basis for the property.

(b.) Real Estate Expenses-Horse Business

Wife currently operates a Horse related business on the real 

estate at 35 Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg, PA 17815. 

Commencing on the execution of this Agreement, and without 

regard to when bills for such items are or were incurred, received 

or due, Wife shall be solely responsible for all past, present and 

future costs, liabilities or expenses associated with or attributable 

to her renting, occupying, maintaining, repairing, operating or 

leasing the Horse Business including, but not limited to building 

repairs, insurance, water and sewer rents, gas, electric, oil, 

telephone service, cable, lawn care, snow removal, fence repair 

and any liability to occupants or third parties for personal injuries 

or any other damages of any kind. Wife agrees to pay all of the 

expenses, costs and fees associated with the Horse Business, 

Horse Arena property, including but not limited to the insurance, 

utilities, day-to-day maintenance expenses. Wife shall keep

Husband and his successors, assigns, heirs, executors, and 

administrators indemnified and held harmless from any liability, 

cost or expenses, including attorneys’ fees, which are incurred in 

connection with such business, ownership, occupancy, 

maintenance, repair, costs, and expenses of the Horse Business.

(c.) Capital Gains, School and Real Estate Taxes

The parties shall pay and be equally responsible for one-half 

of any net capital gains taxes attributable to the sale of the 

property. The parties shall cooperate and provide each other with 

all the necessary documents in order to establish the effective tax 

basis for the property. The parties shall pay and be equally 

responsible for one–half of any Real Estate and School taxes 

attributable to the property beginning with the 2008 tax year.

Property Settlement Agreement, 1/4/2008, at 8-10.

On September 2, 2010, Husband filed a complaint requesting the court 

partition the Horse Farm, and averring (1) that he should be given credit and 

paid additional monies from Wife because she had occupied and used the 
J-A09003-17

- 4 -

property and deprived him of such; (2) that he should be given credits for 

mortgage payments and additional expenses; (3) that he should be given

monies from Wife for services rendered and improvements to the land; and 

(4) that he is entitled to costs, compensation for appraisers and any master’s 

fees, experts’ fees, and additional reasonable counsel fees. Wife filed an 

answer to Husband’s complaint on November 18, 2010, denying the claims 

because Husband resided in the marital residence and the payment obligations 

were set forth in the PSA.

On July 18, 2012, the parties entered the following stipulation regarding 

the sale of the Horse Farm: (1) the current listing price shall be revised to 

$1,200,000.00; (2) the listing shall be reduced by $50,000.00 every three 

months to a minimum listing price of $950,000.00; (3) the parties shall accept

any offer at the then current listing price and shall sign such agreements to 

close upon the transaction; and (4) in the meantime, all mortgage payments 

due after the stipulation date shall be paid one-half by each party and in a 

timely manner. Stipulation, 7/18/2012, at 1-2.

The matter proceeded for a number of years, including multiple 

petitions, filed by Husband, and corresponding hearings. For purposes of this 

appeal, we highlight two of those orders. First, on December 6, 2012, the 

court entered an order, requiring: (1) Wife pay Husband $4,471.77 on or 

before January 4, 2013, to compensate him for one-half of the amounts he 

paid towards the parties’ mortgage and taxes. The court also stated that if 
J-A09003-17

- 5 -

Wife does not pay Husband on or before January 4th, the property shall be

listed with an auctioneer to be heard on or before May 31, 2013, and they 

shall cooperate in the marketing of the property with said auctioneer. Order 

of Court, 12/6/2012, at 1-2.1

Second, on June 24, 2014, the court entered an order, addressing 

Husband’s motion to compel Wife to sign a listing agreement and pay

insurance. The court mandated the Horse Farm be sold at auction and that 

Husband, on behalf of both parties, was authorized to sign an agreement of 

sale with the highest bidder. Order, 6/24/2014, at ¶¶ 1-2.2

On December 12, 2014, Husband filed a petition to enforce the PSA and 

court order incorporating the same. Husband noted the property went to 

auction but the reserve, which he set, was not met at that time. Furthermore, 

Husband alleged the following:

7. [Husband] was told by a number of bidders, and by the 

auctioneer who had been appointed by the Court, Dustin Snyder, 

that the property did not reach the reserve for three (3) main 

reasons: a) the fence surrounding the property was in deplorable 

condition; b) the property was not mowed and did not look 

marketable because of the condition of the un-mowed fields and 

grounds; c) [Wife] had stripped the property of numerous items 

including fifty (50) to sixty (60) gates in the riding arena and a 

sink and custom doors and windows.

8. [Wife] indicated that she had removed those items and had 

taken them to another horse farm.

____________________________________________

1

 The order was not timestamped until December 18, 2012.

2

 The order was not timestamped until July 11, 2014.
J-A09003-17

- 6 -

9. [Wife] also laughed when she talked to [Husband] at the 

auction stating that her plan of not making repairs and allowing

the grass and other vegetation to grow foiled [Husband]’s plans 

for selling the property.

Plaintiff’s Petition to Enforce Marriage Settlement Agreement and Court Order 

Incorporating the Same, 12/12/2014, at 2. Husband also filed a petition for 

contempt on February 17, 2015, asserting Wife did not pay the mortgage on 

the property for the months of November 2014 through February 2015, and 

she had not paid the real estate taxes on the property for 2014, nor had she 

paid insurance on a barn and apartment that were on the property. Plaintiff’s 

Petition for Contempt, 2/17/2015, at 2. Additionally, Husband averred Wife 

vacated the premises but did not winterize it and as a result, there was 

damage to the property. Id. 

A hearing was held regarding both petitions on February 26, 2015.3 

That same day, the court entered an order,4 which found, in pertinent part:

2. It is specifically found that [Wife] has acted in bad faith and 

intentionally undermined the auction sale which [w]as attempted 

on September 27, 2014. Further, it is specifically found that 

[Wife], without authorization, dissipated the value of the marital 

asset which is the real estate located at 35 Horse Farm Lane, 

Bloomsburg, Pa., 17815 by removing windows, replacing doors, 

removing horse arena panels, abandoning the premises of which 

she was in possession as winter approached, leading to toilets 

breaking after freezing and probable destruction of the automated 

horse watering system on the premises.

____________________________________________

3

 Wife failed to appear at the hearing and was not permitted to participate by 

telephonic testimony. 

4

 The order was not timestamped until March 13, 2015.
J-A09003-17

- 7 -

[Wife] has also failed in her duty to pay half of the mortgage 

payments, half of the taxes and to maintain the premises, 

including the fencing, on the property, which has fallen into 

extreme disrepair. 

...

Further, the Order of December 6, 2012 directed the parties 

to cooperate in marketing the property with an auctioneer and 

[Wife]’s actions in this regard were directly in violation of that 

Order also. As such, [Wife] is found to be in contempt of Court.

3. As a result of the history in this case and [Wife]’s repeated 

contempt of Court (including the contempt finding under the Order 

of December 6, 2012), and [Wife]’s intentional frustration of this 

Court’s attempts to facilitate sale of the premises, [Husband] is 

hereby granted sole prerogative and discretion to effect a sale of 

the premises located at 35 Horse Farm Road, Bloomsburg[,] Pa., 

17815, pursuant to such terms and conditions and price as he 

determines in his discretion, subject to Court approval. [Husband] 

shall be authorized, on behalf of ... both parties, to execute an 

agreement of sale, which shall be conditioned upon Court 

approval.... The Agreement of Sale and any Order approving the 

Agreement of Sale shall permit deduction from sale proceeds as 

follows:

...

F. Reimbursement to [Husband] for [Wife]’s expenses 

which are paid by him as follows:

1. Reimbursement to [Husband] for his payment of 

one-half of the mortgage obligations for November 

2014, December 2014, January 2015 and February 

2015 totaling $2,902.68.

2. $2,781.13 to reimburse [Husband] for [Wife]’s half 

of the 2014 school taxes paid by [Husband].

3. $310.00 which [Husband] paid to Brent Schell for 

winterizing the premises and repairing some of the 

plumbing which was damaged due to [Wife]’s 

abandonment of the premises without notice and 

without winterizing the premises.
J-A09003-17

- 8 -

Said amounts shall be paid to [Husband] out of 

the gross sale proceeds on the sale of the premises, 

however, a reconciliation shall be conducted at a later 

date to determine how much of the net sale proceeds 

shall be distributed to each party accounting for these 

payments being made out of the gross sale proceeds 

to [Husband]. It is noted that these items directed to 

be paid out of the gross sale proceeds are being 

deducted half from what might otherwise be paid to 

[Wife] and that a reconciliation shall be necessary at 

a later date.

G. All net sale proceeds from closing upon the sale of the 

farm premises shall be deposited into [Husband]’s 

Attorney’s escrow account. Thereafter, no withdrawal shall 

be effected until further Order of Court upon a Petition for 

Determination of such by either party.

4. Immediate possession of the entire premises at 35 Horse Farm 

Road is hereby granted to [Husband] as a remedy for the 

contempt committed by [Wife], and in a further effort to try to 

preserve the value of the premises. [Wife] is hereby prohibited 

from being present upon the premises. If [Wife] seeks any 

personal [property] which she claims ... belongs to her, [Wife] 

must contact [Husband]’s Attorney or file an appropriate motion.

Order of Court, 2/26/2015, at ¶¶ 2-4.5

Subsequently, Husband filed a motion for sanctions on April 15, 2015, 

a motion for court approval of sale of real estate on June 17, 2015, and a 

motion to force the sale of the parties’ real estate and to sanction Wife on 

October 15, 2015. On November 5, 2015, the court ordered Wife to execute 

____________________________________________

5

 Following the order, the presiding judge, the Honorable Gary E. Norton, 

recused himself from the matter on June 8, 2015. The matter was then 

assigned to the Honorable Brendan J. Vanston and then eventually to the 

Honorable David E. Grine.
J-A09003-17

- 9 -

the proposed deed or execute a recordable power of attorney authorizing 

another person to do so on her behalf. Order of Court, 11/5/2015.6 The Horse 

Farm was subsequently sold to a third party on November 25, 2015.

7

On January 4, 2016, Husband then filed a petition to distribute 

proceedings from sale of real estate pursuant to the court’s February 26, 2015, 

order. Wife filed a responsive brief on April 14, 2016. The court heard 

argument on May 23, 2016. Thereafter, on June 15, 2016, the court granted 

Husband’s petition, and made the following findings of fact:

1) Since the parties separated in 2008, [Husband] has paid a total 

of $448,156.56 in mortgage payments, insurance, and taxes on 

the parties’ previously owned real estate at 35 Horse Farm Road, 

Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania (“Horse Farm”).

$332,110.46 (Mortgage Payments # 0100929467)

$32,655.15 (Mortgage Payments #5000457908)

$63,901.62 (Mortgage Payments #0100929870)

$5,200.00 (Insurance to Thrush)

+ $14,289.33 (Taxes) 

$448,156.56

2) [Wife] is financially accountable for half of the $448,156.56 

paid by [Husband].

3) The total amount [Husband] paid on [Wife]’s behalf is 

$224,078.28.

4) [Wife] has been paid $15,211.63 for federal taxes.

5) [Wife] has been paid $4,171.78 for prior attorney’s fees.

____________________________________________

6

 The order was not timestamped until November 10, 2015.

7

 Husband retained two acres of property from the buyers.
J-A09003-17

- 10 -

6) On November 25, 2015, the Horse Farm was sold for 

$800,000.00.

7) A tax credit of $4,758.82 was added to the sale price, bringing 

the total to $804,758.82.

8) The next total to be distributed to the parties was $490,878.83.

$804,752.82

- $18,089.00 (Settlement Charges)

- $287,676.99 (Mortgage Payoff)

- $8,000.00 (Transfer Taxes)

- $ 89.00 (Recording Costs)

- $25.00 (Escrow Fee)

$490,878.83 /2 = $245,439.41

9) [Husband] entered into an agreement with the buyers of the 

Horse Farm which enabled [Husband] to retain ownership of two 

(2) acres of the real estate.

10) [Husband]’s two (2) acres of the Horse Farm are worth 

$20,000.00.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/15/2016, at 1-3. The court then ordered the following: 

(2) [Wife] shall receive $9,378.33 from the proceeds of the sale 

of the Horse Farm.

(3) [Husband] shall receive $481,500.50 from the proceeds of the 

sale of the Horse Farm.

(4) Any outstanding petitions or motions in the matter, which were 

not addressed in this Order are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Id. at 5. Wife filed this appeal.8

____________________________________________

8

 On July 29, 2016, the trial court ordered Wife to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Wife filed a 

concise statement on August 15, 2016. The trial court issued an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on September 8, 2016, relying on its reasoning 

that it provided in the June 15, 2016 opinion and order.
J-A09003-17

- 11 -

Initially, we note Wife points to nine issues in her “Statement of 

Questions Involved.” See Wife’s Brief at 4-8. However, in her argument 

section, she only develops three of those claims. Id. at 13-23. Because she 

has abandoned the remaining six issues, we will not address them further. 

See In re Jacobs, 936 A.2d 1156, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2007) (issue is waived

purposes of appellate review when a party does not develop it in brief).

Our standard of review regarding property settlement agreements is 

well settled:

We have noted that “a property settlement agreement between

husband and wife will be enforced by the courts in accordance with

the same rules of law applying to determining the validity of

contracts generally.” See VanKirk v. VanKirk, 336 Pa.Super.

502, 505, 485 A.2d 1194, 1196 (1984) (quoting Kleintop v.

Kleintop, 291 Pa.Super. 491, 495-96, 436 A.2d 223, 225

(1981)); Litwack v. Litwack, 289 Pa.Super. 405, 433 A.2d 514

(1981); see generally Sonder v. Sonder, 378 Pa.Super. 474,

549 A.2d 155 (1988) (en banc) (comparing and contrasting

enforcement of property settlement agreements under contract

law and Divorce Code). It is well-established that the paramount

goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the

parties’ intent. See Greene v. Oliver Realty, Inc., 363

Pa.Super. 534, 539, 526 A.2d 1192, 1194 (1987) (citing Burns

Mfg. Co. v. Boehm, 467 Pa. 307, 356 A.2d 763 (1976)); see

also Litwack v. Litwack, supra 289 Pa.Super. at 407, 433 A.2d

at 515 (in construing separation agreement court must adopt

construction that gives effect to parties’ intent in view of

surrounding circumstances and purpose of contract). When the

trier of fact has determined the intent of the parties to a contract,

an appellate court will defer to that determination if it is supported

by the evidence. See Yellow Run Coal v. Alma-Elly-Yv Mines,

285 Pa.Super. 84, 90, 426 A.2d 1152, 1155

(1981)(citing Hatalowich v. Redevelopment Auth. of

Monesum, 454 Pa. 481, 312 A.2d 22 (1974)).
J-A09003-17

- 12 -

Lyons v. Lyons, 585 A.2d 42, 45 (Pa. Super. 1991).

9

In her first argument, Wife complains the trial court erred and/or 

committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider the February 26, 2015, 

order, which was previously entered by a different judge and rejected 

Husband’s claims regarding his sole payment of the mortgage, insurance, and 

taxes. Wife’s Brief at 13. Specifically, she states that at the February 26, 

____________________________________________

9

 Furthermore, we are guided by the following:

§ 3105. Effect of agreement between the parties.

(a) Enforcement. — A party to an agreement regarding matters 

within the jurisdiction of the court under this part, whether or not 

the agreement has been merged or incorporated into the decree, 

may utilize a remedy or sanction set forth in this part to enforce 

the agreement to the same extent as though the agreement had 

been an order of the court except as provided to the contrary in 

the agreement.

23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(a). 

§ 3323. Decree of court.

...

(f) Equity power and jurisdiction of the court. — In all 

matrimonial causes, the court shall have full equity power and 

jurisdiction and may issue injunctions or other orders which are 

necessary to protect the interests of the parties or to effectuate

the purposes of this part and may grant such other relief or 

remedy as equity and justice require against either party or 

against any third person over whom the court has jurisdiction and 

who is involved in or concerned with the disposition of the cause.

23 Pa.C.S. § 3323(f).
J-A09003-17

- 13 -

2015, hearing, both Husband and the presiding judge discussed the fact that 

Wife had paid one-half the mortgage up until November 2015. Id. at 13-14. 

Wife notes that as a result of their discussion, the judge’s corresponding order 

reflected that Wife was liable to Husband for reimbursement of certain 

expenses as reflected in Paragraph (3)(F) of the February 26, 2015, order: 

(1) one-half of the mortgage payments for November 2014 to February 2015, 

totaling $2,902.68; (2) one-half of the 2014 school taxes, totaling $2,781.13; 

and (3) $310.00 to winterize the premises and repairing some of the 

plumbing. Id. at 14-15. Citing the coordinate jurisdiction rule, Wife argues 

the present judge “completely ignored [the prior judge’s] findings” in making 

his June 8, 2016, determination by concluding that Wife was financially 

accountable to Husband for $224,078.28. Id. at 15-18. 

“Generally, the coordinate jurisdiction rule commands that upon transfer 

of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, a transferee trial 

judge may not alter resolution of a legal question previously decided by a 

transferor trial judge. More simply stated, judges of coordinate jurisdiction 

should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 

A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted).10

____________________________________________

10

 Further,

[t]he reason for this respect for an equal tribunal’s decision, as 

explained by our court, is that the coordinate jurisdiction rule is 

“based on a policy of fostering the finality of pre-trial applications 
J-A09003-17

- 14 -

Here, a review of the two orders at issue reveals that the underlying 

petitions do not request the same relief from the trial court. Judge Norton’s

February 26, 2015, order addressed Husband’s petition to enforce the PSA 

and court order incorporating the same, and his petition for contempt;11

whereas, Senior Judge Grine’s June 15, 2016, order disposed of Husband’s 

petition to distribute proceedings from the sale of real estate.12 

The judges were handling matters at separate procedural postures of

the case and therefore, Senior Judge Grine did not “alter resolution of a legal 

question previously decided” by Judge Norton. Id. Accordingly, the 

____________________________________________

in an effort to maintain judicial economy and efficiency.”

Furthermore, consistent with the law of the case doctrine, the 

coordinate jurisdiction rule serves to protect the expectations of 

the parties, to insure uniformity of decisions, to maintain 

consistency in proceedings, to effectuate the administration of 

justice, and to bring finality to the litigation. 

Zane, 836 A.2d at 29 (citations omitted).

11

 In his February 17, 2015, petition for contempt, Husband specifically raised 

the issue that Wife did not pay the mortgage on the property for the months 

from November 2014 to February 2015, and she had not paid the real estate 

taxes on the property for 2014, nor had she paid insurance on a barn and 

apartment that were on the property. 

12

 In his January 4, 2016, petition to distribute proceedings from sale of real 

estate, he alleged he was “making claims for additional mortgage payments 

he paid as well as interest, taxes[,] other expenses he paid and attorney s [’] 

fees which he has incurred as a result of [Wife]’s actions in this action.” 

Plaintiff’s Petition to Distribute Proceedings from Sale of Real Estate, 

1/4/2016, at ¶ 7.
J-A09003-17

- 15 -

coordinate jurisdiction rule does not apply to this case. Furthermore, as noted 

in the February 26, 2015, order, Judge Norton provided: 

A reconciliation shall be conducted at a later date to determine 

how much of the net sale proceeds shall be distributed to each 

party accounting for these payments being made out of the gross 

sale proceeds to Husband. It is noted that these items directed 

to be paid out of the gross sale proceeds are being deducted half 

from what might otherwise be paid to Husband and half from what 

might otherwise be paid to Wife and that a reconciliation shall be 

necessary at a later date.

Order, 2/26/2015, at (F)(3).13 Indeed, Judge Norton recognized that a further 

determination might be necessary to ascertain whether Wife had to reimburse 

certain expenses for the entirety of the time period between the parties’ 

separation and the sale of the Horse Farm. Accordingly, Judge Norton’s 

February 26, 2015, order left the door open to amendments regarding the 

financial accountability of the parties and Wife’s first issue fails.

____________________________________________

13

 Additionally, the court noted the following:

[Wife] has also failed in her duty to pay half of the mortgage 

payments, half of the taxes and to maintain the premises, 

including the fencing, on the property, which has fallen into 

extreme disrepair. These duties arose by virtue of the following 

orders: The order of the Cameron County Court of Common Pleas 

dated March 11, 2008, divorcing the parties and incorporating by 

reference the Marriage Settlement Agreement between the parties 

dated January 4, 2008, which imposed the duties of maintenance, 

mowing, payment of one-half of the taxes and one-half of the 

mortgage upon [Wife].

Order of Court, 2/26/2015, at ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
J-A09003-17

- 16 -

In Wife’s second argument, she claims the proceeds of the Horse Farm 

should have been divided according to her own calculations. See Wife’s Brief 

at 18-21. Wife applies the amounts set forth in the February 26, 2015, order, 

in which she only had to reimburse Husband for four months of mortgage 

payments, her share of the 2014 school taxes, monies owed for winterizing 

and repairs, her share of federal taxes, and her share of attorneys’ fees paid, 

totaling $39,890.60. Id. at 19. She also claims she is owed $10,000.00, 

which was her share of the value of two acres of the property that were 

retained by Husband. Id. Consequently, Wife alleges she was actually 

entitled to $219,605.79 from the sale of the property. Id. at 21.

Here, the court found the following:

Since the parties separated, [Husband] has been burdened 

with the full cost of mortgage payments, insurance, and taxes on 

the Horse Farm. [Husband] has paid $448,156.56 for said costs, 

despite [Wife]’s obligations to pay half of said costs, which totals 

$224,078.28. The PSA clearly delineates mortgage costs and liens 

as deductions to be taken from the sale proceeds of the Horse 

Farm before disbursement of any funds to the parties. Equity 

demands [Husband] be compensated for the $224,078.28 he paid 

to cover [Wife]’s half of the mortgage payments, insurance, and

taxes on the Horse Farm. However, equity also demands [Wife] 

be compensated with half of the value of the two (2) acres of the 

Horse Farm that [Husband] retained through an agreement with 

the buyers of the Horse Farm. Due to the preceding findings of 

fact, the Court determines the following is an equitable 

distribution of [Wife]’s proceeds from the sale of the Horse Farm:

 $245,439.41

- $224,078.28

- $15,211.63

- $4,171.78

+ $10,000.00

 $9,378.33
J-A09003-17

- 17 -

The Court finds [Husband] is entitled to receive the remaining 

proceeds from the sale of the Horse Farm, which total 

$481,500.50.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/15/2016, at 4-5.

We agree with the court’s conclusion. Since Wife’s argument largely 

relies on the assumption that the only monies due to Husband are those listed 

in the February 26, 2015, order, and because we previously determined that 

was not true, her issue is without merit.14 In the June 15, 2016, order, the 

court correctly assessed the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the Horse 

Farm and Wife’s second claim fails to show otherwise. Therefore, her second 

argument fails.

Lastly, Wife argues:

The Honorable Trial Court erred and/or an abuse of discretion in 

failing to consider the facts that Husband had the sole and allencompassing ability to make his own “deal” for the sale of the 

parties’ real property given the Orders of the prior Trial Court 

granting him such powers, and that in doing so, he not only chose 

to keep a choice two (2) acres of property for himself, he also 

chose to agree to hold a mortgage for the Buyers in the amount 

of $350,000.00 when fashioning said Trial Court’s instant Order.

Wife’s Brief at 21. Moreover, she states, “As Husband alone made these 

choices, Husband alone should bear the burden of the same and Wife should 

therefore first receive all monies due and owing her from the sale of the real 

____________________________________________

14

 As note supra in footnote 11, it merits mention that Husband’s request for 

relief in his February 2015 petition for contempt was only for a specific time 

period.
J-A09003-17

- 18 -

property, with Husband to then receive payments from the Buyers on the 

mortgage he chose to hold.” Id. at 22.

Wife’s argument ignores the fact that the reason why the trial court 

provided Husband with the sole bargaining power regarding the sale of the 

Horse Farm is because it specifically found that Wife acted in bad faith and 

intentionally undermined the auction sale that was attempted on September 

27, 2014. See Order of Court, 2/26/2015, at ¶ 2. Additionally, the court also 

determined Wife “dissipated the value of the marital asset” with her 

contemptuous actions and that she also failed to adhere to her responsibilities

under the PSA. Id. As such, Wife’s argument fails to persuade us that the 

trial court abused its discretion when it gave Husband such power regarding 

the sale of the property or that she should have priority in receiving monies 

owed to her regarding the sale. Accordingly, her final argument also fails.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/21/2017