J-A07028-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

CRAIG A. ZACHERL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant 

v. 

TINA E. ZACHERL 

 Appellee No. 1524 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Decree September 8, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County 

Civil Division at No(s): 1505 CD 2009 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2015 

 Craig A. Zacherl (“Husband”) appeals from the final decree in divorce, 

entered September 8, 2014, relating to the equitable distribution of the 

marital property between Husband and Tina E. Zacherl (“Wife”). After our 

review, we affirm. 

 The parties were married on July 28, 2001, and they separated on 

September 8, 2009. Husband filed for divorce on November 2, 2009. The 

parties have three minor children.1 Wife subsequently filed a counterclaim, 

seeking a no-fault divorce, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and 

costs. A Divorce Master was appointed and, following a hearing on February 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Child custody issues are pending before the trial court in an ancillary 

proceeding. Husband pays Wife monthly child support in the amount of 

$897.00. 
J-A07028-15 

- 2 - 

20, 2014, the Master filed a report and recommendation. Both parties filed 

exceptions, and the Honorable Paul H. Millin issued an order that sustained 

in part both parties’ exceptions. 

Husband appealed, and he raises one issue for our review: 

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of 

law in its application of section 3501(a.1) of the Divorce Code 

(23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a.1)) when it calculated a decrease in 

value of [Husband’s] nonmarital real estate and failed to offset 

the full amount of the marital mortgage debts against the 

marital increase in value of the [Husband’s] nonmarital real 

estate? 

 The trial court set forth the relevant facts as follows: 

 The former marital home located at 1153 Route 157,

Venus, Washington Township, Clarion County, was owned by the 

Husband prior to the date of marriage. As of the date of 

marriage the marital home consisted of real estate with a mobile 

home, with an estimated market value of $147,900. 

Subsequent to the marriage, a house was constructed and the 

fair market value of the home and property at time of separation 

was $408,600. Therefore the increase in value was $260,700. 

The record reflects that the parties stipulated that the appraised 

increase in value of the marital home and real estate for 

purposes of distribution was $260,700. The parties further 

stipulated that the balance owed on the [F]irst United National 

Bank mortgage for the marital home as of the date of separation 

for purposes of distribution was $196,680.38. The parties 

further stipulated that the balance owed on the Citizens Bank 

mortgage on the marital home as of the date of separation for 

purposes of distribution was $113,070.06. Subtracting the 

indebtedness of $310,558.44 from the increase in value of 

$260,700 the master determined that the former marital real 

estate had equity of $-49,858.44.[2] This valuation was not 

____________________________________________ 

2

Fair market value of marital home at date of marriage - $147,900.00 

 Fair market value of marital home/property at separation- $408,600.00 

 Increase in value (parties stipulated)- $260,700.00 

 Balance owed on two mortgages (parties stipulated) - $310,558.44 

 Equity (negative) - -$ 49,858.44
J-A07028-15 

- 3 - 

challenged by the husband at the time the husband filed 

exceptions to the master’s report. It was the wife who excepted 

to the master utilizing the negative value of the marital 

residence to offset the value of marital property coming to the 

wife. One could argue that the full increase in value of the 

former marital residence of $260,700 should be utilized subject 

to the indebtedness being assumed by the husband subtracted 

separately, but the husband made no exception to the manner in 

which the master calculated that value. This court sustained the 

wife’s exception to the master’s report only to change the finding 

of the master utilizing a negative value for the non-marital 

property, as the negative value may not be used to offset the 

value of other assets according to the statute. 

Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/14, at 3-4 (emphasis added). 

 The relevant statute, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a.1) provides: 

 (a.1) Measuring and determining the increase in 

value of nonmarital property. – The increase in value of 

any non-marital property acquired pursuant to subsection 

(a)(1) and (3) 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. Any decrease in value of the non-marital 

property of a party shall be offset against any 

increase in value of the non-marital property of that

party. However, a decrease in value of the non-marital 

property of the party shall not be offset against any 

increase in value of the non-marital property of the other 

party or against any other marital property subject to 

equitable distribution. 

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

Here, the marital home was owned by Husband prior to the marriage. 

The property, therefore, is nonmarital property. The increase in the value of 
J-A07028-15 

- 4 - 

that nonmarital property during the marriage is marital property. See 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a)(1).3 

 After apportioning assets and debts, the Master found Husband had a 

net equity of $48,266.17, and Wife had a net equity of $15,562.64. Thus, 

the total equity was $63,828.81. Although both mortgages are marital 

debts, the Master assigned both mortgage debts to Husband, as well as the 

increase in value of the marital home. 

Using a 50/50 distribution, the Master determined that each party 

should receive $31,914.40 ($63,282.81 ÷ 2). Because Wife’s equity was 

less than one-third of Husband’s, $15,562.64 as compared to $63,828.81, 

the Master recommended that Wife be entitled to an additional $16,351.76 

to effect an equal distribution. 

Wife filed exceptions to the Master’s use of the negative value of the 

marital home to offset the value of the marital property coming to Wife. The 

trial court, in disposing of exceptions, agreed with Wife that the “decrease in 

value of the nonmarital property of the party shall not be offset against any 

increase in value of the nonmarital property of the other party or against 

any other marital property subject to equitable division.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

3501(a.1). Since the decrease was in Husband’s nonmarital property, as 

assigned by the Master, that decrease could not be offset against “any other 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Wife’s name was never added to the property deed. 
J-A07028-15 

- 5 - 

marital property subject to equitable division.” Id. It could only be offset 

against the increase in value of Husband’s nonmarital property. 

A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of 

equitable distribution. Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275, 1280 (Pa. 

Super. 2007). Our standard of review when assessing the propriety of an 

equitable distribution order is “whether the trial court abused its discretion 

by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure.” 

Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15, 19 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). A 

finding of an abuse of discretion requires a showing of clear and convincing 

evidence. Id. 

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.” Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 887 (Pa. Super. 

2005). In determining the propriety of an equitable distribution 

award, courts must consider the distribution scheme as a whole. 

Id. “[W]e 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.” 

Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(citation omitted). 

Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892, 895 (Pa. Super. 2009). See also Childress 

v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

As the comment to subsection (a.1) explains, the offset language in 

the second sentence (highlighted above), “ensures that only the net increase 

in value of all of a party’s nonmarital property is considered part of the 

marital estate.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501 - Jt. St. Govt. Comm. Comment – 
J-A07028-15 

- 6 - 

2004. To calculate the net increase in the value of nonmarital property, “the 

increases in value of a party’s nonmarital assets are offset by the decreases 

in value of that party’s nonmarital assets.” Id. (emphasis added). That is 

what the trial court did in this case. 

 We agree with Wife that in order to effect economic justice between 

the parties here, the court properly determined Wife should not be 

responsible for the mortgage debt associated with Husband’s nonmarital 

property. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502. This Court has noted that it is “within the 

trial court's discretion to credit marital expenses to one of the parties and 

take such credit into account when dividing marital property.” Winters v. 

Winters, [512 A.2d 1211, 1216 (Pa. Super. 1986). See also Biese, supra

(assigning half of credit card debt to wife was not required by master’s goal 

of 50/50 split of the marital estate); Hicks v. Kubit, 758 A.2d 202, 204 (Pa. 

Super. 2000) (debt characterization as “marital” is not necessarily 

determinative of which party is liable for its satisfaction). 

Here, the Master attributed all of the increase in value of the property 

(marital asset) and all of the mortgage debt (marital debt) to Husband. The 

trial court, in granting Wife’s exception, changed the negative equity in the 

home, - $49,858.44, to “0” in Wife’s column, resulting in an additional 

distribution of $41,280.98 to Wife.4 In doing so, the court relied on section 

____________________________________________ 

4

 The court noted in its order, which amended the Master’s Report, that 

assets available for distribution equaled $113,687.25, and that a 50/50 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-A07028-15 

- 7 - 

3501(a.1). We agree that this was appropriate under the statute and within 

the court’s discretion. See Biese, supra; Winters, supra. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/13/15 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

distribution resulted in $56,843.62 for each party. Since Wife had already 

received a distribution of $15,562.64, she was due an additional 

$41,280.98.