Opinion ID: 1904395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Pension Formula

Text: Appellant next contends that the master erred in valuing his pension benefits and in dividing them equally between the parties. Specifically, appellant argues that the master erred in (1) failing to consider that appellant's earnings were at their highest level in the period following the parties' separation and at their lowest before such period in devising a formula to determine what portion of appellant's pension plan is marital property; (2) using the deferred distribution, rather than the immediate offset, method of dividing the pension benefits; (3) calculating the value of the accrued pension benefits that appellant received because he was not given credit for taxes taken out of his gross pension pay; and (4) recommending that the pension benefits be divided equally because of appellant's greater needs. We find these contentions either waived or meritless. In computing the portion of appellant's pension benefits to be received by each party, the master proceeded as follows: At the time of separation, [appellant] had accrued 27.5 years of service which shall be used as the numerator, and the denominator shall be the total years of service, i.e. 30, which shall be multiplied by the monthly [pension] payments [to be received by appellant] to arrive at the portion of the plan which is [appellee's] share. (Master's Report at 14). [9] Appellee concedes that no adjustments were made to the above formula to reflect the fact that appellant's earnings may have been greater following the parties' separation. (Brief for Appellee at 7). In ruling on appellant's exception, the lower court found that [t]he Master used a fair and equitable method to allocate the value of pension benefits [that] accrued prior to the separation and after separation. (Lower Court Opinion at 4). We do not believe that the lower court abused its discretion in light of the fact that neither before the master, the lower court, see Appellant's Exceptions to Master's Report no. 5 at 2, nor this Court on appeal has appellant offered an alternative formula for determining what portion of his pension is marital property. Appellant's next two arguments are waived. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.55 provides in relevant part that: Within ten days after notice of the filing of the master's report has been mailed, exceptions may be filed by any party to the report or any part thereof, to rulings on objections to evidence, to statements or findings of fact, to conclusions of law, or to any other matters occurring during the hearing. Each exception shall set forth a separate objection precisely and without discussion. Matters not covered by exceptions are deemed waived unless, prior to the entry of the final decree, leave is granted to file exceptions raising those matters. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1920.55(a) (emphasis added). Issues (2) and (3) here were not covered in appellant's exceptions, and appellant did not move for leave to file exceptions raising these matters before the entry of the final decree. Accordingly, we will not consider these arguments for the first time on appeal. Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Pa.R. A.P. 302(a). Appellant also argues that the master erred in equally dividing the pension benefits. He argues that his earning capacity is minimal due to his various health problems, that appellee is not burdened with similar health problems, that she has a higher earning ability, and that her contributions to [the] acquisition [of the pension] were indirect and uncertain in the best of circumstances. (Brief for Appellant at 14). We agree with the lower court that [t]he Master considered all of the factors listed by [appellant], and arrived at a fair and equitable method of dividing the pension income of the parties, (Lower Court Opinion at 7), and thus find no abuse of discretion. Appellant's health was primarily relevant to the master's using the deferred distribution method of dividing the pension, (Master's Report at 12-14), and, in any event, appellant is retired and continue[s] to be covered by health insurance and that coverage is a benefit to [him]. . . . ( Id. at 9-10). While the master did find that appellee has a somewhat higher earning ability, he also found that she has never been employed in a supervisory capacity[,] has generally been a laborer[, and] . . . has attempted to procure employment without success, for the most part. ( Id. at 31). And, regarding appellee's contributions to appellant's acquisition of his pension, we note that, while finding that [n]either party substantially contributed to the increased earning power of the other, ( id. at 26), the master also found that appellee's pension should be divided equally between the parties. See id. at 6-9.