Court Opinion

ID: 9960579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 16:13:08.953235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:38.471211
License: Public Domain

J-S08003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    KERI ANN CRAWFORD                            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                 v.                              :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    WILLIAM R. CRAWFORD, III                     :
                                                 :
                            Appellant            :   No. 1168 MDA 2023

                 Appeal from the Order Entered July 27, 2023
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County Civil Division at
                             No(s): 979 of 2018

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                         FILED: APRIL 16, 2024

       Appellant, William R. Crawford, III, (“Husband”) appeals from the July

27, 2023 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County

that    denied        his    exceptions   to   the   special   master’s   report   and

recommendations.1 We quash this appeal.

       The record reveals that Husband and Keri Ann Crawford (“Wife”) were

married on December 2, 1995. The couple separated on April 19, 2018, and

Wife filed a complaint for divorce on August 10, 2018. On August 30, 2021,

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The record reveals that the order denying Husband’s exceptions to the
special master’s report and recommendations was dated July 20, 2023, but
not entered by the trial court until July 27, 2023. The caption has been
corrected accordingly.
J-S08003-24

the trial court entered an order bifurcating the divorce proceeding from

resolution of the couple’s economic issues.2

       On August 4, 2022, the trial court appointed a special master to resolve

the couple’s economic issues.         The special master conducted a hearing on

January 12, 2023, at which both Husband and Wife participated. On February

8, 2023, Wife filed a motion seeking entry of a final divorce decree. On March

13, 2023, the special master filed his report and recommendations concerning

the equitable distribution of the couple’s marital estate. On March 14, 2023,

the trial court entered a final divorce decree dissolving the matrimonial bond

between Husband and Wife.3 On March 31, 2023, Husband filed exceptions

to the special master’s report and recommendations. On June 1, 2023, the

____________________________________________

2 In its August 30, 2021 order, the trial court stated,

       [U]pon praecipe and motion of [Wife,] the parties shall be
       divorced from the bonds of matrimony at which time the [trial]
       court shall retain jurisdiction of any claims raised by the parties to
       this action for which a final order has not been entered. This is
       including but not limited to equitable distribution. All economic
       issues between the parties shall survive the divorce decree.
       Pending final resolution of each [party’s] economic claims, the
       economic rights of the parties shall not be impaired or diminished
       by any event, including but not limited to, divorce[.]

Trial Court Order, 8/30/21.

3This final divorce decree did not address the equitable distribution of the
parties’ assets.

                                           -2-
J-S08003-24

trial court conducted a hearing on Husband’s exceptions, and subsequently

denied those exceptions on July 27, 2023. This appeal followed.4

       Husband raises the following issues for our review:

       [1.]   Did the trial court commit an error of law in determining that
              [Husband] failed to meet his burden of proof to establish
              that a marital debt existed between his mother and the
              marital parties?

       2.     Did the trial court commit an error of law in determining that
              the special master properly valued the 2007 Yukon GMC
              [vehicle]?

       3.     Did the trial court commit an error of law in determining that
              the special master properly valued [Husband’s] Pennsy
              Supply 401K [retirement plan]?

       4.     Did the trial court commit an error of law in determining that
              the special master properly valued the share of Bloomsburg
              fair stock, which was marital property?

       5.     Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in
              determining that the special master properly valued the
              personal property in [Husband’s] possession and [correctly
              established a distribution scheme for] the [marital]
              assets[?]

       6.     Did the trial court commit[] an abuse of discretion in
              determining that the [distribution] of the marital assets and
              marital debt by the special master was proper?

Husband’s Brief at 6-7 (extraneous capitalization omitted).

       Preliminarily, we must address whether the July 27, 2023 order denying

Husband’s exceptions is a final, appealable order, thereby, invoking this

Court’s jurisdiction. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (stating that, “an appeal may be
____________________________________________

4 Both Husband and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.

                                           -3-
J-S08003-24

taken as of right from any final order of a government unit or trial court”);

see also Linde v. Linde, 222 A.3d 776, 782 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating, “the

question of appealability implicates the jurisdiction of this Court[, and] the

issue may be raised by this Court sua sponte” (citation and original brackets

omitted)).

       Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.55-2 permits a party, upon

the filing of a special master’s report and recommendations, to file exceptions

within 20 days of the filing of said report.     Pa.R.Civ.P. 1920.55-2(b).   “If

exceptions are filed, any other party may file exceptions within 20 days of the

date of service of the original exceptions.”         Pa.R.Civ.P. 1920.55-2(c).

Thereafter, the trial court “shall hear argument on the exceptions and enter

a final decree.”5 Id. (emphasis added).

       It is well-settled that an order dismissing exceptions to a special

master’s report and recommendations, but not entering a final decree of

equitable distribution, is not a final order. Reed v. Reed, 511 A.2d 874,

877 (Pa. Super. 1986); see also Hammond v. Hammond, 447 A.2d 1047,

1048-1049 (Pa. Super. 1982) (stating, an order denying exceptions to a

special master’s report and recommendations without the entry of a final

decree is an interlocutory order, and the appeal of such an order must be

quashed); Aloi v. Aloi, 434 A.2d 161, 163 (Pa. Super. 1981) (stating that,
____________________________________________

5 Rule 1920.55-2(d) states that if no exceptions are filed, then the trial court

“shall review the [special master’s] report [and recommendations] and, if
approved, shall enter a final decree.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1920.55-2(d).

                                           -4-
J-S08003-24

an   order    dismissing     exceptions        to   a   special    master’s      report    and

recommendations is not a final order and the trial court must still

independently satisfy itself that the special master’s recommendations are

proper and, thereupon, enter a final decree); Shultz v. Shultz, 301 A.3d 917,

2023    WL     4104034,      at   *2    n.1     (Pa. Super.       filed   Jun.   21,      2023)

(non-precedential decision) (stating, an order denying exceptions to the

special master’s report and recommendations is not a final order “as it did not

order the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets”).

       In the case sub judice, the special master filed his report and

recommendations concerning the equitable distribution of the assets

comprising the marital estate on March 13, 2023.                     Husband filed timely

exceptions to the special master’s report and recommendations on March 31,

2023, and Wife did not file exceptions. The trial court conducted a hearing on

Husband’s exceptions on June 1, 2023, and denied those exceptions on July

27, 2023. In its July 27, 2023 order, the trial court did not indicate that it

approved the special master’s distribution scheme or order the distribution of

the parties’ assets.6 As such, the July 27, 2023 order is not a final, appealable
____________________________________________

6 We note that, in paragraph 6 of the July 27, 2023 order, the trial court stated

“that the [special master] properly distributed the personal property between
the parties.” Trial Court Order, 7/27/23, at ¶6. The trial court further stated
in paragraph 7 “that the [special master] properly allocated marital assets and
marital debt between the parties.” Id. at ¶7. While these sentences express
approval for a portion of the special master’s distribution scheme, the trial
court did not declare approval or adoption of the special master’s distribution
for all aspects of the material estate. More importantly, the July 27, 2023

                                           -5-
J-S08003-24

order. Consequently, we quash Husband’s appeal and remand this case to

the trial court for entry of a final order of equitable distribution.7

       Appeal quashed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/16/2024

____________________________________________

order does not order distribution in accord with the special master’s report
and recommendations.

7 On remand, the trial court, upon review of the special master’s report and

recommendations, shall enter a final order of equitable distribution of the
parties’ assets. This final order of equitable distribution may simply adopt the
special master’s recommendations but, nonetheless, a final order must
unmistakably express the trial court’s approval of a final distribution of the
parties’ marital assets and clearly direct that the assets be distributed in
accordance with that scheme. Thereafter, either party may file an appeal of
that final order of equitable distribution within 30 days of entry. See Pa.R.A.P.
903.

                                           -6-