Court Opinion

ID: 9758959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:57:33.83644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:41.305304
License: Public Domain

ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with the majority that the bifurcation order from which the appeal at No. 1469 Pittsburgh, 1984 was taken is interlocutory and therefore not appealable. Therefore, I concur in the conclusion that the appeal at No. 1469 Pittsburgh, 1984 must be quashed. I also agree that a bifurcation issue may be properly raised in an appeal from a final divorce decree. Furthermore, I agree that the court may consider, and grant, a request by one of the parties for bifurcation prior to the filing of a Master’s report. Finally, I agree that the Decree of Divorce entered by the trial court should be affirmed. However, because my reasons for affirmance of the divorce decree differ from those expressed by the majority, I respectfully dissent from the *198remaining portions of the opinion and the order quashing the appeal at No. 1468 Pittsburgh, 1984.
As I understand it, the majority concludes that the bifurcation issue has not been properly preserved for appellate review. I do not agree. Therefore, I do not join in the majority’s discussion regarding the necessity of filing post-trial motions pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.1-227.4 in this case. Although the issue of bifurcation must be preserved by contesting the bifurcation in an appropriate manner before the bifurcation order is entered, I do not think that post-trial motions raising the bifurcation issue must be filed to a subsequent uncontested divorce decree. I am of the opinion that Rules 227.1-227.4 do not apply to orders entered pursuant to Rule 1920.52(b). Because the divorce itself was uncontested, Rule 1920.52(a), which explicitly requires the filing of post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 227.1-227.4, is inapplicable. On the contrary, Rule 1920.52(b) governs the procedure in this case. Rule 1920.52(b) does not require the filing of post-trial motions. Considering that the filing of post-trial motions is specifically mandated by Rule 1920.-52(a) but the requirement is omitted from Rule 1920.52(b), I would not hold that post-trial motions must be filed to an order entered pursuant to Rule 1920.52(b).
I recognize that in Szakmeister v. Szakmeister, 344 Pa.Super. 465, 496 A.2d 1199 (1985), Sutliff v. Sutliff, 326 Pa.Super. 496, 474 A.2d 599 (1984), Carangelo v. Carange-lo, 321 Pa.Super. 219, 467 A.2d 1333 (1983), and DeWalt v. DeWalt, 309 Pa.Super. 275, 455 A.2d 156 (1983), our Court ruled that post-trial motions were required to be filed to some types of orders entered pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.-52(b). However, I think those cases are inapplicable for two reasons. First, none of those four cases involved a bifurcation order or an order granting an uncontested divorce; all involved orders regarding alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, or costs. Secondly, and more importantly, I think that the holding of those cases has been effectively overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89, 501 A.2d 211 (1985). In Fried, the *199Supreme Court held that orders relating to alimony penden-te lite, counsel fees and costs are interlocutory and not appealable. A corollary of this holding is that post-trial motions need not be filed to an interlocutory order made pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.52(b). I would hold that appellant was not required to file post-trial motions to the divorce decree in order to preserve its bifurcation issue for appellate review.
Having concluded that the merits of the issue raised by appellant are properly before us, I would affirm. First, I would not fault the trial court for its brief statement of October 12,1984, in support of bifurcation. I do not think it is necessary for the trial court to explicitly detail all its reasons for making a bifurcation order at the time the order is entered. In this case, the trial court’s post-appeal memorandum of July 17, 1985, adequately specifies the basis of the decision to bifurcate, and is sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review. My review of the record convinces me that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering bifurcation. Therefore, since that is essentially the only issue raised on appeal, I agree that the divorce decree should be affirmed.
Secondly, I think it is unnecessary for the majority to raise the issue of the trial court’s failure to provide a statement of reasons for granting the divorce pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.52(a). That rule requires the trial court to state the reasons for granting the divorce where the action of divorce has been “contested.” Pa.R.C.P. 1920.52(a)(6). The divorce in this case was never contested. Appellant filed the complaint for divorce, averring that the marriage was irretrievably broken. Appellee filed an affidavit also stating that the marriage was irretrievably broken. Although appellant filed a counter-affidavit, she did not deny that the marriage was irretrievably broken, but only objected to the court granting the divorce prior to disposing of the economic claims. Thus, appellant did not contest the grounds for divorce, but only objected to “the timing of the divorce vis a vis the parties’ economic claims.” Mandia v. *200Mandia, 341 Pa.Super. 116, 118, 491 A.2d 177, 178 (1985). Because the divorce itself was not contested, Rule 1920.-52(a) is inapplicable. The divorce here was “uncontested” and no statement of reasons was required. See Pa.R.C.P. 1920.52(b)(5).
Because I think that appellant did not need to file post-trial motions to either the bifurcation order or the divorce decree entered pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.52(b), I would reach the merits of her appeal. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, I find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in granting bifurcation, and I would affirm the trial court’s decree of November 2, 1984. I would quash the appeal from the bifurcation order dated October 11, 1984.