Court Opinion

ID: 9891443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 16:10:29.03918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:21.805424
License: Public Domain

J-A13031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  ROBERT A. HUNT                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  PENNY ANN HUNT                               :   No. 841 MDA 2022

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
                            2012-FC-001816-15

  ROBERT A. HUNT                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  PENNY ANN HUNT                               :   No. 842 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Decree Entered May 9, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
                           2012-FC-001816-02

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                        FILED OCTOBER 18, 2023

       Husband, Robert A. Hunt, appeals from the final decree entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of York County divorcing Husband and Wife, Penny

Ann Hunt, and resolving all outstanding economic issues between them.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13031-23

Herein, Husband challenges the trial court’s alimony and equitable distribution

awards as adopted in the May 9, 2022, decree. We affirm.

      The trial court provides an apt statement of facts and procedural history,

as follows:

      A Complaint in Divorce was filed on October 13, 2012. The parties
      separated on May 12, 2012. A Divorce Master, Robert A. Kulling,
      was appointed on June 29, 2017, to address the issue of interim
      relief and on September 5, 2018, to address claims for equitable
      distribution, alimony, counsel fees, and costs and expenses. A
      prehearing Conference was held on October 1, 2018.              On
      November 5, 2018, a Settlement Conference was conducted, but
      the parties were unable to reach an agreement. This matter was
      eventually assigned to [the trial court]. Hearings were conducted
      before [the trial court] on January 9, 2019, April 26, 2019, August
      22, 2019, February 28, 2020, October 15, 2020, and November
      19, 2020.         Numerous Status Conference Hearings and
      Contempt/Special Hearings were held in addition to these
      hearings. On September 21, 2021, the [trial court] issued a Final
      Order on Divorce and Economic Issues.

      Stipulated findings of fact indicated that Husband and Wife were
      married on June 17, 1996, and separated on May 12, 2012. The
      parties were married for fifteen years and eleven months. This
      was Husband’s first marriage and Wife’s second marriage. The
      parties have no children together.

      The [trial court] made the following findings of fact regarding
      Husband’s income and potential to earn.

         1. Husband currently pays $1[,]796.38 in support payments.
            The support payments are set to expire as Husband has
            paid $98,793.13 out of the $105,421.22 owed to Wife.

         2. Husband also pays $359.28 per month in arrears (“arrears
            payments”). Husband owes over $100,000 in arrears
            payments.

                                     -2-
J-A13031-23

        3. Husband is currently employed as an Independent
           Contractor/business analyst with Kodiak systems. He has
           worked with this company since 2017. Prior to his current
           employment, he was the President of CRA collections from
           2007-2016, and he worked for UPS for 8 years. Husband
           also had several other business dealings which were
           depleted during the marriage.

        4. Husband has an Associate’s Degree in Business.

        5. Husband’s 2019 Kodiak salary was $163,360.00. In 2018,
           Husband’s Kodiak salary was $170,136.96.         [N.T.,
           2/28/2020, at 201.] Husband’s salary was consistently
           higher in prior few years.

        6. Husband sought to lower his salary and hid assets. See
           N.T. 1/9/2012, at 35-36.

        7. Husband has received items such as $100,000 sports cars,
           a Ferrari worth $180,000, trips to Super Bowl on a private
           jet in lieu of a higher salary, and at least $100,000 as cash
           bonuses. N.T. at 50-51; see also N.T., 4/26/2019, at 11-
           12.

        8. Husband has monthly expenses of $10,312.00.

        9. Husband has consistently lived at [a] high standard of
           living and above his means despite separation.

        10.    In accordance with the findings above, Husband’s
           annual gross salary is at a minimum above $200,000.

     Final Am. Order, 2/9/2022, at 2-3.

     Regarding Husband’s salary, the [trial court] noted that
     “[t]estimony was provided that Husband received a Ferrari, other
     sports cars, cash bonuses, and other trips in lieu of salary. This
     indicate[d] that his salary [wa]s probably higher than indicated.”
     Id. at n1. In noting that Husband lives at a high standard of living
     and above his means despite separation, the [trial court]noted
     that this included “[s]ports cars, racing, expensive trips, and etc.
     See N.T., 10/15/2020, at 133-137.” Id. at n2.

                                    -3-
J-A13031-23

      The [trial court] made the following findings of fact regarding
      Wife’s income and potential to earn.

         1. Wife is currently employed as a Commercial
            Underwriter at Farmers First Insurance Company
            where she has been employed for nine years.

         2. Wife’s 2019 salary was $70,047.00.

         3. Wife has monthly expenses of $4,089.95.

         4. Wife is currently in breast cancer remission and has
            fragile health.

         5. Wife’s annual gross salary is 72,721.44. See Wife’s
            Ex. 170.

         6. Prior to separation, Wife consistently lived at a high
            standard of living.

         7. Wife has been unable to sustain the prior standard of
            living and her medical expenses have greatly depleted
            her resources and her primary source of income.

         8. At the time of the last hearing, Wife was receiving
            temporary support payments which is almost
            depleted.

         9. In addition to support payments, Wife is currently
            owed over $100,000 in arrears payments from
            Husband.

Id. at 3-4.

      On October 1, 2021, Husband filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On

October 14, 2021, Wife filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On February 8,

2022, a hearing on cross-motions for reconsideration was held. As a result,

on February 9, 2022, the final order was amended regarding the payment plan

on page twenty-three and the requirement to purchase life insurance on page

                                    -4-
J-A13031-23

twenty-four. On May 9, 2022, a divorce decree was entered. On June 6,

2022, Husband filed a Notice of Appeal and a Concise Statement of Matters

Complained of on Appeal.

     Husband raises in his appellate brief the following Statement of

Questions Presented for this Court’s consideration:

     1. Did the trial court err in its reasoning and analysis of the award
        of alimony to Wife?

     2. Did the trial court err in its calculation of the value of marital
        assets by assigning two separate values to the marital home,
        to the detriment of Husband?

     3. Did the trial court err in ordering that Husband’s non-marital
        property, a personal injury settlement, should be attached as
        part of the divorce process and distributed to Wife before the
        entry of the divorce decree, and prior to the date of a final
        order?

     4. Did the trial court err in ordering funds contained in escrow and
        held by Wife’s counsel to be distributed to Wife prior to the
        entry of a divorce decree, prior to the date of a final order?

     5. Did the trial court improperly fail to consider the inordinate
        length of the litigation in this case, as well as the lengthy
        separation of the parties, during which time Husband paid
        support to Wife, as a factor in the case when creating its final
        order for equitable distribution and alimony?

     6. Did the trial court improperly weight evidence from Husband’s
        ex-girlfriend in making key evidentiary determinations in the
        case?

                                     -5-
J-A13031-23

      7. Did the trial court improperly consider a higher than actual sale
         value of several marital assets, including the Gettysburg
         painting and the Nissan Acura?

Brief of Appellant, at 9-10.

      Husband first assails the trial court’s alimony award. Our standard of

review for challenges to alimony awards is whether the trial court abused its

discretion. See Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa. Super.

2004). When examining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, we

examine:

      not whether the trial court has merely committed an error of
      judgment, but rather whether the trial court has overridden or
      misapplied the law, or has exercised judgment which is manifestly
      unreasonable, or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will
      as demonstrated by the evidence of record.

Lawson v. Lawson, 940 A.2d 444, 447 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied,

597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal brackets omitted).

             [T]he purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to
      punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs
      of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through
      appropriate employment, are met. Alimony is based upon
      reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of
      living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as
      the payor's ability to pay. Moreover, alimony following a divorce
      is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic
      justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved
      by way of an equitable distribution award and development of an
      appropriate employable skill.

Gates v. Gates, 933 A.2d 102, 106 (Pa. Super. 2007) (cleaned up; emphasis

in original).

                                       -6-
J-A13031-23

     The Divorce Code provides the following guidance in relation to an award

of alimony:

     (a)General rule.--Where a divorce decree has been entered, the
     court may allow alimony, as it deems reasonable, to either party
     only if it finds that alimony is necessary.

     (b) Factors relevant.--In determining whether alimony is
     necessary and in determining the nature, amount, duration and
     manner of payment of alimony, the court shall consider all
     relevant factors, including:

              (1) The relative earnings and earning capacities of the
              parties.

              (2) The ages and the physical, mental and emotional
              conditions of the parties.

              (3) The sources of income of both parties, including,
              but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or
              other benefits.

              (4) The expectancies and inheritances of the parties.

              (5) The duration of the marriage.

              (6) The contribution by one party to the education,
              training or increased earning power of the other party.

              (7) The extent to which the earning power, expenses
              or financial obligations of a party will be affected by
              reason of serving as the custodian of a minor child.

              (8) The standard of living of the parties established
              during the marriage.

              (9) The relative education of the parties and the time
              necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to
              enable the party seeking alimony to find appropriate
              employment.

              (10) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties.

                                        -7-
J-A13031-23

           (11) The property brought to the marriage by either
           party.

           (12) The contribution of a spouse as homemaker.

           (13) The relative needs of the parties.

           (14) The marital misconduct of either of the parties
           during the marriage. The marital misconduct of either
           of the parties from the date of final separation shall
           not be considered by the court in its determinations
           relative to alimony, except that the court shall
           consider the abuse of one party by the other party. As
           used in this paragraph, “abuse” shall have the
           meaning given to it under section 6102 (relating to
           definitions).

           (15) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications of
           the alimony award.

           (16) Whether the party seeking alimony lacks
           sufficient property, including, but not limited to,
           property distributed under Chapter 35 (relating to
           property rights), to provide for the party's reasonable
           needs.

           (17) Whether the party seeking alimony is incapable
           of self-support through appropriate employment.

     (c) Duration.--The court in ordering alimony shall determine the
     duration of the order, which may be for a definite or an indefinite
     period of time which is reasonable under the circumstances.

     (d) Statement of reasons.--In an order made under this
     section, the court shall set forth the reason for its denial or award
     of alimony and the amount thereof.

     (e) Modification and termination.--An order entered pursuant
     to this section is subject to further order of the court upon changed
     circumstances of either party of a substantial and continuing
     nature whereupon the order may be modified, suspended,
     terminated or reinstituted or a new order made. Any further order
     shall apply only to payments accruing subsequent to the petition

                                     -8-
J-A13031-23

      for the requested relief. Remarriage of the party receiving alimony
      shall terminate the award of alimony.

      (f) Status of agreement to pay alimony.--Whenever the court
      approves an agreement for the payment of alimony voluntarily
      entered into between the parties, the agreement shall constitute
      the order of the court and may be enforced as provided in section
      3703 (relating to enforcement of arrearages).

23 Pa.C.S. § 3701.

      In this issue, Husband questions both the amount and the duration of

the alimony award, and he challenges the court’s application of several of the

seventeen factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b) that a court must weigh

in considering whether to award alimony. Specifically, Husband argues first

that economic justice required the court to consider the “exceedingly large

amount of support that he had already paid to Wife during the separation of

the parties over a nine-year period ($77,098.48)” as well as what he describes

as “the excessive amount of arrears which were past due and would continue

to be collected by Wife into the future ($108,134.00 in arrears past due). Our

jurisprudence, he maintains, typically applies “indefinite alimony” only when

the length of the marriage is “much longer than the fifteen years between the

parties in this case.” Brief for Appellant, at 29.

       Husband further argues that the court failed to analyze the “reasonable

needs of the parties” and relied, instead, on what he contends was a superficial

determination of the parties’ respective incomes and his ability to pay alimony,

thus making the court’s application of the guideline amount erroneous.

                                      -9-
J-A13031-23

     Wife responds that the trial court reasonably concluded that manifest

economic justice could not be reached absent an alimony award to her. She

maintains that even though she receives 70 percent of the marital estate, the

alimony award does not reflect an abuse of judicial discretion when one

considers her poor health stemming from a 2017 Stage-4 breast cancer

diagnosis and continuing treatment, her comparatively older age, a sizeable

income disparity favoring Husband, and Husband’s marital misconduct with

finances leading to a depleted marital estate at the time of equitable

distribution. See Section 3701(3, 4, and 14, supra).

     The trial court substantiates its award of alimony with extensive, record-

supported findings of fact regarding Husband’s and Wife’s respective incomes

and potentials to earn, the valuation of items and designation of them as

marital and nonmarital, See TCO, 2/9/22, at p.2-17. At the time of the order,

the court explains, wife was in poor health and unable to pursue additional

training or assume an increased workload. This finding of fact, coupled with

the court’s determination that her receipt of 70% of a marital estate that was

dissipated unreasonably by Husband’s financial misconduct, led the court to

conclude that it would be for an indefinite time that “Wife will be unable to

meet her reasonable needs.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 8/2/22, at 7-8.

      As such, the trial court concludes that it complied with Section 3701(c)

when it ordered alimony to be for an indefinite time and modifiable with

changing circumstances because it was reasonable to do so under the

circumstances.    See Section 3701(c) (permitting indefinite duration to

                                    - 10 -
J-A13031-23

alimony order where reasonable).       We agree, as our independent review

confirms that the court’s determinations and conclusions are supported by the

certified record.   Therefore, we affirm on this issue based on the analysis

supplied by the trial court in both its initial Opinion in support of its “Amended

Final Order on Divorce Economic Issues”, 2/9/2022 and its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

Opinion.

      In Husband’s second issue, he maintains that the trial court erred in its

calculation of the value of marital assets by assigning two separate values to

the marital home, to the detriment of Husband. In reviewing the lower court's

decision to adopt the divorce master's valuation, we are mindful of the

following:

      “[T]he Divorce Code does not set forth a specific method or
      valuing assets, and consistent with our standard of review, the
      trial court is afforded great discretion in fashioning an equitable
      distribution order which achieves economic justice.” Carney [v.
      Carney,] 167 A.3d [127,] 131 [(Pa. Super. 2017)] (citation
      omitted). “In valuing marital assets, the trial court must exercise
      discretion and rely on the estimates, inventories, records of
      purchase prices, and appraisals submitted by both parties.” Id.
      (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). However,
      “[t]he trial court may accept all, part, or none of the evidence
      regarding valuation of marital property, and it may rely on its own
      valuation method.” Brubaker [v. Brubaker], 201 A.3d [180,]
      185 [(Pa. Super. 2018)].

Llaurado v. Garcia-Zapata, 223 A.3d 247, 254 (Pa. Super. 2019).

                                     - 11 -
J-A13031-23

       The two values referenced by Husband are the $410,000.001 purchase

price Husband agreed to pay after discussion with the trial court and the

$435,000 value the court chose in forming its equitable distribution order.

The trial court explained that it counseled Husband to make the $410,000

purchase for the sake of paying off both the mortgage and arrears on the

mortgage and realizing an equity remainder which could be distributed

between Husband and Wife. R.R. 1381a. Of further concern to the trial court

was that third party offers may be below market value because a foreclosure

was pending. N.T., 2/9/22, at 8.

       The trial court opines that it chose the latter value, which is

approximately 6% higher than Husband’s agreed-upon purchase price,

because it believed the urgency of the “forced sale” may have been at a below-

value purchase price, and Wife’s professional appraisal was considerably

higher. As the trial court’s valuation method relied upon extensive discussions

of market values, third-party offers, and appraisals, and reached a final

amount considerably closer to Husband’s purchase price than to Wife’s

professional appraisal amount, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s exercise

of discretion.

       In Husband’s third and fourth issues, he maintains the court erred in

ordering that his personal injury settlement acquired post-separation should

____________________________________________

1 A third party had made a purchase offer of $400,000, albeit with a
contingency that seller pay one-half the realtor’s 6% commission. RR 2587a,
7-18.

                                          - 12 -
J-A13031-23

be attached as part of the divorce property and distributed to Wife prior to the

entry of a divorce decree. Under the definitions of 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(a)(8)2

and relevant caselaw, Husband asserts, funds received from a settlement for

a cause of action arising after the date of separation are not marital assets.

See Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 849 A.2d 582 (Pa. 2004).

       The trial court, however, explains that it acted under its enforcement

authority conferred by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e), which empowers a court to

enforce equitable distribution by use of a party’s real and personal property.

Specifically, Section 3502(e) provides:

       If, at any time, a party has failed to comply with an order of
       equitable distribution, as provided for in this chapter or with the
       terms of an agreement as entered into between the parties, after
       hearing, the court may, in addition to any other remedy available
       under this part, in order to effect compliance with its order:

              (1)    Enter judgment;
____________________________________________

2 Section 3501(a)(8) of the Domestic Relations statute provides:

       (a)    General rule.--As used in this chapter, “marital
              property” means all property acquired by either party
              during the marriage and the increase in value of any
              nonmarital property acquired pursuant to paragraphs (1)
              and (3) as measured and determined under subsection
              (a.1). However, marital property does not include:

              (8) Any payment received as a result of an award or
              settlement for any cause of action or claim which accrued
              prior to the marriage or after the date of final separation
              regardless of when the payment was received.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501(a)(8).

                                          - 13 -
J-A13031-23

            (2)   Authorize the taking and seizure of the goods
                  and chattels and intangible property of the
                  party;

23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e).

      In its Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court sets forth the circumstances that

compelled it to act under Section 3502(e):

      “Given that the bulk of the marital assets [we]re either in
      Husband’s possession or were dissipated by Husband’s actions,”
      the [trial court] ordered that “the remaining amount owed to Wife
      was to [be] paid first from Husband’s personal injury escrow funds
      . . . .” Final Am. Order at 23. The [trial court] was within its
      enforcement authority and did not err in ordering the distribution
      of Husband’s post-separation settlement.

Rule 1925(a) Opinion, at 11.

      On this point, Husband does not dispute that the trial court has powers

to enforce an order of equitable distribution, and baldly claims that the trial

court abused its discretion in taking the entire amount of the settlement. The

court, however, clarified that it applied the settlement assets to the remaining

amount owed to Wife, a fact that Husband does not contest. Therefore, this

claim affords Husband no relief.

      In Husband’s fifth issue, he contends that the trial court improperly

failed to consider the spousal support Husband paid to Wife for nine years

when it entered its final order for equitable distribution and alimony.

      When determining the propriety of an equitable distribution
      award, this Court must consider the distribution scheme as a
      whole. Mundy v. Mundy, 151 A.3d 230, 236 (Pa. Super. 2016).
      “We do not evaluate the propriety of the distribution order upon
      our agreement with the court's actions nor do we find a basis for
      reversal in the court's application of a single factor. Rather, we
      look at the distribution as a whole, in light of the court's overall

                                     - 14 -
J-A13031-23

       application of the 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 3502(a) factors[3] for
       consideration in awarding equitable distribution. If we fail to find
       an abuse of discretion, the order must stand.” Harvey v. Harvey,
____________________________________________

3 (a) General rule.--Upon the request of either party in an action for divorce

or annulment, the court shall equitably divide, distribute or assign, in kind or
otherwise, the marital property between the parties without regard to marital
misconduct in such percentages and in such manner as the court deems just
after considering all relevant factors. The court may consider each marital
asset or group of assets independently and apply a different percentage to
each marital asset or group of assets. Factors which are relevant to the
equitable division of marital property include the following:

       (1) The length of the marriage.
       (2) Any prior marriage of either party.
       (3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income,
       vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of
       each of the parties.
       (4) The contribution by one party to the education, training or
       increased earning power of the other party.
       (5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital
       assets and income.
       (6) The sources of income of both parties, including, but not
       limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.
       (7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition,
       preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property,
       including the contribution of a party as homemaker.
       (8) The value of the property set apart to each party.
       (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the
       marriage.
       (10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the
       division of property is to become effective.
       (10.1) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications associated
       with each asset to be divided, distributed or assigned, which
       ramifications need not be immediate and certain.
       (10.2) The expense of sale, transfer or liquidation associated with
       a particular asset, which expense need not be immediate and
       certain.
       (11) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any
       dependent minor children.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502.

                                          - 15 -
J-A13031-23

      167 A.3d 6, 17 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation and internal brackets
      omitted). Finally, “it is within the province of the trial court to
      weigh the evidence and decide credibility and this Court will not
      reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by the
      evidence.” Brubaker, 201 A.3d at 184 (citation omitted).

      ...

      “A trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an award of
      equitable distribution.” Brubaker, 201 A.3d at 184 (citation
      omitted). “In making its decision *524 regarding equitable
      distribution, the trial court must consider at least the eleven
      factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 3502(a).” Isralsky v.
      Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2003). However,
      there is no standard formula guiding the division of marital
      property and the “method of distribution derives from the facts of
      the individual case.” Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d 882, 888 (Pa.
      Super. 2005) (citation omitted). While the list of factors in Section
      3502 serves as a guideline for consideration, the list is “neither
      exhaustive nor specific as to the weight to be given the various
      factors.” Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, “the court has
      flexibility of method and concomitantly assumes responsibility in
      rendering its decisions.” Id. (citation omitted).

Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520, 523-24 (Pa. Super. 2019)

      To support his position, Husband relies on DeMarco v. DeMarco, 787

A.2d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2001), in which this Court deemed inequitable an order

awarding alimony for twenty years where the facts established that the parties

had been married just 12 years and were separated for the ensuing 17 years,

the entire time for which an order of support was in effect.

      Similarly, he offers Teodorski v Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super.

2004) for the proposition that the denial of permanent alimony is appropriate

where the marriage at issue was relatively brief—six years in Teodorski—and

the paying spouse already had paid support for nearly an equal amount of

time—nearly 5 years. Id. at 199, 201.

                                     - 16 -
J-A13031-23

      Husband concedes the facts of his case are distinguishable from each of

the cited cases, as he has “paid support for nine years on a marriage that

lasted just under 16 years.” Brief for Appellant at 45. He argues, however,

that continuing spousal support after Husband has already paid over $100,000

as well as legal fees for Wife, who has worked full time during the separation,

is similarly inequitable to the cited authority. To this end, Appellant contends

that the   trial court failed to consider Husband’s contributions            and,

consequently, effected an economic injustice through its equitable distribution

scheme and support award.

      The trial court rejects Husband’s argument in full.      Referencing the

Section 3502(a) factors, the Court notes:

      The [trial court] considered all eleven . . . factors before making
      its equitable distribution determination. The [trial court] did not
      fail to consider the length of the litigation and separation in this
      case when creating its final order for equitable distribution and
      alimony. In fact, while analyzing the alimony factors, the [trial
      court] considered that “Husband was less than forthcoming and
      his lack [of] cooperation in the early proceedings contributed to
      delays and the depletion of some assets [] relative to furnishings
      in the marital home, other vehicles, and cash. Said actions thus
      deprived Wife of monies/property that she could claim in equitable
      distribution.” Final Am. Order at 30. At the hearing on motion for
      reconsideration, Husband admitted to having delayed the
      proceedings by paus[ing] litigation for a few years further
      lengthening the separation. Tr., Feb. 9, 2022, at 10. The [trial
      court] also considered under the duration of marriage factor that
      Husband had been paying around $1,800 per month since May
      2018 through the Domestic Relations Office. Final Am. Order at
      26. The [trial court] noted “[this will factor into the duration and
      Husband’s ability to pay paired with the standard of living during
      this marriage. However, otherwise this factor is neutral.” Id. at
      26.

                                     - 17 -
J-A13031-23

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, at 12-13. As the record supports the trial court’s

declaration that it considered the length of both the parties’ litigation before

it and their separation relative to the length of their marriage, we agree with

the trial court that Husband’s claim is without merit.

      Husband next posits that the trial court erroneously made credibility

determinations in favor of Husband’s ex-girlfriend, Elizabeth Varnish, without

reliable evidence to support her claims. Ms. Varnish testified, inter alia, that

Husband accepted, in lieu of salary, $100,000.00 sports cars, a Ferrari worth

$180,000.00, and cash bonuses of at least $100,000.00, without requiring

any proof of such assertions. For example, he maintains, no Department of

Motor Vehicles records of ownership were ever introduced during the hearings.

Brief of Appellant, at 48. Instead, Ms. Varnish related on the stand simply

that Husband had told her so. N.T., 1/9/19, at 50.

      To support his appeal for reversal, Husband cites to Morgante v.

Morgante, 119 A.3d 382, 395 (Pa. Super. 2015), in which there existed a

controversy over whether a ring was marital property. The wife had offered

an extra-judicial statement that the ring was, in fact, marital property, but

only the Husband provided testimony about the ring, denying that it was

marital property. The trial court relied on the wife’s out-of-court statement to

find the ring was marital property, but we reversed on appeal, observing,

“Here, given the lack of Wife's testimony regarding the ring, the Master's

acceptance of Wife's position as credible and determinative of ownership is

                                     - 18 -
J-A13031-23

not supported by the record. Consequently, the trial court's reliance on the

Master's credibility determination is not supported.” Id. 119 A.3d at 395.

       Morgante is inapposite to the present matter, as Ms. Varnish, unlike

the wife in Morgante, did, in fact, testify before the court about the facts

presently in dispute, and the court, considering her long-time close

relationship with Husband, reasonably found her testimony credible.4

Therefore, Husband’s claim fails.

       In Husband’s final issue, he contends the trial court erroneously

assigned inflated, higher-than-actual-sale value for several marital assets.

The first is an oil on canvas painting entitled, “Lions of the Round Top –

____________________________________________

4 We note that the trial court applied Rule 1925 waiver to Husband’s claim, as

it concluded the enumerated matter complained of, which stated, “The [trial
court] improperly considered evidence from Husband’s ex-girlfriend in making
key evidentiary determination in this case.”, was not raised with sufficient
specificity to enable the court to identify what evidence was at issue.

It is well-settled that “any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement will
be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa.
2005) (citation and quotation omitted). We will also deem a claim waived if
the Rule 1925(b) statement is so vague that it fails to provide adequate
guidance to the trial court regarding the issue on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(ii) (“The [1925(b)] Statement shall concisely identify each error
that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue
be raised for the judge”). A Rule 1925(b) Statement “which is too vague to
allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional
equivalent of no [Rule 1925(b)] Statement at all.” Lineberger v. Wyeth,
894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 2006).

While we do not disagree with the trial court’s assessment that Husband’s Rule
1925 statement lacked specificity with respect to this issue, we have elected
to review and dismiss the issue on its merits.

                                          - 19 -
J-A13031-23

Gettysburg”, by Don Troiani.     The trial court valued this work at $40,000,

opining,

      There was some dispute as to whether this painting was a gift to
      Husband and therefore nonmarital or whether it was given in lieu
      of salary or debt and therefore was marital property. N.T.,
      10/15/2020, at 166-67. The [trial court] notes that throughout
      this case there was testimony by various parties that Husband
      received cash bonuses, exotic cars, trips, and other lavish items
      in lieu of salary. Accordingly, [the trial court] accepts Wife’s
      testimony that this painting was owned by the parties prior to
      separation and is marital property rather than nonmarital. N.T.,
      4/26/19, at 208. Husband sold the painting for $25,000 without
      Wife’s knowledge in 2013. N.T., 2/28/20, at 181. However, this
      painting was appraised for a value at $40,000 and the [trial court]
      accepts this value. N.T., 4/26/19, at 111-12.

Rule 1925(a) Opinion, at 14.

      Husband argues that Wife testified that the value of the painting was

$40,000.00, which, Husband maintains was based on hearsay. However, as

Husband fails to develop a meaningful argument, supported by citation to

supporting authority, in opposition to the trial court’s valuation rationale, this

issue waived. See C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(stating that “[i]t is well-established that the failure to develop an argument

with citation to, and analysis of, pertinent authority results in waiver of that

issue on appeal”); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).

      Next, Appellant contends that no evidence of record was presented

establishing that the Chevrolet DS truck was a marital asset. In fact, Husband

asserts, his ex-girlfriend Ms. Varnish testified that she gave Husband the truck

after he had supplied her with purchase money for it two years post-

                                     - 20 -
J-A13031-23

separation, in 2013. N.T.,1/9/19, at 59. Despite this testimony, Husband

continues, the trial court found that the truck was a marital asset and placed

an equitable distribution value on it of $10,000. Because this argument is

outside the scope of the Rule 1925(b) concise statement at issue, which

asserted that the trial court overvalued certain marital assets, the trial court

does not address it. Accordingly, we decline to review this argument. See

Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (Any issues not raised

in accordance with Rule 1925(b) will be deemed waived. Rule 1925 is a bright-

line rule.).

      The same result attends Husband’s contention under this final issue that

the trial court erred in assigning certain value to uncollectable loans as part

of equitable distribution.   This matter was not specified in Husband’s Rule

1925(b) statement, such that the trial court’s comprehensive Rule 1925(a)

opinion does not address it.     As this consequence impedes our ability to

conduct meaningful review of the claim, we find this part of his final issue

waived as well.

      With respect to the Nissan Acura NSX race car, which was identified in

Husband’s Rule 1925(b) statement, Husband concedes the car was a marital

asset but argues that extensive required repairs and a mechanic’s lien, which

covered the costs of the repairs and storage of the car amounting to

$38,000.00 in costs significantly reduced the car’s value before the parties

separated in 2010. N.T., 2/28/20, at 48; Husband’s Exhibit, Receipt,

12/15/16. Therefore, Husband contends that his contributions to maintain

                                     - 21 -
J-A13031-23

the marital asset should have affected the equitable distribution calculation in

his favor, in the interests of economic justice. Anthony v. Anthony, 514

A.2d 91, 94-95 (Pa. Super. 1986).

      Wife counters that testimony established that the Acura NSX was a

valuable asset at the date of separation.      N.T., 4/26/19, at 192, with a

valuation range between $27,600 and $39,000 in 2012. Wife’s Exhibit 206,

p. 8. Testimony was offered that Husband went to the auto repair shop, with

whom he enjoyed a friendly relationship, and advised that he did not want the

vehicle because he was separating from his wife. N.T. at 218. Despite the

subsequent mechanic’s lien and storage fees, Husband still exercised a degree

of control over the vehicle, as testified to by his ex-girlfriend Ms. Varnish.

According to Ms. Varnish, she saw the Acura NSX in the shop of Husband’s

friend on a date after which the car was supposedly lost to a mechanic’s lien

sale. N.T., 1/9/19, at 39.

      On this evidence, the trial court concluded that Husband executed the

mechanic’s lien and engaged in related actions afterward in a manner that

was, “at the very least” a negligent if not an intentional undertaking to hide

the asset from Wife. Rule 1925(a) Opinion, at 14. As there is record support

for the court’s credibility determination in this regard, we deny Husband’s

claim.

      Decree affirmed.

                                     - 22 -
J-A13031-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/18/2023

                           - 23 -
FE/09/2022/81D  11:39
FED/09/2022/WED 11    AM
                   39 Al                                  FAX N».
                                                          FAI No,                                       ?P.001/034
                                                                                                           001/034
                                                                                     Circulated
                                                                            3:05:09 pM
                                                         Received 6/24/2022 3.05.09 PM  Superior09/29/2023 11:23
                                                                                                 Court Middle     PM
                                                                                                              District

                                         1'I OTMNOY,tiit uperior ca,J8%RE
                           OFFICE OF THE PROTH&OT¥voe«e          Court Middle District
                                                                      841 MDA 2022

                                    York County
                                         COmty
                                                    t

        Allison Blew
                Blew                                                        York County Judicial Center
        Prothonotary                                                        45 N. George Street
                  Borges
        Billie Jo Bones                                                     York, PA 17401
        Chief Deputy
        Chief Deputy                                                        Office:
                                                                            Office- (717)
                                                                                    (717) 771-9611
                                                                                          771-96X1
        Gregory E. Gettle, Esq.
        Gregory            Esq.                                             Passports; (717)
                                                                            Passports: (71'7) 771-4760
                                                                                              771-476o
        Solicitor

                                         FAX TRANSMITTAL
        DATE: 02/09/22
        FROM: EROTHONOTARY'S
              PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE                            YORK CQ JIMICI,A LCENTER
                                                               JUDICIAL
                                                     LOCATION: YORK
                                                               CO

           TO:                                       LOCATION:

                 PENNY V AYERS, ESQ                                   717741-1469
                                                                      717141-1469
                                                                      --�----

        Notice    Entry of Order.
        Notice of Entrr    Order.Decree
                                  Decree or Judgment in accordance with
                                                                   with PA R. C. P. 236
                                                                        PAR.CP.     236

        CASE NUMBER         2012-FC-001816-15
                            2012-1€-001816-15
                           -��~���----------
                                       SHEET: PSS
        NICER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:_3
        NUMBER                                34 pages

        ANY PROBLEMS WITH TRANSMITTAL PLEASE CALL
                                             CALL (717) 771-9611 AND ASR
                                                  (7IT) TT1-9611     ASK
        FOR DENISE.

          Confidentiality Notice: This facsimile, including any attachments,
                                                                   attachments, is for the sole
                                                                                           sole
          use of the            recipient(s) and may
                  tbe intended recipient(s)                                          privileged
                                                  may contain confidential and privileged
          information. Any
                         Any   unauthorized   review,   use,  disclosure,  or  distribution   is
                                                                                              is
          prohibited. If you are not the           zecipient, please contact the
                                     the intended recipient,                 the sender at the
                                                                                            the
          phone
          phone number listed above and destroy all copies
                                                    copies of the original message.
FED/09/2022/WED 11
FE/09/2022/81D  11:39 AM
                   39 Al                                     FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No.                              ?P.002/034
                                                                                                     002/034

                                                                                   -
                                                                                   y
                                                                                Egzygp,
                                                                                   y
                                                                                                arr
                                                                         er cebfowoT
                                                                          FE8 -9 PHI2» 20
                                                                          $cu. cewe Yoni.'

                                 OIF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                    IN THE COURT OR

                                   A. HUNT,
                            ROBERT A.                                    No. 2012-0-001816-15
                                                                         No. 2012-
                                                                                 FC-001816 -
                                                                                           15
                                                 Plaintiff
                                         vs.
                                         VS.

                            PENNY HUNT,                              '   ACTION
                                                                         ACTION IN DIVORCE
                                                 Defendant
                                                 Defendant

                            AMENDED P
                            AMENDED  TNAL ORDER
                                    FINAL ORDER ON
                                                ON DIVORCE
                                                   D117ORCE ECONOMIC
                                                            ECONOMIC ISSUES
                                                                  ISSUES
                                               PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                           A Complaint in
                           A Complaint in Divorce
                                          Divorce was
                                                  was filed on October 13, 2012. The parties separated on

                           2012. A
                   May 12, 2012. A Divorce Master, Robert A. Kulling,
                                                             KulIing, was appointed on June 29, 2017 to

                                        interim: relief. On
                   address the issue of interim          On September 5, 2018, Divorce Master, Robert A.

                   K-ulliog, Esquire was appointed to address claims for equitable distribution, alimony,
                   Kulling,

                  counsel. fees,
                  counsel  fees, and costs
                                     costs and           A, Prehearing
                                           and expenses. A  Prehearing Conference
                                                                       Conference was
                                                                                  was held
                                                                                      held on
                                                                                           on October I,
                                                                                                      I,

                  2018. On November 5, 2018, aaSettlement Conference was conducted but the parties
                                                                                           parties were

                  unable
                  unable to reach an agreement.
                         to reach    agreement. This
                                                This matter
                                                     matter was eventually assigned
                                                            was eventually assigned to
                                                                                    to this
                                                                                       this Honorable
                                                                                            Honorable Court
                                                                                                      Court_

                                conducted before tbis
                  Hearings were conducted        this Court on January 9, 2019, April 26, 2019,
                                                                                          201.9, August
                                                                                                 August 22,
                                                                                                        22,

                                            October ' 15, 2020, and November 19,
                        February. 28, 2020, October
                  2019, February                                                 2020_ Numerous Status
                                                                             19, 2020.

                                                                         held in addition to these
                  Conference Hearings and Contempt/Special Hearings were beld

                  hearings_ On
                  hearings  On. October 1,
                                        I, 2021, Plaintiff filed aaMotion for Reconsideration. On October
                                                                                                  October 14,

                                                                 I
FE/09/2022/81D  11:39
FED/09/2022/WED 11    AM
                   39 Al                                        FAX IN».
                                                                AI  No,                                 ?P.003/034
                                                                                                           003/034

                   2021, Defendant filed aaMotion for Reconsideration.
                                                      Reconsideration_ On
                                                                       Oar February 8, 2022, Oral Argument
                                                                                                  Argumezit

                       beard. As
                   was heard. As aaresult, the fial
                                               final order was amended regarding the payment plan on page

                   twenty-three and the requiremew
                                        requirement to purchase life insurance on page twenty-four.

                                                             FINDINGS OF FACT

                           A.                           Windings
                                     General Stipulated Findings
                                1.
                                1.     The Plaintiff is
                                                      is Robert A.
                                                                A. Hunt
                                                                   Hunt (hereinafter
                                                                        (hereinafter "Husband"). Husband
                                                                                                   Husband
                                       was bom iuin 1966 and was 49 years of age at the time of the hearing.
                                                                                                    hearing.

                                2.     The Defendant is Penny Hunt
                                                               Hunt (hereinafter
                                                                     (hereinafter "Wife"), Wife was born
                                                                                                    bom
                                       in 1959
                                       in 1959 and
                                               and was 56 years of age at the time of
                                                                          the time o£ the hearing.
                                                                                          hearing.

                                3.    The parties were married
                                                       rnaixied on June 17, 1996. This was the second
                                      marriage for Wife and the
                                      roanriage              the first marriage for Husband. Wife's first
                                      marjage
                                      marriage ended in divorce.

                                4.
                                4.    The parties separated
                                                  separated on
                                                            on May
                                                               May 12, 2012.
                                                                       201.2.

                                5.
                                5.    The parties were married
                                      The              married for aaperiod
                                                                     period of approximately
                                                                               approximately 15 years,
                                                                                                years, Il
                                                                                                       11
                                      months.

                                6.
                                6.    The parties have no children together.
                                      The                          together.

                           B. Husband's
                              Husb"dIs Income
                                        lia come and
                                                 ad Potential to Earn

                                 1. Husband currently pays
                                 I.                      pays $1796.38
                                                              $ 1.796.38 in
                                                                         iu support
                                                                            support payments. The support
                                                                                              The support
                                    payments are set
                                                   set to expire as Husband has paid $98,793.12
                                                                                        $95,793.12 out of
                                    the $105,421.22
                                        $ 105,421..22 owed to Wife.

                                2_ Husband
                                2. Husbaa-
                                         id also pays
                                                  pays $359.28 per month in arrearsarrears ("arears
                                                                                            ("arears
                                   payments"). Husband owes over $100,000
                                                                 $ 100,000 in arears
                                                                              arcars payments.

                                                                    22
FED/09/2022/WED 11
FE/09/2022/81D  11:39 AM
                   39 Al                                             FAX IN».
                                                                     AI  No.                                           P. 004/034

                                 3. ' Husband is currently employed employed      as an Independent
                                      Coutxactoribusiness analyst with Kodiak systems. He has
                                      Contractor/business                                    bas worked
                                                              201,7.
                                      with this company since 2017.  Prior to bis cuuent employment, he
                                                                              his current
                                      was the President of CRA collections from 2007-2016, and he
                                      worked for UPS for 88years. Husband also had several other business
                                      dealings which
                                      dealings       were depleted
                                               which were depleted during
                                                                   duriug the marriage.
                                                                          the roarriage.

                                 4. Husband has an Associate's Degree in Business.

                                                                 was $$163,360.00.
                                 5. Husband's 2019 Kodak salary was    163,360.00. In 2-01 S, Husband's
                                                                                       2018,
                                    Kodak salary was $$170,136.96.
                                                        170,136.96. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020,
                                                                                        2020, at 201.'
                                                                                                  201. 1
                                              salary was consistently
                                    Husband's salary     consistently higher
                                                                      higher in prior
                                                                                prior few  years.
                                                                                      few years

                                                                                              assets.
                                 6. Husband sought to lower his salary and bid assets. See Jan. 9, 2012
                                                                                                   2012
                                     at 35-36.
                                     at 35-36.

                                 7. Husband has received items such as $100,000
                                                                            $ 100,000 sports cars, aaFerrari
                                                                                                       Ferrari
                                    worth $$180,000,
                                             1$0,000, trips
                                                       trips to Super Bowl on  oil aaprivate jet in lieu of aa
                                    higher salary, and at least $100,000
                                    higher                        $ 100,000 as cash
                                                                                cash. bomuses,
                                                                                      bonuses. Id.
                                                                                                Id, at 50-51;
                                                                                                       50-51;
                                    see also April
                                    see      April 26,
                                                   26, 2019
                                                        2019 at
                                                              at 11-12.
                                                                 11 -12.

                                S. Husband bas
                                8.         has monthly expenses
                                                       expenses of
                                                                of $10,312.00
                                                                   $ 10,312.00_

                                                                  at high
                                9. Husband has consistently lived at                  hvzzlg and above
                                                                     high standard of living
                                   his means despite separation
                                                     separation.z

                                 10. In accordance with
                                 10. In              with the findings
                                                              findings above,
                                                                       above, Husband's annual
                                                                                        annual gross
                                                                                               gross
                                     salary is at minimum above $200,000.

                           C. Wife's
                           C         Income and
                              Wife's Income     Potential to
                                            and Potential to Earn
                                                             Earn

                                1 _ Wife is
                                L.        is currently employed as aa Commercial Underwriter at   at
                                    Farmers First
                                    Farmers First Insurance
                                                  Insurance Company
                                                            Company where she bas
                                                                    where she has been employed for
                                                                                  been employed for

                  I Testatnoay was provided that Husband received a
                  Testimony                                              aFerrari, other sports
                                                                                         sports cars, cash bonuses, and other trips
                  in lieu of salary.
                             salary. This indicates that his salary
                                                             salary is
                                                                    is probably  higher than indicated
                                                                       probably bigher       iudicated
                  Z Sports crs,
                  Sports   cars, racing,
                                 racing, expensive
                                         expensive trips,
                                                    trips, ad
                                                           and ete.
                                                               etc. See
                                                                    See Trans. Oet.
                                                                                Oct. 15, 2020 a1at 133-37,
                                                                                                   133-37.

                                                                          33
FE/09/2022/810
FED/09/2022/WED 11 39 Al
                11:39 AM                                   FAX IN».
                                                           AI  No.                                   005/034
                                                                                                  ?P.005/034

                                   nine years.
                                   nine

                                 Wife's 2019 salary was
                              2. Wife's2019         was $70,047.00.

                                      has monthly expenses of
                              3. Wife bas                  of $4,089.95.

                              4. Wife
                                 Wife is                                              fragile health_
                                      is currently in breast cancer remission and has fragile health

                              5_
                              5.   Wife's         gross salary is $72,721.44. See W's Ex. 170.
                                          auaaual gross
                                   Wife's annual

                                          separation Wife consistently lived at aahigh standard of
                              6. Prior to scparation
                                   living.
                                   living.

                              7. Wife bas
                              7,Wife   has been unable to sustain the prior                    and her
                                                                      prior standard of living and
                                 medical .expenses
                                 medical   expenses have            depleted her resources and her
                                                    have greatly depleted
                                   primary source of
                                                  o£ income.

                                                         hearing, Wife was receiving temporary
                              8. At the time of the last bearing,
                                                  Which is almost depleted
                                 support payments which           depleted.

                              9. In addition to support
                              9.In              support payments, Wife is currently owed over
                                 $00,000 in arears payments from Husband.
                                 $100,000

                              findings on
                           D. Findings on.Assigned
                                          Assigned Value to Items and Analysis of Marital vs.
                              Nonmarital

                              1. Husband's UPS
                              I.             TIPS Retirement Fund.-
                                                               Fund: Husband has aaUPS Retirement
                                 Fund which
                                 Fund which   was from  employment    during the marriage_  The exact
                                                                                 marriage. The
                                 amount is unknown.         Court will
                                            unknown. The Court                      find in
                                                                   will QDRO this fund   in the same
                                 percentage of equitable
                                 percentage equitable
                                            4£           distribution generally_
                                                                      generally.

                                 TVife had q
                              2. Wife       a401
                                              401K prior
                                                   prior to marriage:
                                                             marriage: Husband coerced Wife into
                                 removing $33,000
                                 removing            in 2010 which
                                            $33,000 in         which resulted in
                                                                               in tbe
                                                                                  the closure of the
                                 account, a
                                          apenalty
                                            penalty of losing funds, and future interest. Trans., Feb.
                                 28, 2020, at 21-22, 135-36;                   Oct. 15, 2020 at
                                                     135-36; see also Trans., Oet.            at 125-
                                 27. However, Husband did not use these funds to save the marital
                                 27

                                                               4
FED/09/2022/WED 11
FE/09/2022/81D  11:39 AM
                   39 Al                                  FAX IN».
                                                          AI  No.                                   ?P.006/034
                                                                                                       006/034

                               horse and as a
                               home and     aresult the              in ],Maryland
                                                    the marital home in  Maryland was lost.

                               Wife's ,host-separation
                           3. Wife's                    Retirement ,account:
                                       Post-separation Retirement   Account: Wife does have aapost-
                                                                                                 post-
                                           401 K. The Court does pot
                              separation 401K.                     not need to value this given that it
                              is nonmarital.
                                 nozmiarital. However, the Court will note
                                                                         note that this 401K amount
                              is not significant because Wife started this account post-separation.
                              is
                              See Trans., Oet.
                                            Oct. 15, 2020 at X58-59.      W -174.
                                                             158.-59. See W-174.

                           4_ Marital Home: Tbe
                           4.                   The home was sold for    for $410,000. See H-16.
                                                                                               H-16-
                              However, the Court recognizes that the value may have been been higher
                              and that due to the forced sale of the marital home to Husband, Wife
                              may not have received the due value. Wife did provide an appraisal
                              which valued the home at    at $475,000,
                                                             $475,000. In taking into consideration
                              Husband
                              Husband receiving
                                        receiving the    home and the forced
                                                     the home           forced sale, the
                                                                                     the Court will
                                                      at $435,000
                               value the marital home at $435,000 --
                                                                  — $ 347,000 (mortgage)
                                                                     $347,000 (mortgage) =_
                               $88,000.

                           5. Wife's Jewelry;
                                     Jewelry: Both parties agree that Wife bad had jewelry that
                                                                                             tbat was
                              marital property,  Husband valued Wife's
                                      property, Husband            Wffc's jewelry
                                                                            jewelry as
                                                                                     as $6,750
                                                                                         $ 6,750 and
                              Wife valued it at
                                             at $5,580.        values are
                                                $5,5$0. These values   are fairly
                                                                           fairly close
                                                                                  close and thus the
                              Court will average the value to: $6,165.
                                                               $6,165.

                                         Jewelry: Husband valued his jewelry at $2,750. Wife did
                           6. Husband's Jewelry.:
                              not provide aaspecific number in her spreadsheet and the testimony
                              was not specific enough except in the instance of aawatch which is
                               listed separately.
                               listed separately. Accordingly.
                                                  Accordingly. The Court
                                                                   Count values Husband's jewelry
                               at  $2,750-
                               at $2,750.

                           7.7. Bitcoin: This Court beard
                                                     heard several hors                  from an expert
                                                                    hours of testimony from       expert
                                only to conclude that this value cannot be ascertained to any degree
                                of certainty.
                                of certainty. Therefore,
                                              Therefore, this         worth $0.
                                                         tbis item is worth $0_ Trans.
                                                                                 Trans.,, Oct. 15, 2020,
                                   26-27-
                                at 26-27.

                           8. Collectible Debts:
                           8.             Debts_ Husband is owed approximately $$126,000
                                                                                  126,000 in
                                    during the marriage from various persons including:
                              debts during                                   including- Ken

                                                              5
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:40
FED/09/2022/WED I1    AM
                   40 AN                                 FAX IN».
                                                         AI  No.                                   ?P.007/034
                                                                                                      007/034

                               Eak_lor, Jason
                               Baklor,  Jason.Wasserman,
                                              Wasserman, and KevinLevrone.
                                                               Kevin Levrone. See Trans., April 26,
                                     at 40. Accordingly, the debts are
                               2019 at                             axe valued at $126,00.
                                                                                 $ 126,00.

                           9. ,Paintings:
                               Paintings'
                               a. Don
                               a.  Don Troiani.
                                        Troiani; Lions
                                                 Lions of
                                                       of t
                                                          heeBounddTop
                                                                   Top Painting
                                                                       Fainting ("Gettysburg"):
                                                                                ("Gettysburg";
                                   There was
                                   There  was some
                                               some dispute
                                                     dispute as
                                                             as to whether this
                                                                to whether      sainting was a
                                                                           this painting      agif
                                                                                                gift to
                                             and therefore nonmarital or whether it
                                   Husband and                                     it was given in lieu
                                                         tberefore was marital property.
                                   of salary or debt and therefore              property. See Trans.,
                                   Oct. 15, 2020 at 166.-67.
                                                      166-67. The Court notes that throughout
                                                                                       throughout this
                                   case there was testimony by various parties that Husband
                                                                             trips, and other lavish
                                   received of cash bonuses, exotic cars, trips,
                                   items in         salary_ Accordingly,
                                         in lieu of salary. Aceoxdiogly, this  Court accepts Wife's
                                              that this painting was owned by
                                   testimony that                            by the
                                                                                  tbe parties prior to
                                                                                                    to
                                   separation and is marital property
                                   separation                                than nonmarital. Trans.,
                                                             property rather tban              Tans.,
                                   April
                                   April 26, 2019 at 208_
                                                      208. Husband sold the painting
                                                                                 painting for $25,000
                                   without Wife's
                                            Wife's 'knowledge
                                                    knowledge in 2013. Trans_,      Feb_ 28, 2020, at
                                                                           Trans., Feb.
                                   181 _ However, this painting was appraised for aavalue at $40,000
                                   18L.
                                   and the Court accepts
                                   and            accepts this value.
                                                               value_ Trans., April
                                                                               April 26, 2019
                                                                                         2.019 at IHI-
                                                                                                  111-
                                   12.

                              b. Other Faintings;
                              b. Otar   Paintinvs: The Court
                                                          Court recognizes that
                                                                              that tbere
                                                                                    thew was some
                                 testimony                             paintings or racing
                                 testimony regarding other Bivens' paintings         macing painting.
                                                                                             painting.
                                 However, the                  did not
                                            the Court either did   not hear  sufficient testimony to
                                                                        hear sufficient             to
                                 set aavalue for these paintings or they were included on one or
                                       noumarital appraisals.
                                 more nopmarital    appraisals. The Court also believed that it was
                                 unclear whether
                                          whether some of the paintings were purchased
                                                                                  purchased prior to
                                 separation and
                                 separation  and if so
                                                    so which
                                                       which paintings
                                                              paintings were
                                                                         were marital. Accordingly,
                                                                                        Accordingly,
                                 the Court viewed
                                            viewed these paintings as nonmarital of Husband or
                                 marital property
                                         property with anan unascertainable
                                                            unascertainable value.       Trans., Jan.
                                                                             value. See Trans,    Jaa.
                                 9, 2019 at
                                         at 44; Trans., Nov. 19, 2020 at 25; See W-23 and W-24.

                           10. Cars
                                  2001, Lots
                               a. 200L  Lotus, Esprit.
                                               Esprit: This item was sold for aaprofit of
                                                                                        of $24,
                                                                                           $24, 539.20
                                  by the
                                  by     parties and
                                     the parties  and split.
                                                       split. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020, at
                                                                      Feb. 28,       at 43; H- Exhibit
                                                                                                Exhibit
                                  l2A_ The
                                  12A. The Court
                                             Court recognizes
                                                   recognizes that
                                                                that Wife
                                                                     Wife presented
                                                                          presented some
                                                                                     some NADA
                                                                                          NADA
                                  guides that dispute this value, however, the values guides were

                                                              6
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:40
FED/09/2022/WED I1    AM
                   40 AN                              FAX IN».
                                                      AI  No.                                    ?P.008/034
                                                                                                    008/034

                               NADA 2017
                               NADA    2017 and the date of separation was 2012. Accordingly,
                                                    accept the original value of
                               the Court can only accept                        of $24, 539.20
                               which .is now zero as the parties split the proceeds prior to this
                               order.

                           b. 1991
                              1991Nissan  Acura NSX: This item was valued at $39,500. See
                                   Nissan Ac1mA
                                        Oct. 15, 2015 at 66. There was some testimony
                               Trans. Ot.                                    testimooy:regarding
                                                                                          regarding
                               aa mechanic lien,
                                               lien. W'gs
                                                     W's Exs. 206, 209. However, the     the Court
                               believes that Husband did this without Wife's knowledge and
                                    his actions was at the very least negligent if not intentional.
                               that bis
                               Accordingly, this Court will accept the value ofof $39,500.
                                                                                   $ 39,500.

                           c. 2006 Audi    S4: There
                                     Audi S4;  There appears to be some discrepancy over which
                              vehicle the parties are referring to.        has listed taro
                                                                  to. Wife has          two different
                                                          qualify as aa marital property
                              vehicles that possibly qualify                        property while
                              Husband only lists one as marital. It is clear                   parties
                                                                            cleat that both parties
                              agree that at least one of these vehicle is marital property but
                              neither provided aavalue as of date separation. Wife   'W'ife provided
                              two 2013 NADANA-DA values for over $20,000$20,000 while
                                                                                   while Husband
                                          listed the amount as $12,600
                              previously listed                  $ 12,600 and now claims that that the
                              vehicle has no value
                                                value as Husband gavegave this vehicle to to another.
                              The Court believes
                              The         believes this was done without     Wife's consent
                                                                    without Wife's    consent and it
                              must be
                              must  be assigned
                                       assigned some
                                                  some value.   Accordingly, the
                                                        value_ Accordingly,        Court will
                                                                              the Court    will value
                                                                                                value
                                   item at aamedian between Husband's original value and
                              this iter
                              Wife's estimated value of  of $16,
                                                            $ 16, 300 minus Husband's value of
                              $12,600 to account for the loan. Thus, the value is       $3,700.
                                                                                    is $3,700.

                           d. BMW
                           d. BMW 745 745 I1: This item was
                                              This item  was purchased
                                                              purchased by by Husband
                                                                              Husband in
                                                                                       in 2013
                                                                                          201,3
                              therefore this Court does
                              therefore this       does need value tbis                       it
                                                                     this item and merely see it
                              as evidence of Husband's continuance of living at aa high
                                                                              55-5$_
                              standard of living. See Trans., Jan. 9, 2019 at 55-58.

                              2002 Fg d, Expedition:
                           e. 202.Eard     Expeditiou: Tbis
                                                        This item was purchased by Husband
                              post-separation and therefore this Court
                              post-separation                       Count does need value this
                              item and merely see it as evidence of Husband's continuance of
                              living at aahigh standard of living. See Trans., Jan. 9, 2019 at 66-

                                                          7
FE/09/2022/81D  11:40
FED/09/2022/WED I1    AM
                   40 AN                                FAX IN».
                                                        AI  No.                                       ?P.009/034
                                                                                                         009/034

                                 68.

                            f. 2010 Jaguar: This item was also  also purchased
                                                                     purchased by Husband after
                                separation therefore this Court does not need value this item and
                               merely see it as evidence of Husband's continuance of living
                                                                                          living at
                               aa. high standard of living.                  19, 2021 at 20-23.
                                                    living_ See Trans., Nov. 19,

                            g. 2004 Range ROVer
                               2004Range   Rover HSE:
                                                 HSE: Both parties agree
                                                                     agree that
                                                                           that there was 2004
                               Mange Rover that was marital property. However, the value is
                               Range
                                                         that it was valued at
                               disputed. Husband offered that               at $15,000
                                                                               $ 15,000 but
                                                                                        but that
                               he had turned it
                               he             it over
                                                 over to Kevin Levome
                                                                  Levorne toto make
                                                                                make the loan
                               payments. This apparently was
                                                         was done without Wife's
                                                                             Wife's consent or
                                            and therefore sore
                                knowledge and               some value must be given. At the
                                outset, Wife and Husband's values without
                                                                        without loans were only
                                approximately $2775 jn
                                approximately         in difference.
                                                         difference. Husband
                                                                     Husband offers
                                                                               offers that
                                                                                      tbat the loan
                                balance was around
                                             around $13,700.
                                                    $ 13,700. In
                                                              In order to
                                                                       to provide some equity
                                                                                         equity for
                                                                                                 for
                                             Husband's mismanagement of the vehicle without
                                Wife due to Husband's                                      without
                                her consent, the Court will set the value to
                                                                          to $2,000.
                                                                             $2,000-

                           h.
                           h. . 2006.Mercedes
                                2006 Mercedes SLK350: Both parties   parties also
                                                                              also agree
                                                                                   agree that
                                                                                         that this
                                                                                              this vehicle
                                                                                                   vehicle
                                was marital property_
                                               property. This item has  bas been in Wife's possession
                                                                                               possession
                                                             appears to be
                                since separation. There appears             be aadispute as to thethe loan
                                                                                                      loam
                                amount at at the date of separation
                                                          separation and and the value before the loan
                                amount. Husband offers that the loan     loan amount is  is $5,532 while
                                Wife offers that the loan amount is $20,997. Wife offers that the
                                value before
                                        before the        is $21,850.00 before
                                                the loan is                  before the            applied
                                                                                     the loan is applied
                                and Husband
                                and  Husband offers
                                                 offers that
                                                        that it
                                                              it is
                                                                 is worth
                                                                    worth $$16,350
                                                                              16,350 before
                                                                                      before the
                                                                                               the loan
                                                                                                   loan is
                                                                                                         is
                                applied. However, neither offered specific exhibits relative to         to
                                the  loan. See
                                the loan.  See Trans., April      26, 2019
                                                          April 26,    2019 atat 128.
                                                                                  128. Accordingly,
                                                                                       Accordingly, thethe
                                Court will   average both the
                                        will average         the loans discrepancies
                                                                          discrepancies to $13,264.50
                                                                                              $ 13,264.50
                                and the values before the loan t      to $19,100.
                                                                         $ 19,100. Therefore the value
                                of this item is $19,100
                                                 $19,100 -— 13,264.50
                                                             13,264.50 =  = $5,835.50.

                           i.
                           i.   2006 BMW
                                2006  BMW M5:MS; The   Court did
                                                   The Court did not
                                                                 not hear   enough testimony
                                                                      hear enough    testimony nornor
                                was it presented
                                       presented with any proof of sale dating
                                                                        dating prior
                                                                                prior to separation.
                                                                                         separation_
                                Accordingly, this
                                Accordingly,  this Court
                                                   Court merely assumes
                                                                assumes that
                                                                          that this
                                                                               this was   either sold
                                                                                    was either   sold

                                                             8
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:40
FED/09/2022/WED I1    AM
                   40 AN                                FAX IN».
                                                        AI  No.                                      ?P. 010/034

                                      to separation or purchased after separation. Therefore, this
                                prior to
                                     has no value. See Trans., Jan,
                                item bas                       Jan. 9, 2019 at
                                                                             at 55-58.

                           j. 2010 Cadillac CIS:
                                             CTS: The Court did not hear any evidence that
                                                                                         that
                                   vehicle was purchased
                              this vehicle     purchased prior to the date of separation and
                                                                  the date
                              therefore this item is Husband's ponmarital
                                                                  nonmarital that is either
                              currently owed by
                              currently        by Husband or was owned at some point
                                following the
                                following the parties'
                                              parties' separation.
                                                       separation. See Trans., Jan.
                                                                               Jam 9,
                                                                                    9, 2019
                                                                                       2019 at
                                                                                            at 62
                                                                                               62.

                           k.
                           k.    19844 Mustang: Husband
                                 1984Mustang;     Husband purchased          in 2017
                                                              purchased this in 2017 after
                                                                                     after the date
                                                                                               date of
                                 separation and
                                 scparation and therefore this Court does need value this iter
                                                                                             item and
                                merely see itit as evidence of Husband's continuance of living
                                                                                             living at
                                aahigh
                                   high standard ofof living.
                                                      living. Id
                                                              Id. at 72-73.
                                                                     72-73.

                           t1. 2008 Lexus L250:
                                          1250: Both parties agree this
                                                                   this is
                                                                        is marital
                                                                           marital property
                                                                                   property or
                                   the very
                                at the       least used marital
                                       very least                fiends to
                                                         marital funds  to purchase this item. The
                                                    been sold for a
                                item has already been              aprofit
                                                                     profit of SI,000,
                                                                                $ 1,000, (Sale Price:
                                $15,000 --— Loan: $$14,000)
                                                     14,000) however, the parties dispute the true    true
                                value- See
                                value.        Trans-, April
                                        See Trans.,   April 26,
                                                            20, 2019 at 194.
                                                                          19.4- Wife offers
                                                                                        of'fer's that
                                                                                                 that the
                                                                                                       the
                                     value is
                                true value  is $25,225
                                               $25,225 while  Husband believes
                                                        while Husband    believes itit to
                                                                                       to be    $ 15,000.
                                                                                           be $15,000.
                                      Court recognizes that Wife
                                The Court                              presented a
                                                                Wife presented          January 2013
                                                                                    a January       2013
                                         guide, which is a
                                NADA guide,                             xmontlis post-separation,
                                                               a few months       post-separation,
                                accordingly, the  Court accepts
                                              the Court  accepts the  value may
                                                                  the value  may bebe higher
                                                                                       higher than
                                                                                              than
                                Husband's value but not as bigb
                                                            high as Wife proposes.
                                                                          proposes, Accordingly,
                                the Court will add $5,000
                                          will add $5,000 to the
                                                             the value
                                                                 value for the
                                                                           the vehicle
                                                                               vehicle making   the
                                                                                        making the
                                value $6,000. Given that the
                                value $6,000.                           amount $1,000
                                                          tbe previous amount    $ 1,000 was split,
                                the remaining
                                    remaining balance is
                                                       is $5,000
                                                          $5,000.

                           rn. Chevrolet
                           m.  Chevrolet
                                       DS DS Tuck
                                              Truck: The
                                                     The Court
                                                           Court believes
                                                                 believes that
                                                                            that based
                                                                                  based on
                                                                                         ou the
                                                                                             the little
                                                                                                 little
                               testimony that
                               testimony  that was
                                               was provided   that this
                                                   provided that   this truck
                                                                        truck purchased
                                                                               purchased after the
                               parties separation but likely was purchased with marital funds   fluids
                               due to
                               due     Husband requesting
                                    to Husband  requesting his girlfriend
                                                                girlfriend to purchase it with
                                                                                             with his
                               money. See Trans., Jan. 9,2019
                               money.                      2019 at 58-61.
                                                                   58-61. Accordingly,
                                                                           Accordingly, the Court
                                                                                                Court
                               will consider this marital property
                                                          property and value it it at $10,000.
                                                                                      $ 10,000.

                           n. Mini
                           •  Mini _ Cooper.
                                     Cooper: Husband bought this in 2016 and therefore this

                                                             99
FED/09/2022/WED II
FEB/0/2O22/#ED  11:41 AM
                   4I A                                FAX IN».
                                                       AI  No.                                    ?P. 011/034

                                 Court does need to value this item and merely see it as evidence
                                 of Husband's continuance of living at at aahigh
                                                                            high standard of living.
                                 ,See
                                 See  Trans.,  Jan..
                                               Jan.  9, 201.9 at 63_
                                                        2019  at 63. Husband              purchased
                                                                               may have purchased
                                 more than one post-separation but this is  is unclear to
                                                                                       to Court and
                                 therefore irrelevant
                                           irrelevant_

                           o.
                           0.    2005 GMC
                                 2005 GMC Envoy,
                                          Envoy, 2008
                                                 2008 Jesp
                                                      Jeep Grand
                                                           Grand Cherokee,
                                                                 Cherokee, and
                                                                           and Denali;
                                                                               Denali:
                                 'there was some testimony regarding vehicles that appear to
                                 There                                                    to be
                                 identified to some extent above. However, the record is potnot
                                 completely clear as to when these vehicles were purchased but
                                 in reviewing witnesses'
                                 in            witnesses' testimmy
                                                          testimony and the posts referenced, thisthis
                                 Court can only reference a                               Id.
                                                            a timeline after separation. Id    at 65-
                                 67. Therefore, this Court does need to value this item and merely
                                 see it                           coxnti auauce of living
                                     it as evidence of Husband's continuance               at aahigh
                                                                                    living at    high
                                 standard of
                                 standard of living.
                                             living.

                           p. husband's
                           P. Husband's Mercedes:
                                          Mercedes; There was some testimony presented that  that
                              Husband purchased
                                         purcbastd aa Mercedes sometime between 2017 and     and
                              2018. Id. at 67-68. Accordingly, this
                                                                 this is Husband's nonmarital
                                   this Court does
                              and this        does need
                                                   need to
                                                        to value this
                                                                 this item
                                                                      item and merely see itit as
                                           Husband's continuance
                              evidence of Husband's   continuance ofof living
                                                                       living at
                                                                              at aahigh
                                                                                   high standard
                                                                                        standard
                                 living.
                              of living.

                           q. 206
                           q  2003 Jetta;
                                   Jetta: Husband purchased this in 2017. See Trans,
                                                                              Trans_, April
                                               6162. Accordingly, this is Husband's nonmarital
                                 26, 2019 at 61-62.
                                 and this Court does need
                                                      jaeed to
                                                            to value this item and merely see
                                                                                            see. it as
                                .evidence
                                 evidence ofof Husband's
                                               Husband's continuance
                                                          continuance of living
                                                                           living at
                                                                                  at aahigh
                                                                                       high standard
                                                                                            standard
                                    living_
                                 of living.

                              Oflier Cars: The Court
                           r. Other              Court recoozes
                                                       recognizes that there may have been
                                                                                        been other
                                                                                             other
                                         that the
                              vehicles that   the parties attempted
                                                          attempted to reference. However, the
                              parties did not identify them toto aaspecificity that they
                                                                                    they could be
                              valued and/or did not establish aa timeline for the Court to
                                        t'or_ The Court
                              account for.         Court notes
                                                          notes that the bulk
                                                                          bulls of such vehicles
                              appear to be purchased by
                                      to be                Husband                    and are only
                                                                    post-separation and
                              relevant to         extent that
                                         to the extent    that Husband hashas raised
                                                                                raised claims of

                                                           10
                                                           10
FED/09/2022/WED II
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:41 AM
                   41 AN                                 FAX IN».
                                                         AI  No.                                  ?P.012/034
                                                                                                     012/034

                                   bankruptcy in lieu of aaclearly proven lavish standard of living
                                   durixag the marriage and
                                   during               axad post-separation.
                                                             post-separations.

                                                                     that this
                           11. Regal 2665 Boat: Both parties agree that   this is
                                                                               is marital
                                                                                  marital property
                                                                                           property but
                               disagree as to the value. The Court notes
                                                                   notes that there      $ 10,000 value
                                                                              there is a $10,000
                               difference before any loan. Accordingly, the Court will set the value
                               before any loan amount to    to $20,000. Accordingly the value is
                              $20,000 —-$13,187
                              $20,000   $ 13,187 -
                                                 ^ $6,813.00.
                                                   $6,813.00.

                                                                agree that this item
                           12. Motorcycle Trailer: Both parties agree           itein is marital
                                                                                         marital.
                              property. However, the parties disagree on the value by $3,500.
                              Accordingly, the Court will average amount of Husband's value,
                              $1,500, and Wife's value, $5,000, to
                                                                t0 $3,250.

                           13. Motorcycles:
                                   Chopper )Motorcycle
                               a. Chopper     Motorcycle: Both parties agree that this was purchased
                                   during the marriage but but do not
                                                                   not agree wbether
                                                                              whether itit was merely
                                   stored or sold prior to separation. See Trans., April 16, 2019 at
                                   x44-46- The Court potes
                                   144-46.                notes that Husband was less than honest
                                  throughout the  the proceedings
                                                       proceedings and
                                                                     and even      Husband previous
                                                                           even Husband       previous
                                  paramour confirmed Wife's testimony that  that it was merely stored.
                                                 Tan. 9, 2019 at 33-34.
                                  See Trans., Jan.                                          Court will
                                                                 33-34. Accordingly, the Court     will
                                  treat       equitable marital property
                                  treat it as equitable         property and value it at $10,000.
                                                                                          $10,000. See
                                  W's
                                  W'sEx Ex.222.
                                             222.

                                 2003 Yamaha
                              b. 2003 Yamaha RI
                                             RI: Te
                                                 The Parties agree
                                                             agree that     motorcycle is
                                                                   tbat the motorcycle is
                                          property and
                                  marital property   and tbat
                                                         that the motorcycle    was sold for $22,000
                                                                   motorcycle was
                                  and split
                                      split by the parties prior to this order. See Tans.,
                                                                                    Trans., Nov. I9,
                                                                                                  19,
                                                    also' April
                                  2020 at 48; see also    April 26, 2019 at at 160.
                                                                               160- Accordingly, the
                                                                                                  the
                                  Court accepts this  and values it
                                                 this and         it at $0.
                                                                        $0.

                              c. 1999  Kawasaki Drifter
                                 1999Kawasaki    Difer Motorcycle:                       this was
                                                          Motorcycle; Both parties agree this
                                 rmxital property. This item had
                                 marital                     had two appraisals values at
                                                                                        at $1,400
                                                                                           $ 1,400
                                  and $3,000. Trans., Feb. 28, 2020, at 93. Accordingly, the Court
                                  and
                                  averaged both appraisals and
                                  averaged                 and finds       vale
                                                                finds the value to
                                                                                to be
                                                                                   be $2,200.
                                                                                      $2,200.

                                                             11
                                                             II
FED/09/2022/WED II
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:41 AM
                   41 AN                              FAX IN».
                                                      AI  No.                                   ?P. 013/034

                              1000R MY
                           d. 1000R   MV AgStA:
                                            Agusta: This item
                                                          item was
                                                                was sold prior toto separation
                                                                                     separation
                              therefore has no value. See Trans., April 26, 2019 at 200.

                           e_ BMW 745 E
                           e.                T: This vehicle
                                                      vehicle was purchased after separation
                              therefore this  Court does aced to
                              therefore this Court does need   to vahue
                                                                  value this item
                                                                             item and merely
                                                                                      merely sees
                                                                                             sees
                              it as evidence of Husband's continuance of
                              it                                              of living
                                                                                 living at aahigh
                                                                                             high
                              standard of living.              April 26, 2019 at 67-68.
                                           living. See Trans., April               6768.

                           f.   Ducati Motorcycle:
                                       Notorcycle: There was some testimony regarding this
                                item. However, there was no evidence that Court would
                                                 certainty of the timeline
                                ascertain to the certainty        tireline of ownership of this
                                item. Accordingly, this Court can only assume that
                                                                                 that if it was
                                owned by Husband, it is nonmarital. See Trans., April 26, 2019
                                   46-47.
                                at 46.47,

                           g. ialey
                           8. Harley Davidson
                                      Davidson V-Bod:
                                                 V-Rod: This item was purchased by husband
                              in 2017 and therefore this Court does need
                                                                      treed value this item and
                                                          of Husband's continuance of
                              merely sees it as evidence of                          of living
                                                                                        living at
                                                                                               at
                              aahigh standard
                                     standard of living. See Trans., Jan. 9, 2019 at
                                                                                  at 49.

                           h.        Ninia. Rage
                           h. 2007 Ninia     Race Motorcycle: There was some testixoorty  testimony
                              regarding aaninja
                              regarding    ninja motorcycle
                                                 motorcycle atat the
                                                                 the date
                                                                      date of
                                                                           of separation.
                                                                              separation. However,
                                                                                          However,
                              it was offered
                              it was offered that
                                             that it
                                                  it was act filly operational.
                                                         not fully   operational. See Trans., April
                                                                                               April
                              26, 2019 at 116-17. Accordingly, the Court will lower Wife's
                                           $6,355 to aavalue of
                              value from $6,355               of $1,000.
                                                                  $ 1,000. See W's Ex. 235.

                           i.
                           i.   Other motorcycles:
                                Other  motorcycles; TheThe Court
                                                           Court recognizes
                                                                   recognizes that
                                                                              that there
                                                                                   there may    have
                                                                                         may have
                                been other motorcycles referenced; however, the parties did  did not
                                identify them to
                                identify them   to aaspecificity
                                                     specificity that
                                                                 that they
                                                                      they could
                                                                           could be
                                                                                 be valued
                                                                                     valued and/or
                                                                                              and/or
                                did not
                                did riot establish
                                         establish aatimeline
                                                      timeline for
                                                                for the
                                                                    the Court
                                                                        Court to
                                                                              to account
                                                                                  account for.
                                                                                           for. The
                                                                                                 The
                                Court notes  that the bulk of such vehicles appear to be purchased
                                       notes that
                                by Husband post-separation and are only relevant to the extent
                                by
                                     Husbmd has raised claims of bankruptcy
                                that Husband                     baanikTuptcy in lieu of aaclearly
                                proven lavis.h
                                proven lavish standard
                                               standard of
                                                        of living during the
                                                           living during     marriage and
                                                                         the marriage and post-
                                separation.

                                                          12
FED/09/2022/WED II
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:41 AM
                   41 AN                                  FAX IN».
                                                          AI  No.                                    P.014/034
                                                                                                       014/034

                           14. Personal items in the Marital Home/Furnishing:
                                                                Horne/Furnishing: Husband presented
                                                                                               presented
                                aalist of item in the House that were sold byby the parties for aatotal of
                                $1367.58. H's E.  Fx, 17. The Court accepts this value as aaset    set off
                               except in the instance of items such as aaGettysburg painting, aa
                               president rolex watch, and   atad pacman
                                                                 pacmau game for which wife or
                               husband's girlfriend
                               husband's     girlfriend was  able to
                                                        was able   to provide  specific testirony.
                                                                      provide specific  testimouy. The
                               Court will notevote that there was significant testimony of Husband
                               hidings items and that several items were likely not included in the
                               appraisals. However, the Court cannot ascertain the true value or
                                                                                             percentage
                               identity of said items and thus addresses this under the percentage
                                                            and alimony analysis.
                               for equitable distribution and             analysis_

                           15. Watches:
                               a. Presidential Rolex
                                               Watch.
                                               olex  Watch. The   Court heard
                                                             The Court   heard testimony
                                                                                testimony regarding
                                                                                          regarding
                                  this watch and therefore values it at 52,500.
                                                                  it at $2,500. See
                                                                                See Trans., Feb.
                                                                                            Feb. 28,
                                  2020  at 196-97.
                                  2020 at  196-97-

                              b. Some testimony was given about
                              b.                              about aaTissot,
                                                                       Tissot, Raymond
                                                                               Raymond Weil,
                                                                                         Weil, and
                                 Timex watch. However, the testimony was somewhat unclear
                                 therefore this Court cannot assign aavalue these items. Id
                                                                                         Id.

                           16,Wies
                           16.  Wife's Paceman
                                        Pacrnan Game:Game: A  A pac-man
                                                                 pac-man game
                                                                           game was was onon the   list of
                                                                                              the list   of
                               Husbarid's original
                               Husband's     original appraisal,
                                                       appraisal, bowever,
                                                                  however, it
                                                                            it was not present when the the
                               Court ordered Husband to      to cooperate with aasecond appraisal of
                                            items, Accordingly, the Court views
                               household items.                               views this as evidence of aa
                               willful
                               willful  dissipation   of Wife's  nonmarital   assets and
                                                      of Wife's nonmarital assets     and accepts
                                                                                          accepts Wife's
                                                                                                   Wife's
                               testimony
                               testiroony as to the value of the Pacman machine. There was
                               testimony
                               testimony given regarding
                                                    regarding the Pa.cman
                                                                    Pacman game value manging
                                                                                           ranging fron
                                                                                                     from
                               $600-$2200 and that Husband gifted this item to      to Wife. See Trans.,
                               Nov. I9,
                               Nov.   19, 2021
                                          2021 atat 37-39.
                                                    37-39. Thus,   Court assigns
                                                            Thus, Court  assigns aavale
                                                                                     value of
                                                                                           of $1,000
                                                                                              $ 1,000 and
                                                                                                       and
                               if Husband cannot produce the physical item, he will need to
                              reimburse Wife for it.

                           17. Husband's
                               Husband's Escrow
                                           Escrow Personal   Injury Settlement:
                                                   Personal Injury  Settlement.-The
                                                                                The value
                                                                                     value of this
                                                                                              this
                               Settlement is
                               settlement is just
                                             just over
                                                  over $50,000.  This is
                                                        $50,000. Tbis  is nonmarital
                                                                          nownarital of
                                                                                     of Husband
                                                                                        Husband.
                               Trans., Feb. 28, 2020 at 34.

                                                              13
                                                              13
FED/09/2022/WED II
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:41 AM
                   41 AN                                 FAX IN».
                                                         AI  No.                                  ?P.015/034
                                                                                                     015/034

                            18. Coin Collection and Gold and Silver: Tbere   There was no specific
                                                                                              specific
                                testimony on the value of this
                                                           this and the bulk of the testimony
                                                                                    testimony these
                                                                                              on
                                items were vague. See Trans.
                                                         Trans.,, Oct.
                                                                  Oct. 15, 202.0     16364. Thus, the
                                                                           2020 at 163-64.
                                Court cannot assign
                                Court        assign: aavalue.

                            1.9_
                            19. Guns: There was no specific testimony                  of this item and
                                                               testimony on the value of
                                 the bulk of the testimony on these items were vague. Thus, the
                                                                                              the Court
                                 cauot assign aavalue. Trans,
                                 cannot                 Trans., Oct,
                                                                 Oct. 15, 2020 at 168.

                           20.
                           20. Exercise Equipment: There was some evidence that   that the marital
                                                                 $300.
                               exercise equipment was valued at $300.  See  H's
                                                                            H'S Ex.          Cotes
                                                                                    20. The Court
                               did not                     testimony to the contrary and
                                   not hear any convincing testimony                 and therefore
                               accepts this
                               accepts this value.
                                            value.

                           21
                           21. Business
                               Business Assets:   Back in 2017, this Court heard testimony of
                                          Assets: Baek                                              of
                               Husband's numerous business dealing with various companies.
                                                             of some of the CRA
                               'However, with the exception of
                               However,                                      CRA accounts the Court
                               is unable to
                                         to ascertain aavalue
                                                        vale to these,                only view this
                                                                 these assets and can only
                               conduct as evidence of Husband's dissipation
                               conduct                              dissipation of marital assets. See
                                       Oct. 12, 2017 at 27-28,
                               Trans., Oet.              27-28, 41,
                                                                41, 50.

                                                  ,              Wife: There are arears payments
                                                  gears owed to Wife.
                           22. Supposal Support Arears                                  payments
                               owed by Husband to Wife post-separation. Therefore, the arears
                               payments
                               payments are considered nonmarital. The Court notes that it heard
                               testimony that the                          $ 100,000. See Trans,,
                                              the arears payments are over $100,000.      Trans.,
                                              at 39.
                               Nov. 19, 2020 at
                               Nov

                               CRA Accounts: The Court reviewed Wife's exhibits relative to the
                           23. CR4
                                            ending in 6461. The Court motes
                               CRA account ending                       notes that on
                                                                                   on. May  11, 2012,
                                                                                       May 1,
                               which was the day before separation,
                                                         separation., the balance was    $ 19,990- 13-
                                                                                    was $19,990.13
                               The next
                                   next ledger balance was on May 14,  14, 2012. Accordingly, the
                               Court accepts the marital value for the CRA Aconts   Accounts to to be
                              $19,990.13. See W's Ex. 5.
                                              W's Ex,

                           24.             Wife's Accounts:
                           24. Husband and Wife's Accounts: The       heard some
                                                            The Court heard some testimony
                                                                                 testimony

                                                             14
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42 AM
                   42 AN                                FAX IN».
                                                        AI  No.                                  P. 016/034

                                             accounts of Wife and Husband.
                               about various accounts                Husband.. However, the bulk of
                               these accounts that appear to contain any significant amount of
                                              to be dated post-separation
                               assets appear to              post-separation and
                                                                              and therefore do
                                                                                             do not
                               require the Court to assign aavale.
                                                             value. Accordingly, the Court will not
                                                                                 will consider them
                               assign any particular value to these accounts and will
                               to be
                               to be nonmarital
                                     nonmarital of the parties
                                                       patties unless
                                                               uuless specified below. Other
                                                               and have outside parties
                               accounts are extremely nominal and                 parties on these
                               accounts and therefore do not largely affect distribution. See W's
                               Exs. 1-3, 8-11.
                               Es.

                               a. Husband's Account ending inin 0865;
                                                                0865: Between May 4th and
                                                                                       anal May
                                                                      $10,024.18_ See W's Ex. 6.
                                  18th of 2012 the balance remained $10,024.18.               6_
                                               notes that there appears to
                                   The Court notes                       to be another individual's
                                   name who    is not Wife on tbis
                                          who is               this account. Accordingly
                                                                             Accordingly the Court
                                   will value
                                        value the
                                              the cash
                                                  cash amount
                                                       amount at
                                                               at $5,012.09
                                                                  $5,0X2.09_

                               b. Husband's
                                  Husband's and Wife's       Account ending in
                                                Wife's Joint Account        in 6075: The
                                                                                     The day
                                  before separation, May 11, 2021, there
                                                                      there was $5,184.91
                                                                                  $6,184.91 in the
                                  joint account. The balance did not  change  until May 14,
                                  joint account. Tbe balance did not change until May    14, 2012.
                                                                                             2012_
                                           Ex. 7. Accordingly, the value is $6,184.91.
                                  See W's Ex.                               $6,184.91.

                               c. Wife's Account     ending in
                                            Account cnding      8377: The
                                                             in 8377;  The parties agree about
                                                                                            about the
                                                                                                  the
                                  amount ill in the checking account at date of separation
                                                the checking                          separation was
                                            around $3,400. There was testimony that
                                  roughly around                                  that $3,000 of this
                                                                                                 this
                                  money
                                  money was given by  by Husband to Wife as part
                                                                              part of her share for aa
                                  sale of aatruck and therefore we will subtract this amount
                                                                                      amount and
                                                                                              and the
                                  Court will value it at $400,
                                                         $400.

                              Marital, Property
                           E. Marital  Property

                               1. Husband's UPS
                               I. Husband's URS „
                                                Retirement Fund: QDRO 30% to
                                                                          1to Husband
                                                                              Husband 70% to

                                  Wife.

                               2. Marital
                                  Marital
                                    home  borne ("Camelot")y:
                                                ("Camelot­)- $88,000
                                                              $$ 8,000

                                                            15
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42 AM
                   42 AN                           FAX IN».
                                                   AI  No.                                ?P. 017/034

                           3. Wife's
                              "
                              Wife's Jewelry:
                                     rewelry: $6,165
                                              $ 6,165

                           4.   Husband's Jewelry:
                                          Jewehy: $2,750
                                                   $ 2,750

                           5.
                           5.   Bitcoin:
                                Bitcoin: $0
                                         $0

                              Gettysburg Painting: $40,000
                           6. Gettysburg

                           7. 200L   Lots
                              2001 Lotus Esprit: $0
                                      Esprit     $0

                              199114issau.AcuraNSX:
                           8. 1991 Nissan Acir NSX: $39,500
                           9. 2006 Audi     $ 3,700.
                                   Andi S4: $3,700.
                           'l0.      Rauge Rover HSE: $2,000
                            10. 2004 Range

                           1. 2006 Mercedes
                           11.2006 Mercedes $LK350:
                                            SLK350: $5,835.50
                                                    $5,335.50

                                    Lexus [250:
                           12. 2008 Lex$  1250: $5,000
                                                $ 5,000

                           X3.
                           13. Chevrolet DS Tuck;
                                            Truck:$10,000
                                                   $ 10,000

                           14_ Regal 2665 Boat:
                           14. Regal      Boat, $6,813.00
                                                $6,813.00

                           15. Motorcycle
                           15.                     $3,250
                               Motorcycle Trailer: $3,250

                               Chopper Motorcycle: $10,000
                           16. Chopper
                               Motorcycle;         $ 10,000

                           17.      Yamaha RI: $0
                           17. 2003 Yamaha     $0

                           18. 2007 Ninja
                                    Ninja Race Motorcycle: $1,000
                                                           $ 1,000

                           19. Personal
                               items
                               Personal items in
                                              in the Marital Home/Furnishing:
                                                             Home/Furnishing: $1367.58
                                                                              $ 1367.58

                           20. Presidential Rolex
                           20.                          $2,500
                                            olex Watch: $2,500

                                                        16
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42 AM
                   42 AN                                     FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No.                                 ?P.018/034
                                                                                                        0I8/034

                                   21. Ex&rise
                                       Exercise Equipment: $300
                                                           $300

                                   22. CRA ACCOunt5;
                                   22.     Accounts: $19,990.13
                                                     $ 19,990.13

                                   23. lusband's
                                   23. Husband's Account
                                                 Account ending in
                                                                in 0863
                                                                   0865: $5,012.09
                                                                         $ 5,012.09

                                   24. Hnband's
                                   24. Husband's and
                                                 and Wife's Joint
                                                     Wife's Joint Account ending
                                                               Account    ending in
                                                                                 in 6075:
                                                                                    6075: $6,184.91
                                                                                          $ 6,184.91

                                   25. Wife's Account
                                   25. Wife's Account endine
                                                      ending in
                                                             in 8377: $400
                                                                      $400
                                                                   8377.
                              F. Nonrarftal
                              F, Nonmarital

                                   1. Husband's Personal Injury Escrow fund
                                   I.

                                   2. Support Arears
                                   2.         Axears Payments owed to Wife

                                   3. Wife's Post-separation 401K

                                   4. Husband's various vehicles listed as post-separation vehicles
                                       above including
                                       above including motorcycles, aaFerrari,
                                                                      Ferrara, and other cars.

                                   5. Wife's Pacman Machine. Husband will need need to return the
                                                                                              the
                                      machine or reimburse Wife for a $1,000.
                                                                      $ 1,000.

                              G. Equitable Distribution

                                   3502(a) of the Divorce Code lists eleven factors that must be considered in
                           Section 35024a)

                   any recommendation for equitable distribution. Notably, "there is no simple formula by
                                                                                                       by

                                                            v. Smith, 653 A.2d 1259, 1264
                   which to divide marital property." Smith ».                       1264 ((1995).
                                                                                            1995). Rather,

                   each case is evaluated by aacase by case basis. Id. While "the list of factors of section
                                                                   Id Wile

                   3502(a) serve as aaguideline for consideration, the list
                                                                       list is neither exhaustive nor specific as

                                                                 17
                                                                 17
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42 AM
                   42 AN                                      FAX IN».
                                                              AI  No.                               ?P.019/034
                                                                                                       019/034

                   to the weight
                          weight to be given the various factors." Id. The Court applied the eleven equitable

                                factors listed
                   distribution factors listed in Section 3502(a)
                                                          3502(x) of
                                                                  of the
                                                                     the Divorce Code
                                                                                 Code to this
                                                                                         this case as follows:

                                  of marriage. '
                           Length of           The parties were married for aaperiod of approximately I5
                                                                                                      15

                   years, 11
                          Il months. This factor along with others support aalarger portion for
                                                                                            for Wife.

                           Prior marriages. This was the first marriage for Husband and the second marriage

                       Wife_ This factor did not affect the distribution as Wife is not receiving any sort of
                   for Wife.

                   property           from her
                   property or monies from her prior marriage.

                           Age,
                           Age, health, etc. Husband is    and is in generally
                                                     is 49 and       gezierally good
                                                                                good health while Wife is 56

                   and: is in breast cancer remission. Husband will likely be
                   and                                                     be able
                                                                              able. to continue to work for aa

                   significant amount of time.
                                         time. While Wife's age would normally
                                                                      normally not impede
                                                                                   impede her
                                                                                          her ability to
                                                                                                      to

                   work,
                   work, her health is compromised
                                       compromised as she is in breast cancer
                                                                       caxlcer remission.
                                                                               remission- Husband will be

                   earning at minimum over twice as much Wife after the divorce is finalized. Husband's
                   eaming

                   income appears to fhuxgate
                   mncome            fluxgate upwards and what is not reflected in his paystubs is apparent

                   through                             from $50,000 10
                   through multiple sport cars ranging from         to 190,000 each, expensive trips, hefty

                   cash bonus, and etc. Given the disparity
                   cash                           disparity in income,
                                                               income, this factor is aasignificant indication

                                                                          distribution.
                   that Wife should receive aalarger portion of equitable distribution

                           Contribution to education, training, etc. There was very little testimony on
                                                                                                     om this

                   factor and therefore this factor is neutral.

                                                                  18
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42
                   42 AN
                      AM                                     FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No,                                  ?P. 020/034

                                                  acquisitions_
                           Opportunity for future acquisitions.           Neithez
                                                                          Neither party appears to have any

                   significant opportunity for the acquisition of capital assets in the future outside
                   significant

                   employment. Wife's lack of higher education and overall health will likely prevent her

                   from obtaining any future acquisitions. However, Husband will be in aabetter position to

                   acquire capital assets given
                   acquire                given: the parties' income disparity.
                                                                     disparity. This factor favors aalarger share

                   for Wife.

                                      xneorue other than employment. Wife does not have other sources of
                           Sources of income

                   income other than employment and the          support that
                                                    the previous support              getting from Husband
                                                                         that she was getting

                   is almost gone. The Court will
                                             will,not
                                                  not include arrears as aasource of income as the arrears are

                   aapenalty due to Husband's actions. Husband sources of income vary. There was aalot of
                                                                                                       of

                   testimony that Husband received sport cars, expensive trips, cash bonuses, and other

                   exp•n.sive items
                   expensive  items in
                                    in lieu
                                       lieu of
                                            of salary.
                                               salary. Thus, this factor favors
                                                             this factor favors aalarger
                                                                                  larger share
                                                                                         share for
                                                                                               for Wife.

                           Contribution or dissipation of property. Wife provided
                                                                         provided ample testimony relative

                   to Husband taking out liens on uonmazatal
                                                  nonmarital without her knowledge, coercing her to giving

                   hiw her pre-marital
                   him     pre-marital retirement funds under the ruse that she was saving
                                                                                    saving their marital home,
                                                                                                         home,

                                  finds and pproperty
                   hiding marital funds      .roperty including furnishings,
                                                                furishings, and other business ventures
                                                                                               veotuxes

                   utilizing marital wads
                   utilizing                         Tura into the ground
                                     funds that were run           ground by
                                                                          by Husband's mismanagement. The

                             not find Husband's defenses to be credible and therefore, this factor favors aa
                   Court did pot

                                                                 19
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42 AM
                   42 AN                                     FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No.                                   ?P.021/034
                                                                                                          021/034

                   larger
                   larger share for Wife.

                           Value of property
                                    property set apart to each
                                                          eaeh party. While on its face it appears that the

                           have several items of value, much of the property is
                   parties have                                              is not physically intact due to

                   Husband's dealings with
                                      with the property. Notably,
                                                         Notably, the parties have aamarital home, several
                                                                  the parties

                   vehicles and motorcycles, aavaluable painting, Husband's UPS pension,
                                                                                pension, and some other

                                             of the property
                   miscellaneous items. Much of     property including the marital home is in Husband's
                                                                                   home is

                                       and thus, tbis
                   physical possession and       this factor favors aalarger share
                                                                             share for
                                                                                   for Wife.

                                                                     marriage.
                           Standard of living established during the marriage.              There was extensive

                                                                                                          marriage.
                   testimony relative to the high standard of living that the parties lived at during the marriage.

                                            both, Wife and Husband lived well above their
                   Testimony supported that both                                          means.
                                                                                    their means.

                   Specifically, Husband and Wife had many of expensive
                                                              expensive automobiles, motorcycles,
                                                                                     motorcycles, boats,

                   paintings, guns
                   paintings, guns and
                                   and coin
                                       coin collections,
                                            collections, and
                                                         and other
                                                             other luxury
                                                                   hxry items_   Additionally, the parties
                                                                          items. Additionally,     parties took
                                                                                                           took

                        baternational luxury trips,
                   many itemnational         trips, attended racing events, super
                                                                            super bowls, and etc. Further, the

                                                and regularly purchased
                   parties hosted lavish events and           purchased expensive
                                                                        expensive outerwear as well as various

                   gadgets. Husband has demonstrated
                                        dernomtrated that he is able to maintain such a
                                                                                      aLifestyle
                                                                                        lifestyle even after

                   almost ten
                   almost ten years of separation despite his claims of bankruptcy_
                                                                        bankruptcy. However, Wife has not

                  been able to
                  been able to maintain
                               maintain aalifestyle
                                          lifestyle even
                                                    even close
                                                         close to
                                                               to the standard of
                                                                               Qf living
                                                                                  Uvixig during
                                                                                         dwj.jag her marriage.
                                                                                                     r. arriage.

                  Given Wife's
                  Given Wife's health,
                               health, education,
                                       education, and
                                                  and age,
                                                      age, she
                                                           she is unlikely to
                                                               is unlikely to achieve
                                                                              achieve such
                                                                                      such aastandard
                                                                                             standard of living
                                                                                                         living

                                                                 20
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:42 AM
                   42 AN                                      FAX IN».
                                                              AI  No.                                 ?P. 022/034

                   remotely equivalent on her own means. Therefore,
                                                         Therefore, this factor significantly
                                                                                significantly favors aalarger
                                                                                                       larger

                   share for
                   share for Wife.
                             Wife.

                           Hco)aomic circumstances, including tax
                           Economic                                                              assets
                                                              tar ramifications. The exchange of assets

                   will likely be in some form
                               be in      foram of payment to Wife starting
                                                                   starting with funds in escrow given that

                   most of property is in Husband's possession. Husband has also received many sources of

                                                         and thus any ramifications which he may incur are
                   income have not been claimed on taxes and                                           aze

                   at his own making. See Trans., Oct. 15, 2020 at 89. Additionally, neither party
                                                                                             party produced
                                                                                                   produced

                   any tax
                   any     experts on
                       tax experts on this inatter. Tbus,
                                      this ratter.  Thus, this Court will not
                                                                          not offer any
                                                                                    any ftitrther analysis on this
                                                                                        further analysis

                   factor. This factor by
                                       by itself does not affect this Court's analysis.

                                            children.. The parties have no minor
                           Custody of minor children.                      miuoT children. Therefore,
                                                                                           Tbezefoze, this

                   is not aafactor.

                            Asset                 Husband                   Wife
                                                                            Wife                  Value

                      UPS Retirement
                      UPS Retirement                                                              QDKO
                                                                                                  QDRO
                          Fund
                          Fund
                       Marital Home                $88,000
                                                   $ 83,000                                      $88,000

                       Wife's Jewelry
                       Wife's Jewelry                                      $6,165
                                                                           $6,165                 $6,165
                                                                                                  $6,165

                               Jeweltyr
                     Husband's Jewelry              $2,750                                        $2.,750
                                                                                                  $2,750

                           Bitcoin
                           Bitcoin                    $0
                                                      $0                                            $0
                                                                                                    $0

                    Gettysburg Painting            40,000
                                                   40,000                                         40,000
                                                                                                  40,000

                                                                 21
                                                                 21
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                 FAX IN».
                                                         AI  No.                         ?P. 023/034

                      2001 Lotus Espht
                                 Esprit                                                 $0
                                                                                        $0

                                 Acura..
                     1991 Nissan Acura        $39,500                                 $39,500
                                                                                      $39,500
                            NS
                            NSX
                        2006 Audi S4          $3,700                                  $3,700
                                                                                      $3,700

                     2004 Range
                     2004 Range Rover
                                Rover         $2,000
                                              $2,000                                  $2,000
                            HSE
                       2006 Mercedes                                $5,835.50        $5,835.50
                       . 9LK350
                          SLK3.50
                      2008 Lexus 1250         $5,000
                                              $5,000                                  $5,000

                              SAS Truck
                    Chevrolet DS             $10,000                                 $10,000

                      Regal 2665 Boat       $6,813.00                                $6,813.00

                                Frailer
                     Motorcycle Trailer       $3,250                                  $3,250
                                                                                      $3,250

                    Chopper Motorcycle       $10,000                                 $10,000

                      2003 Yamaha
                           Yamaha RI                                            _       $0
                                                                                        $0

                           Nixaja Race
                      2007 Ninja              $1,000                                  $1,000
                                                                                      $1,000
                        Motorcycle .
                        Motocle
                    Personal items
                    Personal       in the
                             items in                                                $1367.58
                           Marital
                     HQuie/p'utn ishing
                     Home/Fumist
                     Presidential
                     Presidential Rolex
                                  Rolex       $2,500                                  $2,500
                           Watch
                    Exercise Equipment
                    Exercise  Equipment       $300                                    $300
                                                                                      $300

                      CRA Accounts          $19,990.13
                                            $19,990.13                              $19,990.13
                                                                                    $19,990.13

                    Husband's Account       $5,012.09                               $5,012.09
                                                                                    $5,012.09
                     endir
                     ending in 0865

                                                            22
                                                            22
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                      FAX IN».
                                                              AI  No.                                ?P.024/034
                                                                                                        024/034

                        Joint Account             $6,184.91
                                                  $6,184.91                                     $6,154.91
                                                                                                $6,184.91
                       ending in 6075
                       endins    5075
                      Wife's Account                                           $400                $400
                                                                                                   $400
                      ending in 8377
                      endins
                       Distribrttion
                       Distribution          $77,810.46 (30%)
                                             $77,810.46                  $181,557.75
                                                                         $181,557.75 (70%)
                                                                                     (70%)     $259,368.21
                        Percentage
                        Percen    oo

                                 Total
                     Assets Held Total          $246,967.71                --$12,400.50
                                                                             $ 12,400.50

                     Remaining
                     Remaining Owed             -169,15725
                                                -169,157.25                 169,157.25

                           For the reasons set
                                           set above, the net
                                                          net marital property should be
                                                                      property should                    to
                                                                                      be distributed 30% to

                   Husband and 70% to Wife. Additionally, Husband's 401K from UPS is to be QDRO 30%

                   to Husband and 70% to Wife. The Court notes that this percentage allotment is not much

                   higher than Husband proposed on his final
                   higher                              final spreadsheet and purported
                                                                             purported to
                                                                                       to Wife's requested

                                                                          distribution,, This spreadsheet covers
                   fAmding relative to Wife receiving the majority of the distribution.
                   finding

                   the marital assets and which party physically has the
                   the marital assets
                   .                      which party physically has the property or contributed to the
                                                                               property or           to
                                                                                                    the item

                   being sold or dissipated the value. Given that
                                                             that the bulk of the marital assets are either in
                                                                                                            in

                  Husband's possession or were dissipated by Husband's actions, the remaining amount

                                is to paid
                   owed to Wife is    paid first from                    ixijury escrow finals
                                                 from Husband's personal injury                anal escrow
                                                                                        funds and

                   fluids relative to the sale of the
                   funds                                              famishing items in the marital home.
                                                  the marital home or furnishing                     home

                           These monies must be
                                             be released from escrow to Wife's
                                                                        Wife's counsel within ten
                                                                                              ten days of

                  this order. Husband isis •also required to take reasonable efforts to collect debts
                                            also required                                       debt's owed which

                  are listed above. Husband will pay             remabiWg after escrow distribution to
                                                     $ 88,453.02 remaining
                                                 pay $88,453.02                                     to wife

                                                                 23
                                                                 23
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                   FAX IN».
                                                           AI  No.                                 ?P. 025/034

                                                                    amotmt is paid in full. Husband is also
                   at $640.00 per month with 6% interest until this amount

                   ordered to produce        pac-man game to Wife or reimburse Wife in the amount
                              produce Wife's Pac-man                                       amount of
                                                                                                  of

                                ten days of this order. As this item is not marital property,
                   $1000 within ten                                                 property, Husband may
                                                                                                      may not

                   subtract this amount from            fiords referenced above. This Court warns
                                        from the escrow funds                               wars Husband

                                                              and delays
                   that it will view any unreasonable efforts and delays as
                                                                         as an
                                                                            an action
                                                                               action for contempt of court.

                               H. Support Arrears Owed to Wife.

                           Husband currently owes over a $$100,000
                                                           100,000 in support arrears to Wife, given that

                   .Husband has been less than honest with the discovery of
                   Husband                                               o£ marital property
                                                                                    property and dissipated

                   other assets. Therefore, the Court orders Husband to take out aalife insurance policy of aa

                   Dainiz
                   roinimum  of $100,000
                          Um of
                          -     $ 100,000 which names Wife
                                                      Wife as the sole beneficiary. Husband is to submit to

                   Wife's counsel aareceipt and
                                            aid documents of said insurance policy within sixty days of this

                          As the support
                   order. As     support arrears decrease,
                                                 deczease, the minimum
                                                               zuinimum life
                                                                        life irnsurmce
                                                                             insurance policy may decrease
                                                                                                  decrease

                       rata.
                   pro rata.

                               L . Alimony
                               L.  ApzxRoiy

                           A Court may
                           A                 alimony as aasecondary remedy
                                   may award alimony                remedy where economic justice and
                                                                                                  aid

                   the reasonable needs of aaparty cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution

                   scheme, i.e. aaremedy
                                  remedy based upon
                                               upon the
                                                    the `reasonable'              party seeking alimony as
                                                        'reasonable' needs of the party

                       as the payor's ability
                  well as             ability to pay.
                                                 pay. Teodorskt
                                                      Teodorski ».
                                                                v. Teodorsli,
                                                                   Teodorski, 857
                                                                              857 .A..2d    2000 (Pa. Super.
                                                                                   A.2d 194 2000

                                                               24
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                      FAX IN».
                                                              AI  No,                                ?P.026/034
                                                                                                        026/034

                      2004) (emphasis added). Alimony is to be awarded only
                   CL 2004)                                            only when and if the trial court fids
                                                                                                        finds

                                                                             sufFcient income to obtain the
                   that it is necessary to provide the receiving spouse with sufficient

                   necessities of life. Id. The necessities are in party
                                                                   party based upon the standard of living during
                                                                                                           during

                   the marriage. While
                                 While "the purpose of alimony is not
                                       "the purpose               not to reward one party
                                                                                    party and
                                                                                          and punish
                                                                                              punish the

                   other, but to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support
                                                                                                 support herself

                   through                            met."' Miller v_
                   through appropriate employment are met."         • Miller, 744 A_2d 778 (pa..
                                                                              744 A2d            Super.
                                                                                           (Pa. Super

                   1.999). These principles will be discussed further as part
                   1999).                                                part and
                                                                              and parcel
                                                                                  parcel to totality
                                                                                            totality of the

                   seventeen factors
                   seventeen £actors for alimony under Section
                                                       Section. 3701(b) of the
                                                                           the Divorce Code,
                                                                                       Code, and,
                                                                                             and, as

                   applicable to the specific facts of this case.

                           Relative earnings and earning capacities. As noted above, Husband will be

                  earning at minimum over twice as much Wife after the divorce is finalized. Husband's
                         appears to
                  income appears to fluxgate
                                    fluxgate upwards
                                             upwards and what
                                                         what is
                                                              is not                              apparent
                                                                               mi his paystubs is apparent
                                                                 not reflected in

                  through multiple sport
                  through multiple sport cars
                                         cars manging
                                              ranging from
                                                      from $50,000    $ 190,000 each, expensive
                                                           $50,000 to $190,000        expensive trips,
                                                                                                trips, hefty
                                                                                                       hefty

                  cash bonus,
                  cash bonus, and
                              and etc.
                                  etc. Given
                                       Given the
                                             the disparity
                                                 disparity in
                                                           in income, this
                                                                      this factor is significant
                                                                           factor is significant and
                                                                                                 and favors
                                                                                                     favors an
                                                                                                            an .

                  award of alimony.

                           While Wife currently
                                      cnaently has the ability to work, Wife is in remission with breast

                  cancer. Given Wife's health and
                                              and age,
                                                  age, her carping
                                                           earning capacity
                                                                   capacity is not stable.

                           Ages and conditions of the parties. As earlier indicated,            forty-nine
                                                                          indicated, Husband is forty-nine

                                                                    25
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                     FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No,                                 ?P. 027/034

                                                   whale Wife is fifty-six and is in breast cancer remission.
                   and is in generally good health while

                   Husband will likely-        to continue to
                                likely be able to          to work for aasignificant amount of time. While

                   Wife's age would normally not impede her ability to work, leer
                                                                             her health is compromised as

                                                               factor support
                       is. breast cancer remission. Thus, this factor
                   she is                                             support an award of alimony.
                                                                                          alimony.

                           Sources.of
                           Sources    income.for
                                   of income                                                         and
                                             for both parties. Husband's income appears to be steady and

                   any instability relative to Husband's employment appears to be             by Husband_
                                                                               be intentional by Husband. As
                                                                                                          As

                   noted previously, Husband also receives expensive items and cash bonuses in lieu of salary.

                   Wife is currently working full-time and
                   W;fe                                and has
                                                           has been for close to ten
                                                                                 text years. However, her
                                                                                                      her health

                   could compromise this source of income. Husband attempts to
                                                                            to claim that alimony is not
                                                                                                     not

                   needed because the arcars
                                      arears payments are significant. However, this Court would note
                                                                                                 note that
                                                                                                      that

                   the arears payments are aapenalty for Husband's failure to pay support
                                                                                  support already
                                                                                          already owed or

                   delayed. Therefore, itit is improper
                                               improper for this
                                                            this Court
                                                                 Court to reward Husband for his actions and
                                                                                         for bis         and to
                                                                                                             to

                                Wife by
                   penalize for Wife by counting the arears payments as aasource of income. Accordingly, for

                   the reasons listed in the previous
                                             previous factors, this factor also support
                                                                                support an award of alimony
                                                                                                    alimony.

                           )expectancies and inheritances. Neither party
                           Expectancies                            party testified that they
                                                                                        they are expecting
                                                                                                 expecting

                                 Accordingly; this factor is neutral.
                   inheritances. Accordingly,

                           Duration of the marriage. The parties were married for aaperiod
                                                                                    period of approximately

                   15 years, 11
                   15           months. Husband
                             Ii months. Husband has
                                                has been
                                                    been paying
                                                         paying roughly   1goo since
                                                                roughly $$I800 since May
                                                                                     May 2018
                                                                                         2018 through
                                                                                              through the
                                                                                                      the

                                                                 26
                                                                 26
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                     FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No,                                 ?P.028/034
                                                                                                        028/034

                   Domestic Relations
                            Relations Office. This will
                                                   will factor into the duration and Husband's ability to pay
                                                                                     Husband's ability    pay

                                               living during
                   paired with the standard of Living during this marriage. However, otherwise this factor is

                   neutral_
                   neutral

                           .Contribution
                            Contributfou to training, ete.
                                         to training, etc. There
                                                           There was
                                                                 was no
                                                                     no significant
                                                                        significant testimony
                                                                                    testimony regarding
                                                                                              regarding this
                                                                                                        this

                   factor and it not a            consideration,
                                     a factor for consideration.

                            Custody of
                            Custody of minor
                                       nib.ior children.
                                               children. The
                                                         The parties
                                                             parties have
                                                                     have no minor children together.
                                                                          no minor

                   Therefore, this
                              this is not aafactor.
                                            factor

                                        laving during the marriage. There was extensive testimony
                            Standard of living                                          testimony relative

                   to the high standard of living that the parties lived at during the marriage. Testimony

                             that both
                   supported that      Wife and Husband
                                  both Wife     Husband laved well above
                                                        lived well above their        Specifically, Husband
                                                                               means. Specifically,
                                                                         their means.               Husband

                  and Wife
                  and Wife had many
                               many of
                                    of expensive
                                       expensive automobiles,
                                                 automobiles, motorcycles, boats, paintings,
                                                              motorcycles, boats, paintings, guns
                                                                                             guns

                               and other luxury
                  collections, and       luxury items. Additionally,
                                                       Additionally, the parties
                                                                         parties took
                                                                                 tools many
                                                                                       many international
                                                                                            international

                  hzxury trips, attended racing events, super bowls, and etc. Further, the parties
                  huxry                                                                    parties hosted lavish

                         and regularly purchased expensive outerwear as well as various gadgets.
                  events and                                                            gadgets. Husband

                                                   to maintain
                  has demonstrated that he is able to maintain, such
                                                                such a           e'veri after almost ten years of
                                                                     a lifestyle even

                  separation. However, Wife has not been able to maintain aalifestyle even close to the
                  separation.

                           during her
                  standard during her marriage. The Court notes that even an award of
                                                                                   of alimony merely boosts

                  her standard of living
                                  living but still does equate Wife's standard of livirig
                                                                                  living to that what she was

                                                                   27
FED/09/2022/WED I1
FE/09/2022/8ED  11:43 AM
                   43 Al                                   FAX IN».
                                                           AI  No.                                 ?P. 029/034

                   accustomed to during the marriage. Moreover, given Wife's health, education, and age, she

                   is unlikely to achieve aastandard remotely similar on her own means. Accordingly,
                                                                                        Accordingly, this

                   factor
                   factor heavily supports an award of alimony.

                           Relative education and training. Husband has an
                                                                        an. Associate Degree,
                                                                                      Degree. Wife has no

                   higher education. Given the disparity in their incomes, this factor slightly favors an award

                   of alimony.
                   of alimony.

                           Relative Assets and Liabilities. Both parties have retirement accounts although

                   only Husband's account is marital.
                                             marital, Husband has numerous debts owed that may be

                   collectable. Husband also has several vehicles some which are worth sizable amounts.
                                                                                               arnouuts_

                                has the marital bome.
                   Husband also has             home. Outside of one vehicle, her retirement account, and
                                                                                                      and

                   jewelry.
                   jewelry. Wife does not have any
                                               any major assets. Accordingly,
                                                                 Accordingly, this factor supports an award

                      alimony.
                   of alimony.

                           Property brought to the marriage. Wife had a
                                                                      a 401K prior to marriage. However,

                       Court heard testimony that
                   the Court                 that Husband coerced Wife to withdraw $33,000 to save the

                   Maryland
                   Maryland marital residence. Wife
                                               Wife testified that Husband did not use this money
                                                                                            money for the

                   marital home and as consequence they
                   marital                         they lost Maryland marital home as an asset and Wife

                   lost $33,000
                        $33,000 of her retirement funds plus all of the monies which she was penalized for

                               early and any
                   withdrawing early     any future interest. Husband does have a
                                                                                abankruptcy
                                                                                  bankruptcy action pending
                                                                                                    pending

                                                               28
FEB/0/2O22/#ED  11:44
FED/09/2022/WED 1I    AM
                   44 A                                      FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No.                                   ?P. 030/034

                   but given the testimony of Husband's continuous high stand of living, this does not affect

                   this factor_
                        factor. Accordingly, this factor supports an award of alimony.

                           Contribution as aahomemaker. Wife
                                                        Wife testified to
                                                                       to being primarily
                                                                                primarily responsible
                                                                                          responsible for

                   household duties, chores, and hosting events for Husband. See Trans.
                                                                                 Trans- Oct.
                                                                                        Oct_ 115,
                                                                                               5, 2020 at 130-

                   32. No other testimony was given relative to this factor. Accordingly, this factor slightly

                   supports an award of alimony.

                           Relative needs of the parties. Wife's delicate health
                                                                          healtb and age which have been

                                                                                                      pertinent that
                   discussed above are particularly relevant to this factor. Additionally, it is also pertinent

                   this Court previously found that Husband had the ability to pay
                                                                               pay $$1796.38
                                                                                     1796.38 aamonth. While

                   Wife will receive some assets through                                                not
                                                 through equitable distribution, some of the assets may pot

                   be collected due to Husband's baWcjuptcy
                   be                            bankruptcy action and Husband's mishandling of property
                                                                                                property

                   and financial matters. Moreover, Wife testified to begin imable                  lodging
                                                                            unable to afford better lodging

                           additional support. It is notable that
                   without additional                        that Wife's standard of living changed
                                                                                            changed drastically

                   upon separation while                                                       ample
                                                                           same. Wife also has ample
                                   while Husband's remained relatively the same,

                   medical bills that hamper her ability to support
                                             ber ability    support a
                                                                    arelatively comparable standard of living.

                   Accordingly, this
                                this factor supports an award of alimony.
                                     factor supports

                           Marital misconduct. There was
                                                     was testimony of marital
                                                                      marital misconduct relative to
                                                                                                  to

                                                                      and property.
                   Husband's affairs and Husband's misuse of finances and                Court notes
                                                                          property. This Court

                                                                 29
FED/09/2022/WED 1I
FEB/0/2O22/#ED  11:44 AM
                   44 A                                     FAX IN».
                                                            AI  No.                                  ?P.031/034
                                                                                                        031/034

                   Husband was less
                               less than forthcoming and his lack cooperation in the early proceedings

                   contributed to delays and the depletion of some assets in
                                                                          in relative to fun•shings
                                                                                         furnishings in the

                   marital home, other vehicles, and
                                                 and. cash. Said actions thus deprived Wife of monies/property

                   that she could claim in equitable distribution. Thus, this factor spports
                                                                                     supports an award of

                   alimony_
                   alimony.

                           Federal., state, and local tax ramifications. Given the recent tax changes, alimony
                           Federal,

                   is no longer deductible for the paying spouse, nor is it income for the receiving spouse.
                   is

                   This is significant. Husband will have to bear the burden of alimony in this case without

                   the ability to deduct those costs on his federal taxes, but given the relative needs of Wife,

                   any alimony award shall be manageable by Husband given his income.
                                                                              izxcome. Tbis
                                                                                       This factor by itself

                            support an award for alimony.
                   does not support

                           Lfteldimg of
                           Lacking   of sufficient
                                        sufficient property.
                                                   property. As
                                                             As noted
                                                                noted above,
                                                                      above, outside
                                                                             outside of
                                                                                     of Wife's
                                                                                        Wife's retirement
                                                                                               retirement

                   funds and her vehicle, Wife has no property. Meanwhile, Husband
                                                                           Husbaud has numerous sources

                   of income, property, and the marital home.
                                                        home. Thus, this factor supports an award of alimony
                                                                                                     alimony.

                           CapabiUity for support through employment. This factor has been discussed at
                           Capability

                   length in previous factors and is
                                                  is applicable here as well. This factor favors an award of

                   alimony.

                           For the reasons
                           For     reasons set
                                           set forth above
                                                     above and despite
                                                               despite Wife
                                                                       Wife receiving
                                                                            receiving 70%
                                                                                      70% of the         estate,
                                                                                             the marital estate,

                                                                30
FED/09/2022/WED II
FEB/0/2O22/#ED  11:44 AM
                   44 A                                      FAX IN».
                                                             AI  No,                                  ?P.032/034
                                                                                                         032/034

                   Wife is still in aaposition in which she needs additional support to maintain her monthly
                                                                                                     monthly

                                        notes that factors on marital misconduct, the standard of
                   expenses. This Court notes                                                  of living
                                                                                                  living during
                                                                                                         during

                   the marriage, earnings/capacities to earning, and health
                                                                     bealtli of the parties
                                                                                    parties are particularly
                                                                                                particularly

                   relevant in this case largely persuaded this
                                                           this Court
                                                                Court to award alimony
                                                                               alimony for Wife. This Court

                   has determined that Wife will likely be unable to meet
                                                                     iueet her reasonable needs indefinitely
                                                                                                indefinitely.

                                                                                                      poor and as
                           This Court's reasoning for decision is three fold: First, Wife's health is poor

                                                                       increased workload. Second, Husband's
                   such she unable to pursue additional training or an increased

                   mishandling of many marital assets have resulted
                   mishandling                             resulted in debts or losses of assets in
                                                                                                 in their entirety
                                                                                                          entirety

                   so that Wife is unable to otherwise retrieve equitable assets from
                                                                                 from, said property. Third,
                                                                                            property. Third,

                  Husband cost Wife aasignificant amount of ber
                                                            her retirement fund resulting in her having
                                                                                                 having to

                  start over with a
                  start           a new retirement fund. These reasons are certainly
                                                                           certainly not exhaustive but this

                  Court believes
                  Court          that they
                        believes that they do provide
                                              provide ample support for
                                                      ample support for this
                                                                        this decision. The
                                                                                       The Court will opine
                                                                                                 will opine

                  that it does not view its decision as aapenalty for husband
                                                                      Husband but as provision for the economic

                                  Wife for the numerous instances
                  justice owed to Wife                  instances that
                                                                  that this Court
                                                                            Court could not grant
                                                                                            grant aa

                               of assets
                  distribution of assets for          marital assets
                                         for depleted marital assets due
                                                                     due to Husband's conduct. Moreover,
                                                                            Husband's conduct. Moreover, this
                                                                                                         this

                  Court basis its award on the previously calculated Domestic Relations Support of May
                                                                                                   M y

                  2018. Accordingly,
                  2018.                   Court determines
                        Accordingly, this Court determines that Husband shall
                                                           that Husband shall continue
                                                                              continue pay
                                                                                       pay $1796.38
                                                                                           $ 1796.38 aa

                  month permanently commencing with the finalization of the divorce. This award will be

                                                                31
                                                                31
FE/0/2O22/8ED   11:44
FED/09/2022/WED 1I    AM
                   44 A                                     FAX IN».
                                                            AI  No.                                  ?P.033/034
                                                                                                        033/034

                   subject to review for the statutory reasons including aachange in circumstances
                                                                                     circumstances_

                              J. Attorney's Fees

                           Linder §$ 2503(3)
                           Under     2503(3) of the Divorce Code, any participant who is awarded counsel fees
                                                the Divorce

                   as aasanction against another participant for dilatory,
                                                                 dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct during

                   the pendency of aamatter.
                                     matter_ 42 pA.C. S. $2503(7).
                                                PA.C.S.  §2503(7). Wife argues that she is entitled to attorney's

                   fees due to Husband's uncooperativeness during the discovery process and Husband

                   repeated attempts to hide assets
                                             assets and monies from this Court. This Honorable Court is

                   inclined to agree with Wife except for two factors.

                           First; this Court in already held Husband in
                           First,                                       contempt and ordered
                                                                     in contempt     oxdexed Husband to

                             Wife for attorney's fees
                   reimburse Wife                fees and
                                                      anal appraisals of property.
                                                                         property. Second, this Court believes

                   that
                   that Wife was pot          prudent in
                                 Dot entirely prudent        procuring of experts
                                                      in the procuring    experts and other preparation
                                                                                            preparation

                   expenses_ Namely, some of Wife's
                   expenses.                        expert's testimony
                                             Wife's expert's testimony took
                                                                       took aasignificant
                                                                              significant amount of time

                   only to provide an inconclusive value            property. Other experts
                                                   value of alleged propenty.       experts were produced
                                                                                                 produced to

                   value                   fact .Husband's
                   vale items that were in fact  Husband's personal property
                                                                    property not marital property
                                                                                         property and tbus
                                                                                                      thus

                        o£ little relevance to this proceeding. Additionally, this
                   were of                                                    this Court believes that
                                                                                                  that many of

                   Wife's claims relative to Husband's vexatious behavior stem
                                                                          stern prior to this Court's issuance

                   of contempt against Husband and thus are merely repetitious. Furthermore, others actions

                   by Husband are better
                   by             better addressed in this Court's fidings
                                                                   findings relative to equitable
                                                                                        equitable distribution

                                                                32
                                                                32
FEB/0/2O22/#ED  11:44
FED/09/2022/WED 1I    AM
                   44 A                                   FAX IN».
                                                          AI  No,                                ?P.034/034
                                                                                                    034/034

                               foT depletion of marital assets. Accordingly, this Court denies Wife's request
                   and alimony for

                   for attorney's fees.

                           This mattear
                                matter is now ripe for divorce.
                                                       divorce.
                                                              .

                                                                  BY THE CG1U'R

                   Date: February 8.
                                  8.2022
                                     202
                                                                         SW'OPHER
                                                                            PHER AUNGES,
                                                                                  MENGES, JUDGE

                   The Prothonotary is directed to serve aacopy of this order tpon
                                                                              upon Counsel and Parties
                   as required by
                               bylaw.
                                  law.

                                                             33