Court Opinion

ID: 9752227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:50:31.560153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:10.866365
License: Public Domain

*418BROSKY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I am in agreement with all aspects of the majority’s well-reasoned opinion except its determination that the trial court did not err in valuing McNaughton Oil as of the date of separation of the parties. I see no reason why McNaughton Oil should be accorded treatment different than that given to the real estate involved in the instant case. I agree with the majority that the trial court is free to select a valuation date which best serves to provide for economic justice between the parties. Miller v. Miller, 395 Pa.Super. 255, 577 A.2d 205 (1990). However, in Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534 (1988), in which some of the marital assets to be valued were businesses, our Supreme Court stated,
[While t]he Divorce Code contains no express provision governing the selection of a date to be used for valuation of marital property, where equitable distribution is concerned, ... [i]t is implicit ... in the statutory provisions governing equitable distribution that a valuation date reasonably proximate to the date of distribution must, in the usual case, be utilized.
If ... marital property values were to be fixed as of the date of the parties’ separation ... severe injustices would at times be inflicted upon the parties concerned. Volatile market conditions and changing economic circumstances can render assets that had been valuable months or years earlier virtually worthless in the present, and vice versa____ Privately owned business interests may be valued as a gold mine, or as a scrimption, depending on the times.
Id., 518 Pa. at 381, 383, 543 A.2d at 536, 537.
Since the parties were separated in January, 1984 and McNaughton Oil was valued as of that date, I feel that the trial court abused its discretion in not re-valuing the business at the 1990 distribution. Hence, I would also remand this issue to the trial court for a re-valuation of McNaughton Oil “as close to distribution as possible.”