Court Opinion

ID: 9940571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:11:49.645605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:02.483595
License: Public Domain

J-S03002-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 ZURIA MARTZ                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 DERECK MARTZ                              :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :   No. 496 MDA 2023

           Appeal from the Decree Entered December 29, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Civil Division at
                         No(s): CV-2022-00375

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                         FILED: FEBRUARY 14, 2024

      Appellant, Dereck Martz (“Husband”), appeals pro se from the decree

entered December 29, 2022, which dissolved the matrimonial bond between

Husband and Zuria Martz (“Wife”). We vacate the December 29, 2022 decree

and remand.

      Husband and Wife married on April 15, 2017. “On December 17, 2017,

a jury returned verdicts [finding] that Husband was guilty of rape[,]

involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a person less than 13 years of

age[,] statutory sexual assault[,] aggravated indecent assault [of] a person

less than 13 years of age[,] and indecent assault [of] a person less than 13

years of age[.]” Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/23, at *1 (unpaginated). Husband

was subsequently sentenced “to a term of imprisonment in a state correctional

institution for a total period of 13 [] to 52 years.” Id.
J-S03002-24

       On March 15, 2022, Wife filed a complaint in divorce seeking a divorce

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c) and (d) of the Divorce Code.1 Wife averred

in the complaint that the parties’ marriage was irretrievably broken and that

the parties had lived separate and apart for at least one year as of December

13, 2018.     “There were no economic or ancillary claims asserted therein.”

Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/23, at *1 (unpaginated).

       Thereafter, Wife served Husband an affidavit setting forth the date of

separation and asserting that the marital bond was irretrievably broken. On

September 16, 2022, Husband filed a counter-affidavit in which he contested

Wife’s assertion that the marriage was irretrievably broken.          Husband,

however, did not contest that the parties had lived separate and apart from,

at least, December 13, 2018.

       On October 31, 2022, Wife filed a motion seeking resolution of “the issue

asserted in [Husband’s] counter-affidavit under Section 3301(d) of the

Divorce Code,” i.e., Husband’s contention that the marriage was not

irretrievably broken. Wife’s Motion, 10/31/22, at 1. The trial court convened

a hearing on Wife’s motion on December 22, 2022. Although arrangements

were made for Husband to attend the hearing via video conferencing, due to

delays in the court’s schedule, Husband was unable to attend.         See N.T.
____________________________________________

1 Wife’s complaint did not invoke one of the fault-based grounds for divorce

recognized in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a), including the provision set forth at
Section 3301(a)(5) which allows the trial court to grant a divorce to an
innocent and injured spouse whenever the other spouse has been sentenced
to imprisonment for a term of two or more years upon conviction of having
committed a crime. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a).

                                           -2-
J-S03002-24

Hearing, 12/22/22, at 2-3. At the hearing, “Wife[, through counsel] asserted

. . . that [the parties] were separated for about five years at that point largely

due to [Husband’s] incarceration.”             Trial Court Opinion,   5/17/23, at *2.

Ultimately, on December 29, 2022, the trial court entered a final divorce

decree dissolving the matrimonial bond between Husband and Wife.                 This

timely appeal followed.2

       Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

        1. Whether the trial court committed an error [of law] when it
           conducted a hearing pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.]
           § 3301(d)(1)(ii) and Pa.R.C.P. 1920.51(a)(1)(i)(D) in a
           contested divorce case without [] Appellant being present at
           the hearing?

        2. Whether the trial court committed an error by granting
           [Wife’s] request for a divorce without giving Appellant an
           opportunity to be heard and present evidence that, although
           living apart, the parties continued to view their relationship
           as that of husband and wife before the one-year requirement
           expired under [Section] 3301(d) of Divorce Code?

____________________________________________

2 “A notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order

from which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903. “The date of entry of an
order in a matter subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure shall be
the day on which the clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of
entry of the order has been given as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b).”
Pa.R.A.P. 108(b); see Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b) (“The prothonotary shall note in the
docket the giving of the notice[.]”).

On February 8, 2023, Husband herein appealed the divorce decree entered
December 29, 2022. Our review of the docket entries in this matter, however,
reveals that there is no indication that the clerk furnished a copy of the
December 29, 2022 order to Husband. We therefore “assume [that] the
period for taking an appeal was never triggered” and consider Husband’s
appeal to be timely filed. Commonwealth v. Jerman, 762 A.2d 366, 368
(Pa. Super. 2000).

                                           -3-
J-S03002-24

Husband’s Brief at 3.

      In both of Husband’s appellate issues, he contends that the trial court

erred in entering a decree of divorce despite his inability to attend the

December 22, 2022 hearing.       We will address both of Appellant’s claims

together.

      This Court’s standard of review in divorce actions is well-settled. “[I]t

is the responsibility of this [C]ourt to make a de novo evaluation of the record

of the proceedings and to decide independently of the . . . lower court whether

a legal cause of action in divorce exists.” Jayne v. Jayne, 663 A.2d 169, 172

(Pa. Super. 1995).

      Section 3301 of the Divorce Code sets forth the grounds upon which a

court may grant a divorce. It states, in relevant part, as follows:

       (d) Irretrievable breakdown.--

            (1) The court may grant a divorce where a complaint has
            been filed alleging that the marriage is irretrievably broken
            and an affidavit has been filed alleging that the parties
            have lived separate and apart for a period of at least one
            year and that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the
            defendant either:

                  (i) Does not deny the allegations set forth in the
                  affidavit.

                  (ii) Denies one or more of the allegations set forth in
                  the affidavit but, after notice and hearing, the
                  court determines that the parties have lived separate
                  and apart for a period of at least one year and that
                  the marriage is irretrievably broken.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(d)(1)(i)-(ii) (emphasis added).

                                     -4-
J-S03002-24

      Similarly, Rule 1920.42 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure

outlines the procedure to be followed to obtain a divorce decree under Section

3301(c) or Section 3301(d). It states, in relevant part, as follows:

       (c) Obtaining a divorce decree under Section 3301(d) of
       the Divorce Code.

            (1) If a party has filed a complaint requesting a divorce on
            the ground of irretrievable breakdown and the requisite
            separation period has elapsed, the court shall enter a
            decree in divorce after:

                (i) proof of service of the complaint has been filed;

                (ii) a party has signed and filed an Affidavit under
                Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code averring that the
                marriage is irretrievably broken and that the parties
                have been separate and apart for the required
                separation period;

                (iii) the filed affidavit and a blank Counter-Affidavit
                under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code have been
                served on the other party consistent with Pa.R.C.P.
                No. 1930.4, and the other party has admitted or failed
                to deny the averments in the Affidavit under Section
                3301(d) of the Divorce Code;

                       (A) If a party files a Counter-Affidavit under
                       Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code denying an
                       averment in the Affidavit under Section 3301(d)
                       of the Divorce Code, including the date of
                       separation, either party may present a
                       motion requesting the court resolve the
                       issue.

                       (B) After presentation of the motion in
                       subdivision (A), the court may hear the
                       testimony or, consistent with Pa.R.C.P. No.
                       1920.51(a)(1)(ii)(D), appoint a hearing officer
                       to hear the testimony and to issue a report and
                       recommendation.

Pa.R.C.P. No. 1920.42(c)(1)(i)-(iii) (emphasis added).

                                     -5-
J-S03002-24

         In this instance, Wife filed a complaint in divorce pursuant to both

Section 3301(c) and (d). To support her request for a divorce decree, Wife

alleged that the parties lived separate and apart for at least one year and that

the marriage was irretrievably broken.       Husband did not contest Wife’s

averment that the parties lived separate and apart for more than one year but

denied that the marriage was irretrievably broken.        Hence, pursuant to

Pa.R.C.P. 1920.42(c)(1)(iii)(A), Wife requested the trial court to resolve this

issue.

         The trial court, in turn, scheduled a hearing for December 22, 2022,

which Husband was ultimately unable to attend due to circumstances outside

of his control.   The trial court, however, did not postpone or continue the

hearing due to Husband’s absence. Instead, the court proceeded to engage

in a brief ex-parte discussion with Wife’s counsel and then ultimately resolved

the issue of whether the parties’ marriage was, in fact, irretrievably broken,

based upon that discussion. See N.T. Hearing, 12/22/22, at 1-5. Thus, the

issue was resolved without the benefit of on-the-record testimony, without

opportunities for cross-examination, and without the receipt of any other

evidence by either party. In so doing, the trial court acted contrary to Section

3301(d)(ii) of the Divorce Code and Pa.R.C.P. No. 1920.42(c)(1)(iii)(B) as

both require the trial court, when confronted with a situation in which a party

denies an averment in divorce affidavit, to conduct a hearing and receive

testimony.

                                      -6-
J-S03002-24

      In its opinion, the trial court points to the fact that Husband “is serving

more than two years for multiple felony convictions of the most egregious

nature” as evidence that “a no-fault divorce under [Section] 3301(d) was

clearly available to Wife.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/23, at *2 (unpaginated).

Then, the trial court cites to Section 3301(e) of the Divorce Code which

permits a trial court to enter a divorce decree without a hearing if “grounds

for divorce alleged in the complaint or counterclaim are established under

section (c) or (d).” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(e); see Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/23,

at *2. Based upon the foregoing, the trial court concludes that Husband’s

appeal is frivolous. Id.

      Importantly, however, the grounds relied upon by the trial court, i.e.,

Husband’s various convictions, was not clear from the face of Wife’s complaint,

as it makes no mention of Husband’s status, and in light of Husband’s

counter-affidavit contesting the circumstances of the parties’ marriage.

Moreover, as stated above, the trial court did not determine that the parties’

marriage was irretrievably broken based upon a developed record. Instead,

the court held an ex parte conversation with Wife’s counsel and subsequently

relied upon a fault-based ground for divorce (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a)(5))

which Wife did not assert in her complaint to find that the marriage was

irretrievably broken under Section 3301(d). Finally, the trial court should not,

under the guise of relying on Section 3301(e), have abruptly changed course

without notice after it initially scheduled a hearing. At the very least, the trial

court should have informed the parties of its intent to enter a divorce decree

                                       -7-
J-S03002-24

pursuant to Section 3301(e) and then permit the parties namely, Husband, to

explain why a hearing may be necessary.

      We therefore reverse the trial court’s December 29, 2022 decree

dissolving the matrimonial bond between Husband and Wife and remand for

the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(d) and

Pa.R.C.P. No. 1920.42(c)(1)(iii)(B).

      Decree reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/14/2024

                                       -8-