Alberstadt, A. v. Alberstadt, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Alberstadt, A. v. Alberstadt, W.

DecidedMarch 20, 2020

Docket1262 WDA 2019

StatusUnpublished

This text of Alberstadt, A. v. Alberstadt, W. (Alberstadt, A. v. Alberstadt, W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alberstadt, A. v. Alberstadt, W., (Pa. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S08027-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ALICE ALBERSTADT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WILLIAM J. ALBERSTADT : : Appellant : No. 1262 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered July 31, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No(s): No. 10555-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2020

William J. Alberstadt (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered

July 31, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County granting the motion

for special relief filed by Alice Alberstadt (Appellee) seeking to recover alimony

and attorneys’ fees under a marital settlement agreement. We affirm.

The parties’ dispute arises from their divorce and court-ordered alimony.

Appellee commenced the action below by filing a motion for special relief on

June 27, 2018, seeking to recover alimony and attorneys’ fees under a marital

settlement agreement and court order of June 8, 2018.1 On July 31, 2019,

the trial court entered an order granting Appellee attorneys’ fees, finding that ____________________________________________

1 Appellee filed for divorce on March 2, 2018. The June 8, 2018 order concluded the divorce litigation. Appellant appealed from that order, which appeal was docketed at 973 WDA 2018. The appeal was quashed on April 18, 2019 as Appellant failed to file a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Due to the pending appeal, Appellee’s motion for special relief was not heard until June of 2019. J-S08027-20

Appellant owed Appellee $18,920, and ordering a rollover of Appellant’s

investment account in partial satisfaction of the debt. Appellant filed the

present appeal on August 7, 2019, and timely complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b).

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:2

I: Appellant was coerced by [Appellee and her] counsel . . . through deceitful acts and coercion over the years of separation and through financial fraud and duress from manipulation by [Appellee] and the abuse of discretions committed by the trial judge, and Appellant’s constitutionally protected rights were violated throughout the divorce proceedings, which deprived Appellant of the economic relief/distributions Appellant was entitled to by law.

II: [Appellee] violated verbal contracts and the marital settlement agreement by fraudulent and undisclosed dissolving of financial, equitable and personal property during the separation and divorce proceedings for a financial windfall, without disclosing the same in financial disclosures to the court, which the court abused its discretion in not demanding the same to equally dissolve economic matters raised and preserved by Appellant, when evidence exists in court filings by Appellant, that [Appellee] sold marital settlement property, where the trial court ignored the same and granted full relief to [Appellee], in violation of the divorce code and law.

III: Whether the trial court abused its discretion to issue an order awarding alimony, when [Appellee] received a windfall of financial gains and income, when Appellant was financially bankrupt and without income or financial means for basic living expenses to care for Appellant’s own expenses deprived by [Appellee] through fraud and financial disclosure to justify receiving alimony while living in a $385,000.00 Sarasota, Florida residence with income?

____________________________________________

2We note that Appellant’s brief in his prior appeal, docketed at 973 WDA 2018, contains issues one through four raised here. Appellee’s motion does not revive these issues, which were waived when his prior appeal was quashed.

-2- J-S08027-20

IV: Whether the trial court abused its discretion to issue an order awarding attorney fees, when [Appellee] received a windfall of financial gains and income, when Appellant was financially bankrupt and without income or financial means for basic living expenses deprived by [Appellee] through fraud, contractual violations and financial [non]disclosures in seeking attorney fees?

V: Whether [the trial judge] abused his discretion in his capacity as an elected official, to impose his personal bias, ill–will and partiality against [Appellant], where the record demonstrates that at each and every documented issue, violation of the marital settlement agreement committed by [Appellee], that [the trial judge] has ignored the prejudice, contractual violations and laws inflicted against [Appellant], and ruled in favor of [Appellee]. Furthermore, [the trial judge] intentionally blocked [Appellant’s] funds illegally, issued outrage[ou]s attorney fees to an indigent defendant, and denied access to counsel. Additionally, [the trial judge] was requested to recuse himself, failed to address the matter as required of judges under the judicial rules of canon law, where the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that [the trial judge] has used his official position by forming a negative and bias[ed] opinion of [Appellant], due solely to [Appellant’s] unrelated criminal matter, and has used his power to inflict financial duress and burden on [Appellant], all the while favoring [Appellee], as supported by the record?

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.

We review a trial court’s decision to grant special relief in divorce actions

for abuses of discretion. Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547, 551 (Pa. Super. 2007).

“[T]he court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it

misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.

Similarly, the trial court abuses its discretion if it does not follow legal

procedure.” Id. (citation omitted).

We conclude that the trial court committed no error of law. The trial

court issued an articulate, thorough, and well-reasoned opinion, dated

October 15, 2019, determining that most of Appellant’s claims related to his

-3- J-S08027-20

prior quashed appeal. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/15/19, at 2. With regard to the

only viable claim, we adopt the trial court’s opinion.3 Id. at 1-3.

Order affirmed. We direct the Prothonotary and the parties to attach

the trial court’s October 15, 2019 opinion to any future filings of this

memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2020

3 We note that Appellee has asked for attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2744. See Pa.R.A.P. 2744 (allowing counsel fees where “an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay or that the conduct of the participant against whom costs are to be imposed is dilatory, obdurate or vexatious”). Based on the record before us, we cannot find that Appellant has taken this appeal out of frivolity or for an improper purpose, or that Appellant’s conduct is dilatory, obdurate, or vexatious. While we agree that the present appeal is meritless, we also determine that Appellant’s conduct in prosecuting his appeal does not meet the standards of Pa.R.A.P. 2744, and thus we decline to award attorneys’ fees thereunder.

-4- Circulated 03/04/2020 11 :41 AM $

ALICE ALBERSTADT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Plaintiff OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. FAMILY DIVISION - DIVORCE

- WILLIAM ALB ERSTADT -· .::; c: � .... , ,......_.,.. '-..i .....,,.. _j.,,,,. IO Defendant NO. 10555-2018 O""Tl u, z::o ·-" or, -o ..... >�{/1 � (""') ;;a ::ic: '·, N (_;

1925(a) OPINION -<::::::, •• c: -· _,,, O U1 (J'; Ul

October /l , 2019: This matter arises from a Motion for Special Relief filed June 27, 2018 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI