Drexler, A. v. Drexler, M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 14, 2023
• Docket: 650 MDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S39017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ASHLEY C. DREXLER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MARCUS D. DREXLER : : Appellant : No. 650 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Decree Entered April 5, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 21-0649

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 14, 2023

In this divorce action, Marcus D. Drexler (“Husband”) appeals from the

final decree and challenges the equitable distribution award. He argues that

the trial court erred in refusing to give him credit for mortgage payments he

made post-separation and that this failure resulted in an inequitable

distribution. We affirm.

Husband and Ashely C. Drexler (“Wife”) were married in May 2017 and

separated in the autumn 2020. In March 2021, Wife sued for Divorce. In

December 2022, the trial court held an equitable distribution hearing and

heard evidence on, among other things, property the parties purchased on

Southview Circle and a marital home they owned on Independence Avenue.

The evidence relevant to this appeal is as follows. J-S39017-23

Wife testified that before marrying, she and Husband bought the

Independence Avenue property. N.T., Dec. 16, 2022, at 22.1 Only Husband

was on the deed because he had been a marine and they received a Veteran

Administration (“VA”) loan. Id. at 23. She testified that the VA does not allow

anybody that is not married to the veteran to be on the loan. Id. at 23. Wife

made monetary contributions to the home, including a deposit and

downpayment for the home and payments for a fence. Id. at 24-25. Wife also

made improvements to the interior of the home. Id. at 25-26. Wife testified

she paid half the mortgage on the Independence Avenue property from the

purchase of the property until their separation in October 2020. She also said

that after separation, she paid the full mortgage until she moved to North

Carolina in October 2021. Id. at 27-29. She stated the house was sold in

January 2022. Id. at 45.

Wife said that in 2018, the parties bought land at Southview Circle for

$109,000, with the intention of building a home. Id. at 34-36. The house was

still being constructed at the time of separation. Id. at 36. Wife testified that

she made payments on the loan to buy the land, and after they obtained a

construction loan, she made payments on that loan as well. Id. at 37. Wife

further testified she paid the home association fee. Id. at 38. The total amount

____________________________________________

1 The transcript is not in the certified record. It is in the reproduced record,

and neither party disputes its accuracy. Commonwealth v. Holston, 211 A.3d 1264, 1276 (Pa.Super. 2019) (en banc) (providing that “where the accuracy of a document is undisputed and contained in the reproduced record, [this Court] may consider it,” even though not in the certified record).

-2- J-S39017-23

she paid toward the Southview Circle property was $22,708. Id. at 39. The

total amount she paid toward expenses for both properties was $71,179.22.

Id. at 42. Wife testified she never resided in the Southview Circle property,

and that since completion of the construction, Husband and his parents have

lived there. Id. at 48.

She stated that Carol Barton completed an appraisal of the property in

November 2022, and found the property’s value to be $653,000. Id. at 48-

49. Wife testified that Husband and his parents paid the mortgage on the

Southview Circle property following the separation. Id. at 60.

Wife further testified that when they purchased the Southview Circle

property they intended Husband’s parents to reside with them in an in-law

suite. Id. at 50. His parents provided $100,000 as their portion of the building

cost. Id. at 51.

Wife testified that she reached out to Husband regarding refinancing the

mortgage on the Southview Circle property because it would be in his best

interest to do so. Id. at 99. The refinance did not happen because they needed

to sell the Independence Avenue property to refinance, and Husband would

not agree to give any proceeds of the sale to wife. Id. at 99, 108.

Husband testified that only his name was on the deed to and the loan

for the Independence Avenue property because they were not married at the

time of the purchase and they wanted to use a VA loan and, after they were

married, they did not add Wife to the documents. Id. at 138-39. Husband

testified that prior to the separation they each paid half of the mortgage for

-3- J-S39017-23

the property. Id. at 139. Husband testified that Wife resided in the

Independence Avenue property following separation. Id. at 143.

Husband testified that prior to separation, both he and Wife contributed

money to the Southview Circle property. Id. at 152. He stated that since the

separation, he has made all payments on the property. Id. at 162-63. He

further testified that his parents made a $100,000 down payment on the

construction loan. Id. at 155, 157. He also testified regarding financial

contributions he had made to the house since the separation. Id. at 162-66.

Husband testified he and his parents intend to remain in the Southview Circle

property. Id. at 157.

Husband stated he wanted to sell the Independence Avenue property so

he could refinance the mortgage on the Southview Circle property. Id. at 143.

He testified that Wife would not agree to sign the papers required to refinance

the Southview Circle mortgage when the mortgage rates were low. Id. at 158-

59. He stated that the rates had dropped when he wanted to refinance, but

now are above the rate of his mortgage. Id. at 159-60.

The parties submitted proposed findings and fact and conclusions of law.

In Husband’s filing, he argued the Southview property should be valued at the

original purchase price of $109,000. Defendant’s Proposed Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, filed Jan. 17, 2023, at ¶¶ 23(a),

23(o).

In its order, the trial court valued the marital equity in the Southview

Circle property at $120,711.35, representing the fair market value of

-4- J-S39017-23

$653,000 minus the mortgage payoff amount as of November 2022 of

$532,288.65. The court did not provide Husband credit for the post-separation

payments he made toward the property.

Husband filed a timely notice of appeal.2 He raises the following issue:

“Whether the trial court erred in refusing to provide credit to Husband for the

mortgage payments he made postseparation when refusing credit for said

mortgage payments rendered the total distribution scheme inequitable.”

Husband’s Br. at 7.

This Court “review[s] a challenge to the trial court’s equitable

distribution scheme for an abuse of discretion.” Conner v. Conner, 217 A.3d

301, 309 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520, 523

(Pa.Super. 2019). “We do not lightly find an abuse of discretion, which

requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence[,]” and “will not find an

abuse of discretion unless the law has been overridden or misapplied or the

judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,

prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence in the certified record.”

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “When determining the ____________________________________________

2 The trial court ordered Husband to file a 1925(b) statement of concise statements, which Husband failed to do. In this Court, Husband filed a response to a Rule to Show Cause stating that neither he nor Wife’s counsel received a copy of the Rule 1925 order, and included as an exhibit a letter from Wife’s counsel stating she had not received the Rule 1925 order. Further, the order failed to comply with Rule 1925, as it failed to state the address to which to mail the statement to serve the trial judge. Under these facts, we decline to find waiver. See Boyle v. Main Line Health, Inc., No. 728 EDA 2021, 2022 WL 96613, at *11 n.8 (Pa.Super. Jan. 10, 2022) (non-precedential decision).

-5- J-S39017-23

propriety of an equitable distribution award, this Court must consider the

distribution scheme as a whole.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, “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.” Id. (citation omitted).

Husband maintains that the trial court’s failure to credit his post-

separation payments toward the Southview Circle property made the

equitable distribution award inequitable, for three reasons. We will address his

first two arguments together.

First, he maintains the court’s decision to value the Southview Circle

property as of the date of distribution, rather than separation, resulted in a

windfall to Wife. He reasons that at separation, the property contained only

foundation and some walls, but by the time of distribution, it had a fully-

constructed house. He argues the date of separation would have been

appropriate here, and the court’s decision to use the date of distribution “made

it inequitable to refuse to provide Husband credit for the significant financial

contribution he made to the property post-separation.” Husband’s Br. at 16.

He distinguishes the increase in value here from the increase that occurs

where a “fully constructed residence increased in value merely due to changes

in the real estate market and normal mortgage payments.” Id. at 23. He

contends that here “[t]he increase in value is dramatic because of the

transformation of the property from a just-started construction to a fully

complete residence.” Id. at 23.

-6- J-S39017-23

Next, Husband maintains the court’s refusal to credit the post-

separation payments on the Southview Circle property made the overall

distribution scheme inequitable because of the “considerable financial

contributions he made from post-separation resources.” Husband’s Br. at 16.

He reasons that Wife made contributions of $31,219.09 toward the land and

construction loans, but he made contributions of $80,328.74 in just post-

separation payments. He claims the trial court’s decision provided Wife with

more than double the amount she contributed to the loan and provided him

with no credit for his sizable contribution. He argues the post-separation

payments were not voluntary, but rather the minimum required to preserve

the marital asset and resulted in him paying more on the property than he

earned each month. He argues this did not achieve the Divorce Code’s goal of

economic justice.

The trial court concluded the Southview Circle property should be valued

as of the date of distribution and Husband’s arguments failed to credit Wife

for the contributions she made to the property:

The parties purchased [the] Southview Circle [property] in mid-September of 2018, intending to build a marital home. The purchase price for the land was approximately $109,000.00. Construction of the residence began before the parties separated but was not complete until June of 2021. Wife presented evidence that she and Husband split the closing costs associated with the purchase, and that she paid approximately half of the homeowners’ association fees and the loan payments for [the] Southview Circle [property] until shortly after the parties separated. At that time, Husband started paying the Southview Circle loan and Wife paid the mortgage on [the] Independence Avenue

-7- J-S39017-23

[property] where the parties had resided during the marriage (further discussed below). In addition to making substantial financial contributions, Wife was very instrumental in locating the Southview Circle property, making arrangements for the purchase transaction, and in designing the specifications and selecting materials for the home to be built on the property.

Wife presented an appraisal prepared by Carol Barton, a certified residential appraiser, valuing [the] Southview Circle [property] at $ 653,000.00 as of November 10, 2022. Husband did not present evidence to undermine the Barton appraisal, nor did he produce his own appraisal at the hearing. Instead, Husband urges the Court to use the purchase price for the land, $109,000.00, as the value of the property for equitable distribution purposes. To that end, Husband argues the value of the property as of late 2022 is attributable to expenditures for certain improvements by Husband and his parents, but Husband presented no proof regarding how those expenditures relate to the overall value of the property. In addition, Husband’s argument fails to acknowledge the substantial contributions Wife made in terms of procuring the property, maintaining and increasing the parties’ equity position through mortgage and homeowners’ association payments, and designing the residence that was ultimately constructed there. Finally, the Court observes that Husband would include the entire balance of the construction loan/mortgage as a marital debt; this would be grossly unfair if the value of the residence built with proceeds from the loan was not also included in the marital estate.

Trial Court Opinion, filed Apr. 3, 2023, at 3.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Husband did not

argue in the trial court that the property should be valued as of the date of

separation. Rather, he argued the property should be valued as of the date of

purchase. Further, the court did not err in finding that Husband failed to

establish how his contributions added to the overall value of the property, that

his argument did not credit Wife for the contributions she made, and that it

-8- J-S39017-23

would be inequitable to include the balance of the construction mortgage loan

as marital debt, but not include in the value of the property that was built with

the loan.

Husband also claims the court improperly refused to award him credit

for the post-separation payments. He asserts that he is paying, and will

continue to pay, significantly more interest on the loan for the Southview

Circle property because Wife refused to refinance the loan at a more

advantageous rate. He claims Wife would not have been prejudiced had she

agreed to refinance the loan because the parties allegedly agreed to preserve

Wife’s claim regarding the value and distribution of the marital portion of the

Independence Avenue property. He argues the interest rate on the loan was

4.99%, and he wanted to refinance when the interest rate was between 2%

and 3%. He states that at the time of distribution the interest rate was higher

than 4.99%.

The trial court credited Wife’s testimony that Husband refused to give

her any proceeds from the sale of, or agree to preserve arguments regarding,

the Independence Avenue property. It therefore concluded Husband should

not receive a credit for the alleged increase in payments due to the failure to

refinance the loan:

Husband also complains that he was unable to refinance the construction loan when mortgage rates were extremely favorable due to Wife’s ostensible failure to cooperate. Husband argues he should receive a credit of $13,500.00, representing excess interest in the amount of $750.00 per month accruing on the construction loan between July of 2021 and January of 2023 because Wife would not permit

-9- J-S39017-23

him to refinance the loan to a lower rate when it was available. Husband notes that the presently existing unfavorable rates will result in substantial added costs over the life of the loan. Wife testified that she asked Husband to refinance the Southview Circle property when it became apparent that he wanted to both keep that home and sell the . . . Independence Avenue [property] where they had resided; Wife testified that Husband at that point refused to agree to either give her any proceeds from the sale or to preserve their arguments regarding value and proportionate shares until the time of equitable distribution. The Court found this testimony credible and observes that the parties were both relatively uncooperative with one another at various junctures during the course of this divorce litigation, and that cooperation on both sides would have undoubtedly benefitted them both. It is unfortunate that Husband missed the opportunity to take advantage of very favorable mortgage interest rates before the rates started to climb, but the Court does not believe it would be fair or equitable to place the blame for this misfortune on Wife. The Court rejects Husband’s request for credit as to this item.

Trial Court Opinion, filed Apr. 3, 2023, at 4-5.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to credit Husband

for the alleged increase costs due to a failure to refinance. The court found

Wife credible, and the record supports this finding. It was not an abuse of

discretion to not fault Wife where Husband refused to cooperate regarding the

sale of the Independence Avenue property, which was required prior to

refinancing.

Order affirmed.

- 10 - J-S39017-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/14/2023

- 11 -