Dsida, A. v. Esposito, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Dsida, A. v. Esposito, H.

DecidedJune 22, 2017

DocketDsida, A. v. Esposito, H. No. 1480 WDA 2016

StatusUnpublished

This text of Dsida, A. v. Esposito, H. (Dsida, A. v. Esposito, H.) 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

Dsida, A. v. Esposito, H., (Pa. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A12034-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ANDREW J. DSIDA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

HEATHER J. ESPOSITO

Appellant No. 1480 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Decree September 12, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): F.D. 13-006046-001

BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and RANSOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2017

Appellant, Heather J. Esposito, appeals from the divorce decree

entered on September 12, 2016. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural

posture of this case. As the trial court explained:

The parties married on June 14, 2003 and on January 9, 2013, the stipulated date of separation (DOS), the Plaintiff, hereinafter Husband, filed a divorce complaint. [Appellant] filed claims for economic relief and began receiving $20,000[.00] per month in support pursuant to an interim order entered on April 8, 2013 and the issue was deferred to equitable distribution for final resolution. . . .

[A] judicial conciliation on equitable distribution was held on June 18, 2014. By consent order dated August 28, 2014[,] the parties stipulated to the DOS and the second conciliation and hearing regarding the DOS were cancelled. . .. J-A12034-17

For a little over four [] months there was no action on the case until Husband filed a praecipe for a judicial conciliation on equitable distribution which was held on February 17, 2015. A second conciliation was scheduled for May 19, 2015 and at the request of [Appellant,] it was continued until July 14, 2015 based on her argument that Husband had not turned over discovery in a timely manner. . . .

On the day of the conciliation[, Appellant] was unprepared [because she had] discharged her attorney who had been representing her for over two [] years. She desired new counsel and requested another continuance of the judicial conciliation. The request was denied but [Appellant’s] counsel was permitted to withdraw and the case was ordered to the Master for trial on the pending economic claims. . . .

A three [] day trial was scheduled to take place on [October 26, 27, and 28, 2015] before Master Chester Beattie. In September [] 2015[,] a series of motions were presented to the [trial] court regarding discovery and requests for [a] continuance. . . .

The Master’s report and recommendation was issued on December 15, 2015[,] followed by an amended report and recommendation on December 30, 2015. [Appellant] and Husband filed timely exceptions and cross-exceptions [], and after briefs and argument [the trial] court entered an order on July 6, 2016[,] remanding the [case to the Master for] the single issue of the calculation of Husband’s 2015 monthly income. . . . Husband’s exception to the Master’s alimony pendent lite (APL) award was granted and it was ordered that [Appellant] was to receive monthly support consistent with the April 8, 2013 interim order pending exceptions and final order. All other exceptions and cross- exceptions were denied. . . .

On August 8, 2016, Master Beattie issued his second amended report and recommendation wherein Husband’s 2015 monthly income was recalculated resulting in a monthly APL award of $91,938.52 to [Appellant]. Prior to the order becoming final, a wage attachment was issued for this new support award. Husband petitioned in [motions] [c]ourt on August 23, 2016 and asked the court to order

-2- J-A12034-17

that the wage attachment be reset to $20,000[.00] per month consistent with [the trial] court’s July 6, 2016 order. The motion was granted and retroactivity was preserved. On September 12, 2016[,] a divorce decree was entered from which [Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal].

Trial Court Opinion, 12/22/16, at 2-4 (internal footnotes and some internal

capitalization omitted).

Appellant raises four claims on appeal:

[1.] Whether the [trial] court committed errors of law and abuses of discretion in not compelling full discovery once [Husband] admitted that full disclosures were not contractually prohibited as had been represented to the court, contrary to the [trial] court’s order, with full discovery having not been produced with only [17] days until the Master’s hearing?

[2.] Whether the [trial] court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding [Appellant] only 55% of the marital estate when Husband earned in excess of at least 135 times [Appellant’s] imputed earning capacity and Husband’s non- marital estate had increased to be almost equal to that of the marital estate between the date of separation and the Master’s hearing in less than three years?

[3.] Whether the trial court committed abuses of discretion in not awarding Appellant rehabilitative alimony and reinstating APL during the appeal?

[4.] Whether the [trial] court committed abuses of discretion in not awarding Appellant counsel fees, costs, and expenses?

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (some internal capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the

certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial

court judge, the Honorable Mark V. Tranquilli. We conclude that there has

been no error in this case and that Judge Tranquilli’s opinion, entered on

-3- J-A12034-17

December 22, 2016, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s

issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Tranquilli’s

thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or

any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of

Judge Tranquilli’s opinion.

Decree affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/22/2017

-4- Circulated 05/23/2017 12:59 PM

:JN. :r-11'.E COURT Of':C()~:¥.(:).fiLPLEAS-OFALLE(HIE~Y cottNtY~ J~ltNN.S){LVANIA. - -· - FAMILYD.I.ViSlO~t .

NQ.; P.D .. 13-006046-0:ll PLAINTiFF' .·· , , . . . ~-. : . . #.1480 'SUPERIOR'COURT . . . ·WDA . . .. . . . . 2016,.

Vs,.. .O.PINION'BY: ....... - .· '··: JIEAtHERJ. ...... - . . . . ESPOSITO •. ,.. . .... . , :

J(J])GE MARK Y~· TRANQUILLI

COPIES· . ..... . SEN!TTQi ·. ... . . .

CQt]NSEL_FORPLAINTIFF:

).it~i-g~e.f P.. J'qy. ::es.q~ .McCarthy, McDona1d;Schuloetg .&Joy 535:SmithfiekI·Stre~t ·· · · .Bq1J~ ~~(J: '{Ieilcy. Qli Y.¢r Btiildi~g Pittsburgh, ··, PA 15222 . •'

-Rob~rt L. Garber, Esq. 355: Fifth Avenue · Suite 605 :eai:kJ~µiidJ~g · r-bt$burgh\ P.A f5.242~2407 ·(.", ·~ LLl ":,::,:· .u, . ··...... ... -s·uPERIOR' . .. . .... . . . COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. ·-

--u. ,,: ·.· .. ~. . . ... -.J (!..;; PROTHON.OTA:RY u .... · u..: C'~ . . GRAN1SmBt 3:10 . . . . - ' ..... ,.1sufrE - ...,.. .. eoo . .... .. ~i PI'i'TSBlJRGH'·PA _,, ... _.. . .. ,. . ,'" 15219 " ~ :lN T:IIE COP.RT OF COMMON::PL'EAS OF ALLE.GllE'l'fY. ·CQ.tJNTV; :PENNS.:Yi.-VAN.IA ;F\~N.lltX Ji.lVIS'ION . . . .. AND.REWJ; DSIDA N..O.·. f.J).. (3.:()06()46-0.11 •· soeeRmR co.tJRT. #t4so WDA ·2016. PLAINTIFF,

v« .HEATHERJ'. ESPOSiTO~-

DEFENDANT· .. . . -·· .,.

OPINION

Decembe't er, 2016 TheDefendant,' h~rein.~ri~r'Wffe,.appeais from the:Piv_orce: Decree-entered on Se.pt~mber i2,-., 2016., . .A Nonce of Appeal ...~ . w.as: filed. on October .3-,.. 201Q: and-on .. O~\Qper fl, . ;ZQ i6 Wife· wa~:

orderedto file ~:C.~ncis~-Statement of Matters.Complained of.on A:Ppeal. .A concise stat~ment Was filed oh October 31,. ·2Qt6 ,Wh~r~iQ:W,'jfe. GQmp{ajns·of.,d)irteen,( l3Jertprs. The Court will.

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