Opinion
J-A27009-17 NO. 1196 WDA 2016
01-19-2018
DONALD J. FREUND APPELLANT v. LINDA A. BRADEN-FREUND v. GREATER PITTSBURGH TRAP AND SKEET, INC., M. CONSTANCE GATO, EXECUTRIX, UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MARGARET S. FREUND, DECEASED, M. CONSTANCE GATO, MARY DAWN DRUMMOND, J. DONALD FREUND AND MARK J. FREUND
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION-SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered July 18, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division at No(s): C-63-CV-200402627 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Donald J. Freund (Husband) appeals from the July 18, 2016 order, entered after remand from this Court, that essentially reinstated the April 14, 2011 decree in divorce and the equitable distribution scheme contained therein. After extensive review, we affirm.
See Freund v. Baden-Freund , 91 A.3d 1279 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). --------
This litigation began in 2004 when Husband filed a complaint in divorce and Linda A. Braden-Freund (Wife) filed a counterclaim in divorce. This case has continued unabated since that time. Following the remand as directed by this Court in a memorandum opinion filed in 2013, further proceedings were held before the trial court and the order from which Husband now appeals was entered on July 18, 2016.
In the present appeal, Husband raises the following four issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in relying on a transcript from an unrelated proceeding that was never offered or received into evidence, when rendering its decision[?]Husband's brief at 6-7.
2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in determining that the increased value of a corporation which [Husband] managed but in which he never held any ownership interest, constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution[?]
3. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion by misapplying the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" or otherwise in ignoring the corporate form to determine that [Husband] was the "de facto" owner of said corporation[?]
4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in determining that [Wife] did not waive her right to appreciation and/or increase in value of premarital property under the terms of the parties' prenuptial agreement[?]
Generally, in addressing the types of issues raised in this appeal, we are guided by the following:
Our standard of review in assessing the propriety of a marital property distribution is whether the trial court abused its discretion by a misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure. An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence.McCoy v. McCoy , 888 A.2d 906, 908 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted). When reviewing an award of equitable distribution, "we measure the circumstances of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties and achieving a just determination of their property rights." Hayward v. Hayward , 868 A.2d 554, 559 (Pa. Super. 2005). Moreover, 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. Sternlicht v. Sternlicht , 822 A.2d 732, 742 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2003), aff'd, 876 A.2d 904 (Pa. 2005).
We have reviewed the certified record, the brief filed by Husband and the responsive brief filed by Wife, the relevant law, and the extensive, well-reasoned analysis provided by the Honorable John F. DiSalle of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in his opinion, dated July 20, 2017. We conclude that Judge DiSalle's opinion correctly disposes of the issues raised by Husband and, accordingly, we adopt that opinion as our own and affirm the order on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/19/2018
Image materials not available for display.