|
|
|
Monetary Award Instead of Marital Real Estate Sale
© 2004 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
PENNSYLVANIA: Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
The trial court erred by ordering the sale of marital real property located near the seashore. The husband had expressed a desire to retain the property. The wife's interest could be paid by the husband if he refinanced the property, and the sale would result in unnecessary broker's fees and unfavorable tax consequences.
After the husband filed for divorce, a master was appointed for the purpose of hearing evidence and making recommendations as to property issues, including the distribution of marital property. He recommended that the wife receive a distribution of 63% of the marital assets and that the husband receive a 37% distribution. As to a specific seashore property that was held by both parties, the master recommended that the husband be permitted to retain it if he could refinance it in order to make the required lump-sum and periodic payments to the wife as her share of the marital estate. The trial court, however, entered an order accepting certain exceptions that had been filed by the wife to the master's report. The court ordered that the husband must sell the seashore property and make distribution of the proceeds to the wife. The trial court did so in order "to effectuate economic justice." The husband appealed and argued that he should have been permitted to keep the seashore property. The appellate court reversed this portion of the trial court's judgment.
Despite an abuse-of-discretion standard of review, the appellate court found that the court below had failed to support its conclusion that considerations of "economic justice" required that the property be sold. The trial court had acknowledged that the husband expressed the desire to retain the property so that his children and grandchildren could continue to enjoy it. It was shown that the property had not been rented out in the past and was regularly used by the family. Moreover, there was no dispute as to the appraisal or net value of the property. Nevertheless, the court below ordered that the property be sold, despite the fact that realtor fees and taxes would reduce the net proceeds from the sale available for distribution. The trial court was found to have abused its discretion when it failed to explain why the husband could not have refinanced the house, as recommended by the master, and paid a lump sum to the wife and begun making periodic payments to her for the balance of her share of the marital estate, while still protecting the interests of the wife. The master's additional recommendation that if the property could not be refinanced it should be sold, as well as the recommendation that the husband carry a life insurance policy on himself payable to the wife, would have alleviated the wife's concerns.
Go to: Division of Property Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!