holding court’s failure to credit husband for one-half fair rental value of marital residence was not abuse of discretion even though husband voluntarily and generously paid mortgages and expenses of marital home in excess of court - 14 - J-A22038-16 ordered amount for period of ten years; trial court’s ultimate equitable distribution award reflected consideration of factors under Section 3502(a) and was supported by record; trial court’s overall distribution scheme of 50/50 division of marital assets was equitable
How later courts described this case
- holding court’s failure to credit husband for one-half fair rental value of marital residence was not abuse of discretion even though husband voluntarily and generously paid mortgages and expenses of marital home in excess of court - 14 - J-A22038-16 ordered amount for period of ten years; trial court’s ultimate equitable distribution award reflected consideration of factors under Section 3502(a) and was supported by record; trial court’s overall distribution scheme of 50/50 division of marital assets was equitable
- where court extended deadline to file statement and miscommunication between court and parties resulted in failure to file 1925(b) statement, issues still addressed on appeal on strength of 1925(a) opinion
- “There is no requirement . . . that mandates additional evidence before the trial court undertakes reconsideration of its order.”
- credit denied where payments were voluntary and credit would result in economic injustice.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Otero, 2004 Pa. Super. 390 (2004)
¶ 13 Clearly, Middleton is inapplicable to this case.
The opinion
Concurring
DEL SOLE, P.J.:
¶ 1 I join the Majority. I write separately to invite the Appellate Court Rules Committee to consider modifying Pa. R.A.P.1925.
¶ 2 In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415 , 719 A.2d 306 (1998), the Supreme Court, recognizing that appellate review is substantially impeded by the absence of a trial court opinion, held that the appellant’s failure to include issues in an ordered 1925(b) statement resulted in waiver. As the court pointed out:
Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal.
Lord, 719 A.2d at 308 .
¶ 3 I suggest the rule be modified to account for those situations where the trial court’s reasons appear of record, or where the trial court knows what issues will be raised on appeal and prepares an opinion addressing those issues. For instance, in cases where post-trial or post-sentencing motions have been filed, or a single issue is raised in a dispositive motion, the trial court can set forth the reasons for its ruling.
¶4 Given that in many cases, trial judges do not require 1925(b) statements, and waiver is probably the least favored method of resolving issues, the interests of justice may be better served by revisiting this rule.
¶ 5 KLEIN, J., joins.