Pamela F.Y. McCarter, v. Guy R. Moscato

Pamela F.Y. McCarter, v. Guy R. Moscato

Civil Action-Family Law-Divorce-Marriage Settlement Agreement-Petition to Enforce-Contempt-Parties Decline to Comply-Marital Residence-Sale-Division of Proceeds-Credits

The parties were married on March 20, 1993.  The parties entered into a Marriage Settlement Agreement on March 15, 2012 in which the parties agreed that Guy R. Moscato (“Husband”) was to retain the marital residence and Pamela F.Y. McCarter (“Wife”) was to be removed from all liabilities with regard to the marital residence and to receive one-half (1/2) of the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.  The Marriage Settlement Agreement was incorporated but not merged into the final divorce decree entered on December 27, 2012.  The parties thereafter agreed not to follow the provisions of the Agreement with Wife purchasing her own resident, the parties contributing equally to the outstanding lien obligations on both residences until both residences were sold in 2021 and 2024, respectively.  When Wife’s residence had sold, the parties equally divided the net proceeds of the sale.  Wife was not removed from the lien from the marital residence and continued to contribute toward the lien upon the property equally.  On February 7, 2024, Wife filed a Petition to Enforce the Agreement/Petition for Contempt on the basis that Husband failed to comply with the Agreement by failing to remove her from the lien and to divide proceeds of the sale of the residence.  Following the sale of the marital residence, Husband submitted requests for credits in the amount of $121,899.76 to be deducted from Wife’s share of the proceeds. 

1.  Where Wife unilaterally credited herself for the increased equity created by an addition she constructed on her residence and improvements and Husband had no opportunity to contest the expenses deducted when that property was sold and the parties divided the net proceeds equally thereafter, Husband will be awarded credits for the amounts he spend to maintain and to improve the marital residence where those amounts very plausibly increased the value of the property and expenses incurred in preparing the marital residence for sale.     

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2012-20399, Opinion by Donna Long Brightbill, Judge, June 9, 2025.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – DIVORCE

PAMELA F.Y. McCARTER,         :

            Plaintiff          :

            :          

            v.         :           NO. 2012-20399

            :

GUY R. MOSCATO,            :

            Defendant      :          

APPEARANCES:

Colleen S. Gallo, Esquire                                                        For Plaintiff

Christine Taylor Brann, Esquire                                             For Defendant

OPINION BY LONG BRIGHTBILL, J., JUNE 9, 2025:

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Plaintiff, Pamela F.Y. McCarter (“Wife”) and Defendant, Guy R. Moscato (“Husband”) were married on March 20, 1993. On or about March 15, 2012, the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). This Agreement was incorporated, but not merged, into the Final Divorce Decree dated December 27, 2012. Pursuant to the Agreement, Husband was to retain the marital residence located at 1437 Brittany Drive, York, York County, Pennsylvania. Wife was to be removed from all liabilities and liens against the Brittany Drive residence, and was to receive one-half of the net proceeds at the time the property was sold.

            Subsequent to executing the Agreement, the parties agreed not to follow the above cited provision of the Agreement. Instead, Wife purchased her own residence located at 2756 Farnham Lane, York, York County, Pennsylvania, and both parties contributed equally to the outstanding lien obligations on both residences until the Farnham Lane residence and the Brittany Drive residence were sold in 2021 and 2024, respectively.

            When the Farnham Lane property was sold in 2021, the parties equally divided the adjusted net proceeds from the sale. Thereafter, Wife was not removed from the lien against the Brittany Drive property, and continued to contribute equally to that outstanding lien obligation.

            On February 7, 2024, Wife filed a Petition to Enforce Agreement/Petition for Contempt, alleging, inter alia, that Husband had failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement relating to the Brittany Drive property. On May 29, 2024, following a hearing, an Order of Court was entered which provided, in pertinent part:

In reference to the Brittany Drive property, the parties will mutually agree on a real estate agent as soon as possible. The goal is to have the home listed for sale within ninety (90) days after selection of the realtor. Any repairs or improvements suggested by the realtor will only be made if both parties are in agreement. If repairs and/or improvements are made, the parties shall equally share in the cost. The initial list price for the property will be determined by the realtor and any offer to purchase the property, within two (2%) percent of listing price, will be automatically accepted. The proceeds will be divided on a 50-50 basis. Proceeds means after the customary closing costs, payoff of the mortgage, any other loans or lines of credit, as well as credit to the parties for improvements made on any real estate owned by them, have been deducted. The parties shall be responsible for arriving at a formula to be utilized to determine what credit each of them shall receive.

The Brittany Drive property was sold for $545,000.00 on September 30, 2024, yielding net proceeds in the amount of $295,117.39. Pursuant to the Court Order, Husband submitted two requests for credits in the total amount of $121,899.76^[1] to be deducted from Wife’s share of the net proceeds.

Wife did not agree with the credits claimed by Husband, and the parties were not able to agree on an alternative formula to determine the credits to which Husband was entitled. On November 26, 2024, Wife filed a Motion for Status Conference, citing the parties’ inability to agree on the methodology for determining credits. A Status Conference was held on January 15, 2025. At the conclusion of the Conference, both parties were directed to submit a Memorandum setting forth their position on the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the Brittany Drive property, including credits that should be awarded. The parties were instructed to take into consideration the manner of distribution of proceeds from the sale of the Farnham Lane property. The parties have submitted their respective Memoranda, and this matter is now ripe for disposition. 

DISCUSSION

1. The Farnham Lane Property

Wife purchased the Farnham Lane residence in 2013 for approximately $425,000.00. She immediately undertook construction of an addition to enable her mother to reside with her. The costs for the addition totaled approximately $224,000.00.^[2] Wife also made several improvements to the Farnham Lane property, for a total cost of approximately $90,000.00.

On July 30, 2021, Wife sold the Farnham Lane property for $779,000.00, yielding net proceeds in the amount of $412,603.02. Wife incurred $17,886.00 in costs to prepare the Farnham Lane property for sale. From the net proceeds, the following amounts were deducted:

1. $124,000.00 to Wife’s mother, representing her contribution to the addition
2. $143,032.06 to Wife, representing her investment in the increased equity created by the addition and improvements and the expenses in preparation of sale^[3]

After deducting these amounts, the adjusted net proceeds of $145,570.96 were divided equally between Husband and Wife.

2. The Brittany Drive Property

The Brittany Drive property sold for $545,000.00 on September 30, 2024, yielding net proceeds in the amount of $295,117.39.

2. Wife’s Suggested Distribution of Proceeds from Sale of Brittany Drive Property

Wife’s position is that Husband is only entitled to credit for expenses that improved the value of the Brittany Drive property or that were necessary in preparing the property for sale, but not for any expenses related to general repair or maintenance. Wife suggests that Husband should be reimbursed in full for his expenses in preparing the property for sale, just as Wife was reimbursed in full for her expenses in preparing the Farnham Lane property for sale. Wife has calculated Husband’s expenses in preparing the property for sale at $9,534.04. These expenses consist primarily of the purchase of PVC wainscotting panel, mulching and other yardwork, and the installation or repair of various household items, such  as base boards and handrails. According to Wife, the additional credits claimed by Husband represent expenses for general repair or maintenance costs, rather than expenses that increased the value of the Brittany Drive property or were necessary to prepare the property for sale.

Thus, Wife concludes that the amount of $9,534.04 should be deducted from the net proceeds of $295,117.39, resulting in adjusted net proceeds in the amount of $285,583.35. These adjusted net proceeds would then be divided equally between the parties, with each party receiving $142,791.67.

2. Husband’s Suggested Distribution of Proceeds from Sale of Brittany Drive Property

As stated above, the Brittany Drive property sold for $545,000.00, yielding net proceeds in the amount of $295,117.39.^[4] Husband argues he is entitled to expenses incurred for repairs and improvement of the Brittany Drive property after the parties’ separation. According to Husband, this amount is represented by the first credit request in the amount of $112,365.52.^[5] Husband argues that Wife cannot dispute this amount, as he had no opportunity to contest or disapprove of any expenditures Wife deducted from the net proceeds of the Farnham Lane property.

In addition, Husband argues he should receive one-half of the amount expended in preparing the Brittany Drive property for sale, which is reflected  by the second credit request in the amount of $8,443.20. Thus, Husband argues that he is entitled to credits in the amount of $116,587.12 ($112,365.52 + $4,221.60), and that these credits be deducted from Wife’s share of the net proceeds. This would result in Wife receiving $30,971.57 and Husband receiving $264,145.81 of the net proceeds from the sale of the Brittany Drive property.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the Memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court has determined that Husband shall receive full credit for the expenses he incurred in maintaining and improving the Brittany Drive property, as well as for the expenses incurred in preparing the property for sale.

Husband’s initial credit request includes many expenses that go beyond regular maintenance or general repairs and that very plausibly increased the value of the property. Therefore, the Court disagrees with Wife’s position that these expenses primarily relate to general maintenance, for which Husband is not entitled to credit. For instance, Husband replaced the flooring in multiple rooms, including the dining room, living room, and master bedroom. Husband also paid for the installation of new carpets, a new furnace, and a new roof. Moreover, it appears Wife unilaterally determined the amount she should be reimbursed for “her investment in the increased equity created by the addition and improvements” of the Farnham Lane property.  Husband did not have a similar opportunity to contest the expenses that Wife chose to deduct. Therefore, Husband shall be entitled to reimbursement from the net proceeds in the amount of $113,456.56, representing the expenses included in the initial credit request.

Husband’s second credit request related to various expenses incurred in preparing the property for sale. When the Farnham Lane property was sold, Wife was reimbursed in full for her expenses incurred in preparing that property for sale. Therefore, Husband shall be entitled to an additional reimbursement from the net proceeds in the amount of $8,443.20, representing his expenses incurred in preparing the Brittany Drive property for sale.

Thus, from the net proceeds of $295,117.39, Husband shall be reimbursed in the total amount of $121,899.76. The remaining balance of $173,217.63 shall be divided equally between the parties. Any accrued interest earned on the net proceeds of $295,117.39 while these funds have been held by Capstone Reality shall be split equally between the parties.

A concomitant Order will be entered consistent with the foregoing.          

---

[1] Husband submitted two requests for credits. The parties do not agree on the amounts of each. According to Wife, the first request was in the amount of $113,456.56 and the second was in the amount of $8,443.00, while Husband states the first request was in the amount of $112,365.52 and the second in the amount of $8,443.20. After reviewing the exhibits submitted by each party, the Court has determined that the first request was in the amount of $113,456.56 and the second was in the amount of $8,443.20, for a total of $121,899.76. 

[2] Wife’s mother contributed $124,000 to the cost of the addition but was reimbursed in full when the Farnham Lane property was sold in 2021.

[3] Although Wife does not provide the exact formula used to determine the credits to which Wife was entitled, Wife does clarify that she did not include any expenditures for regular maintenance or repairs for general wear of the property.

[4] Husband’s Memorandum states that the net sale proceeds total $295,117.38, rather than the $295,117.39 calculated by Wife. As it appears from the detailed Closing Disclosure statement attached to each parties’ Memorandum that the net sale proceeds were in fact $295,117.39, that is the amount the Court will use to calculate the amount due to each party from the sale of the Brittany Drive property.

[5] As noted above in Footnote 1, Husband’s Memorandum calculates the total of the first credit request at $112,365.52, rather than the $113,456.56.  It appears this amount neglects to include a receipt from Home Depot dated 8/29/2024, for PVC Wainscoting Panel, in the amount of $1,091.04. This receipt is not included in the exhibits attached to Husband’s Memorandum, but it is included in the exhibits attached to Wife’s Memorandum. Based on the receipts, the Court will proceed using $113,456.56 as the amount of Husband’s initial credit request.