Stacy Baltimore v. Christine Baltimore

Stacy Baltimore v. Christine Baltimore

 

Civil Action-Family Law-Domestic Relations-Alimony Pendente Lite-Purpose-Temporary-Financial Need to Pursue Divorce Action-Factual Finding Regarding Need

 

Defendant (“Wife”) has filed Exceptions to the Report and the Recommendation of the Domestic Relations Master adopted by the Court awarding Plaintiff (“Husband”) alimony pendente lite.  Wife argues that the record fails to demonstrate Husband’s need for alimony pendente lite.

 

1. Alimony pendente lite is based upon the need of one party to have equal financial resources to pursue a divorce action when the other party has major assets that are the financial sinews of domestic warfare.

 

2. Alimony pendente lite is designed to be temporary and is available to a spouse who demonstrates the need for maintenance and professional services during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.

 

3. The financial need of the dependent spouse is a foundational pillar to any award of alimony pendente lite.

 

4. Alimony pendente lite is not designed to equalize the economic resources of the parties.

 

5. A Domestic Relations Master in a case where a spouse is seeking alimony pendente lite must make a finding of fact regarding the need of the spouse for temporary monetary support so that the spouse can litigate the divorce on par with the other spouse.

 

6. In light of the fact that the Domestic Relations Master failed to make a factual finding as to whether Husband had a need for alimony pendente lite, the case is remanded to the Domestic Relations Master for hearing and issuance of a finding in this regard.

 

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2021-50228, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, May 6, 2022.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION

 

            STACY BALTIMORE,                               :           NO. 2021-5-0228

Plaintiff                                                           :           PACSES NO. 115300824
:

1. :

:

CHRISTINE BALTIMORE,                      :

Defendant                                                         :

:

:

 

 

ORDER OF COURT

 

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2022, upon consideration of the Exceptions filed by Defendant, and in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Order of this Court is as follows:

1. This case is to be remanded to the Domestic Relations Master (DRM) for another hearing to be scheduled as promptly as possible.
2. At the hearing on remand, the DRM is to apply the traditional standards governing the award of Alimony Pendente Lite and is to render factual findings regarding the need of Plaintiff for temporary support during the pendency of the parties’ divorce dispute. In addition, the DRM is to render specific factual findings with respect to the need of Plaintiff to receive Alimony Pendente Lite so that he can litigate the divorce dispute “on a par” with the Defendant.
3. Pending the hearing before the DRM on remand, Defendant is to pay to Plaintiff temporary Alimony Pendente Lite in the amount of $393.54 per month.  This amount is determined without prejudice to the ability of both parties to argue for a greater or lesser amount of Alimony Pendente Lite.  It is also rendered without prejudice to the ability of the DRM to determine an appropriate amount of Alimony Pendente Lite retroactive to the date on which Plaintiff filed his request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BY THE COURT:

 

 

 

BRADFORD H. CHARLES

BHC/oeh

 

cc:        Domestic Relations

Christine Baltimore// 462 N. 5^th St. Lebanon, PA 17046

Stacy Baltimore// 3850 Derry St. Apt. 3 Harrisburg, PA 17111

Joshua Harshberger, Esq.// 8150 Derry St. Harrisburg, PA 17111

1. Scot Feeman, Esq.// C/O Feeman Law Offices 815 Cumberland St., Ste. 200 Lebanon, PA 17042

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION

 

            STACY BALTIMORE,                               :           NO. 2021-5-0228

Plaintiff                                                           :           PACSES NO. 115300824
:

1. :

:

CHRISTINE BALTIMORE,                      :

Defendant                                                         :

:

:

APPEARANCES

 

Joshua Harshberger, Esq.                                       For Stacy Baltimore

1. Scot Feeman, Esq.                         For Christine Baltimore

 

OPINION BY CHARLES, J., May 6, 2022

Before us are the Defendant’s exceptions to the findings of the Domestic Relations Master (hereafter, “DRM”). The Defendant avers that a need for Alimony Pendente Lite has not been demonstrated. The Plaintiff counters that the policy surrounding Alimony Pendente Lite is to “equalize the financial resources of the parties.” We author this Opinion to reinforce our holding in Thierwechter v. Thierwechter, C.P.Leb.Co., No. 2021-5-0229 (2022) that a DRM must make a factual finding that a petitioning spouse has demonstrated a need for Alimony Pendente Lite before he/she may be awarded such support.

1. FACTS

Stacy Baltimore (hereafter, HUSBAND”) and Christine Baltimore (hereafter, “WIFE”) married in 1994 and separated in either April or May of 2021. The parties have no children in common. Both are unemployed and receive government assistance. While HUSBAND receives $1,053.00 per month in Social Security. WIFE receives $1,795.40 per month in Social Security, as well as $1,285.81 per month in long-term disability.

HUSBAND filed a Complaint for Support on December 8, 2021. A support conference was held on January 13, 2022. There, HUSBAND was not awarded spousal support. He filed a request for a hearing de novo, which took place on February 23, 2022. At the hearing, the DRM awarded HUSBAND Alimony Pendente Lite (APL) in the amount of $393.54 per month. WIFE filed Exceptions on March 15, 2022.

The parties were directed to appear before this Court for Oral Argument on April 12, 2022. In preparation for Oral Argument, both parties timely filed Briefs in support of their respective positions. WIFE argued that the DRM erred in awarding APL because HUSBAND failed to demonstrate a need for the support. HUSBAND responded that APL is needed because, “When considering the purpose of APL[,] which is to equalize the resources of the parties[,] an award in the amount of about $394.00 does not equalize the resources[—]but it greatly assists Plaintiff to pursue the divorce action.” (See, Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition of Den[d]ant’s Exceptions to Domestic Relations Master’s Report at 2). At Oral Argument, both attorneys for the above-captioned case stipulated that the matter be decided on their Briefs. We author this Opinion to reiterate the governing authority in Lebanon County, which holds that a petitioning spouse must demonstrate a need for APL before a DRM may grant such award.

 

1. DISCUSSION

The policy behind APL is well established. APL is based on the need of one party to have equal financial resources to pursue a divorce proceeding when, in theory, the other party has major assets which are the financial sinews of domestic warfare. DeMasi v. DeMasi, 597 A.2d 101, 104 (Pa. Super. 1991) (emphasis supplied). Specifically, “APL focuses on the ability of the individual who receives the APL during the course of the litigation to defend her/himself, and the only issue is whether the amount is reasonable for that purpose, which turns on the economic resources available to the spouse.” Id. at 105.

Moreover, APL is not an entitlement. Nemoto v. Nemoto, 620 A.2d 1216, 1221 (Pa. Super. 1993). Rather, APL is designed to be temporary and is available to those who demonstrate the need for maintenance and professional services during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Ileiwat v. Labadi, 233 A.3d 853 (Pa. Super. 2020). “The basis for granting alimony pending divorce proceedings is the need of the wife and her inability to support herself and to maintain or defend the suit–in other words, her destitute condition–and this condition must be shown.” Wertman v. Wertman, 62 Pa. D. & C. 286, 287 (Schuylkill Co. 1948) citing 15 Standard Pa. Practice, 382, § 464.

Most recently, this Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the purpose that APL holds in Lebanon County. In Thierwechter v. Thierwechter, supra, we were asked to determine whether spousal support and APL were subsumed into one another by virtue of the newest iteration of the Pennsylvania Rules of Court.  We undertook a comprehensive analysis of the traditional purpose of both APL and spousal support.  We also examined the new Rules of Civil Procedure and what our Commonwealth’s highest court said when those Rules were adopted.  We ultimately declared that spousal support and APL remain separate and distinct remedies that must be analyzed separately and with the distinct purposes that serve as the foundation for each.  Ultimately, we declared in Thierwechter that the financial need of the obligee spouse is a foundational pillar to any award of APL.

HUSBAND’s position that the purpose of APL is to “equalize the resources of the parties” is starkly in contrast to the law in Pennsylvania as applied in Lebanon County. The difference between our holding in Thierwechter and HUSBAND’s argument is dramatic.  Indeed, advocating for income equalization, HUSBAND effectively seeks equitable distribution via an APL process that is designed “merely” to afford an obligee spouse with assistance in litigating the economic issues that are in dispute.  To adopt HUSBAND’s argument would offend the traditional notion that equitable distribution is only allowed after divorce proceedings have finalized. See e.g., Reese v. Reese, 506 A.2d 471, 474 (Pa. Super. 1986) (equitable distribution prior to divorce decree is improper). We are not persuaded by HUSBAND’s argument that APL is to function as an economic equalizer of the parties’ finances, and we will thus respectfully reject HUSBAND’s interpretation of the policy behind APL.  Stated plainly, we again hold today that the APL is designed to provide a petitioning spouse with temporary monetary support so that he/she may litigate the divorce dispute “on a par” with the other spouse.

With the purpose of APL in mind, we turn to WIFE’s Exception that the DRM erred in awarding HUSBAND with APL because HUSBAND failed to demonstrate a need for APL. In Thierwechter, this Court held:

… APL retains its position in domestic relations jurisprudence as an independent form of relief.  As such, a DRM hearing an APL dispute must make findings of fact regarding the need of the petitioning party for temporary monetary support so that he/she can litigate the divorce dispute “on a par” with the other spouse.

Thierwechter, supra at 12. The DRM herein did not make a factual finding as to whether HUSBAND has a need for APL. Accordingly, the DRM erred in this respect. To remedy this, we will order a factual hearing be conducted by the DRM.

 

 

III.       CONCLUSION

In determining whether a spouse shall be awarded APL, he/she must first demonstrate that he/she is in need of the monies for the purpose of litigating the divorce with the other spouse. As outlined above, HUSBAND’s contention that APL is designed to equalize the economic resources of the parties is inconsistent with the historic purpose of APL.  We will today uphold the traditional notion of the purpose of APL and reject HUSBAND’s argument.

As we emphasized in Thierwechter, supra, any request for APL must past a threshold test that focuses on the need of the obligee spouse.  In this case, the DRM did not render any Findings of Fact with respect to HUSBAND’s need for APL.  Thus, we cannot, based upon the record now before us, determine that APL is or is not appropriate.  Because of the deficiency of the record, we will remand for another proceeding at which the DRM will be directed to articulate a specific finding of need on the part of HUSBAND.  If and only if the DRM determines that HUSBAND has a financial need in order to litigate the divorce, then the amount of APL can be determined in accordance with Pennsylvania’s Support Guidelines.