Stremel v. Stremel (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A35014-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN T. STREMEL Appellant v. SHERRI STREMEL Appellee No. 2010 WDA 2011 Appeal from the Decree December 22, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD 07-9218-002 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., ALLEN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. Filed: March 4, 2013 Appellant, John T. Stremel (Husband), appeals from the final decree in divorce and equitable distribution order entered on December 22, 2011, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. After careful review, we affirm. Husband and Appellee, Sherri Stremel (Wife) married on September 9, 1983. Four children were born of the marriage, all of whom are emancipated. Husband is employed by the U.S. State Department and by 1990 the parties began living in Taipei, China in connection with Husband s employment. The parties separated in September 2005 when Husband took an assignment in Afghanistan and advised Wife that the marriage was over. ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A35014-12 Wife returned to the United States in June 2006 and Husband filed a complaint in divorce in December 2007. An evidentiary hearing was held before a Special Master on October 18, 2010, at which evidence and testimony was presented in support of the parties respective claims for equitable distribution of martial property and counsel fees and expenses and Wife s claim for alimony. The Master also received evidence on Husband s claim for counsel fees. On November 5, 2010, the Master submitted her Report and Recommendation after which Husband filed exceptions thereto. The trial court granted Husband s exceptions in part on September 19, 2011. Specifically, the trial court granted Husband s exceptions in regard to Wife s alimony award and reduced Wife s alimony award from $3,500.00 per month for three years to $2,350.00 per month for two years. The trial court dismissed Husband s remaining exceptions. This appeal followed. On appeal, Husband raises the following issues for our review: I. Did the trial court err and/or abuse it s discretion in calculating and awarding alimony to appellee where appellee failed to prepare and attach a budget or current expense statement to her pre-trial statement in accordance with the [t]rial court s pre-trial order of court and where appellee further failed to present any testimony regarding her reasonable needs either in her pre-trial statement or at the time of trial and the Trial Court failed to properly apply the law as set forth in the PA Divorce Code? II. Did the trial court err and/or abuse it s discretion in calculating the marital portion of husband s pension with the federal employees retirement system and awarding -2- J-A35014-12 appellee a portion of appellant s benefits acquired prior to the parties date of marriage? III. Did the trial court err and/or abuse it s discretion in awarding appellee attorney fees where appellee failed to prepare and attach exhibits setting forth the amount of fees to be charged, the basis for the charge, and a detailed explanation of the time expended to her pre-trial statement in accordance with the trial court s pre-trial order of court. IV. Did the trial court err and/or abuse it s discretion in distributing the marital estate 60% to appellee and 40% to appellant where the trial court failed to consider husband s contributions of an inheritance from his mother, appellant s contributions to the preservation of the value of the former marital residence and appellee s depreciation of it, and appellee s receipt of an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of $24,000.00? V. Did the trial court err and/or abuse it s discretion in in failing to a allow husband s counsel to cross-examine appellee with a multi-list agreement signed by appellee contradicting appellee s testimony at trial regarding the fair market value of the former marital residence as it relates to appellee s dissipation of a marital asset? Husband s Brief, at ix. In a divorce matter, an award of alimony, the equitable distribution of marital property, and the decision to award counsel fees are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and these decisions will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. See Smith v. Smith, 749 A.2d 921, 924 (Pa. Super. 2000). After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we find the result reached by the Honorable Michael F. Marmo to be fair, just, and perfectly within the court s discretion considering the many facets of this case. -3- J-A35014-12 Accordingly, we adopt the trial court s opinion in this case and affirm on that basis. See Trial Court Opinion and Order, 4/10/12. Decree affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.