Salvati, J. v. Salvati, M. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S59026-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOHN V. SALVATI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. MILISSA C. SALVATI Appellee No. 417 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered January 11, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Domestic Relations at No(s): 1031 DR 2001 & 8194 CV 2009 BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 04, 2013 Appellant, John V. Salvati, ( Husband ) appeals from the order denying his exceptions to the award of alimony to Appellee, Milissa C. Salvati ( Wife ). After careful review, we affirm. Husband and Wife were married in 1992, had three children during their marriage, and separated in 2009, when Wife moved out of the marital residence. Wife took custody of the youngest child, while the two older children remained in Husband s custody at the marital home. During the final years of the marriage, Husband worked in the insurance industry, with gross earnings of approximately $110,000 annually, while Wife worked as a ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S59026-13 teacher s aide earning $15.00 per hour for approximately 35 hours per week. Husband filed a complaint in divorce in 2009, and Wife filed an Answer and Counterclaim with New Matter shortly thereafter. Husband and Wife entered an agreement regarding equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, and that the value of the marital home would be established by an appraisal by a named realtor. As a result, the issues presented to the divorce master were limited to alimony and payment of Wife s counsel fees, costs, and expenses by Husband. Ultimately, the divorce master awarded Wife $1,275.00 per month in alimony for 36 months and $3,000.00 in counsel fees and costs. Husband filed exceptions to the master s report, which the trial court subsequently denied. Husband then filed this timely appeal. On appeal, Husband raises 5 issues, the first 4 of which challenge the award of alimony to Wife. Our standard of review pertaining to an award of alimony is as follows: The role of an appellate court in reviewing alimony orders is limited; we review only to determine whether there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Absent an abuse of discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order, this Court will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court. Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). An award of alimony aims to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate -2- J-S59026-13 employment, are met. Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor s ability to pay. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Pursuant to the Divorce Code, when determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those statutorily prescribed at 23 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 3701, Alimony, (b) Relevant Factors (1)-(17). See Smith, 904 A.2d at 20; Isralsky, 824 A.2d at 1188. With our standard of review in mind, we have examined the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the trial court s opinion, and the applicable law, and we find that the trial court ably addressed the first four issues Husband presents on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s well-written memorandum opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/21/2012. In his fifth and final issue on appeal, Husband challenges the award of counsel fees to Wife. This Court s scope of review for the award or denial of counsel fees is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion, or committed an error of law. See Prozzoly v. Prozzoly, 475 A.2d 820, 823 (Pa. Super. 1984). Thus, a determination regarding counsel fees will be altered only when the judgment of the trial court is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of prejudice, bias or ill-will. Jayne, 663 A.2d -3- J-S59026-13 at 174 (citation omitted). Generally, [c]ounsel fees are not awarded automatically and the petitioning spouse must show actual need before such an award is justified. Counsel fees are appropriate when necessary to put the parties on par in defending their rights or in allowing an action for divorce. Kohl v. Kohl, 564 A.2d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 1989) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Similar to Husband s first four issues on appeal, we have reviewed the relevant record and law, and find that the trial court s memorandum opinion thoroughly and ably addresses Husband s challenge to the award of counsel fees. Accordingly we affirm on the basis of the trial court s well-written memorandum. See id. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/4/2013 -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.