Breuner, L, v. Breuner, S. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A11034-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA LAUREL BREUNER Appellant v. STEVEN BREUNER Appellee No. 1262 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered July 10, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): FD 08-007487 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 Appellant, Laurel Breuner ( Wife ), appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which classified as marital debt a ninety thousand dollar ($90,000.00) loan made to Appellee, Steven Breuner ( Husband ), during the parties marriage, in this single issue, nonjury trial following settlement of an equitable distribution proceeding ancillary to a divorce decree granted to the parties on November 11, 2011. We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Wife raises one issue for our review: J-A11034-14 WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT AN ALLEGED INTRA FAMILY LOAN CONSTITUTED A MARITAL DEBT SUBJECT TO PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION OR ANY MARITAL BENEFIT. (Wife s Brief at 12). We review equitable distribution matters as follows: Our standard of review in equitable distribution matters is limited. It is well established that absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we will not reverse an award of equitable distribution. In addition, when reviewing the record of the proceedings, we are guided by the fact that trial courts have broad equitable powers to effectuate economic justice and we will find an abuse of discretion only if the trial court misapplied the laws or failed to follow proper legal procedures. Further, the finder of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and the Superior Court will not disturb the credibility determinations of the court below. Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773, 780 (Pa.Super. 2003) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Christine A. Ward, we conclude Wife s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 3, 2013, at 4-11) (finding: parties agreed to 50/50 division of marital assets and debts; at July 12, 2012 hearing to determine whether $90,000.00 loan Husband s father, Mr. Breuner, made during parties marriage constituted marital debt, court heard testimony from Mr. Breuner s attorney, Mr. Breuner s accountant, -2- J-A11034-14 Husband, and Wife;1 Mr. Breuner s attorney and Mr. Breuner s accountant each confirmed Mr. Breuner s loan and Mr. Breuner s expectation that loan would be repaid; Mr. Breuner s accountant also explained no payments had been made on loan at time of Mr. Breuner s death, and Mr. Breuner had not forgiven loan; Husband testified he borrowed $90,000.00 from his parents to renovate marital home, Wife knew of loan, Wife thanked Husband s parents for loan, and Wife arranged for further renovations after learning of loan; Wife claimed she did not know of loan until October 2011, and did not authorize loan; court found credible Husband s evidence that Mr. Breuner made loan during parties marriage so they could renovate marital home, that both parties knew of loan, and that Husband and Wife used loan to finance home renovations; following July 12, 2012 hearing, court decided loan constituted marital debt subject to parties equitable distribution agreement; following Wife s motion for reconsideration alleging new evidence, court expressly granted reconsideration and held reconsideration hearing on May 13, 2013; Husband made strong argument that Wife s proposed evidence did not constitute new evidence to warrant reopening record; nevertheless, assuming arguendo Wife s proposed evidence was new, Wife still failed to establish loan was not marital debt; parties contractor testified at reconsideration hearing that parties paid him for ____________________________________________ 1 Mr. Breuner was deceased at the time of the hearing. -3- J-A11034-14 renovations to marital home from their business account; court found this evidence unpersuasive to demonstrate parties did not use loan proceeds to pay for renovations, where parties failed to meticulously differentiate between their business and personal accounts; regarding Wife s attempt to impeach Husband s testimony, court resolved inconsistency in testimony in favor of Husband; parties execution of waiver and release concerning their business litigation does not release Wife from obligation to repay loan; parties used their business account to pay for renovations to marital home, but court deemed those renovations personal, and not business-related subject to waiver and release ; $90,000.00 loan is marital debt subject to parties 50/50 equitable distribution arrangement).2 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. ____________________________________________ 2 Wife also claims the court improperly considered certain hearsay testimony when rendering its decision. Wife did not raise this issue in her courtordered Rule 1925(b) statement; thus, it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005) (holding any issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived on appeal); Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating rules of appellate procedure apply to criminal and civil cases alike). -4- J-A11034-14 Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 -5-

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.