Divorce • Equitable Distribution • Indispensable Party

Fagnilli v. Fagnilli, PICS Case No. 17-0832 (C.P. Lawrence Feb. 14, 2017) Hodge, J. (20 pages).

Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, the court refused to disturb its finding that the parties' adult daughter, who was unjustly enriched by a mortgage fraudulently obtained by wife on the parties' marital property, was an indispensable party to this divorce proceeding. The court denied wife's exceptions in part.

Husband and wife were married in 1979 and separated in early 2011. Husband filed a complaint in divorce on Feb. 24, 2012. Thereafter, he successfully sought to have the parties' adult daughter, Debbie LaScola, joined as an additional defendant. Husband alleged that wife had fraudulently obtained a mortgage on their marital residence to pay LaScola's own mortgage on her residence. A master then conducted equitable distribution hearings and concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly established that during the marriage, wife forged husband's name on a mortgage associated with the marital property in 2007 without husband's knowledge or consent. Wife obtained a mortgage of $88,439 and used about $69,000 to pay a mortgage encumbering LaScola's home. The testimony established the wife used the remainder of the funds to pay certain marital debt of $6,900 and retained about $10,600 in cash. Since no one was paying the mortgage, the lender filed a foreclosure action. As of June 2016, $116,396 was owed on the mortgage. The master recommended that husband retain a camp property, his 401(k) account, a life insurance policy and an ATV. He also recommended that wife retain a car, and the $10,600 in cash she kept from the mortgage financing. The master recommended that husband pay wife $10,760 to balance out the estate. However, he felt that LaScola had been unjustly enriched and, therefore, recommended that LaScola compensate husband $27,921. The master offset the $10,760 husband owed wife with the $27,921 LaScola owed husband, concluding that LaScola should pay husband $17,161. Both husband and wife filed exceptions. Wife argued, inter alia, that the master erred in finding LaScola liable for payments to husband as a result of the money she used to pay LaScola's mortgage. The Court of Common Pleas noted however, that in response to an earlier motion for summary judgment filed by LaScola, it had filed an opinion and order denying a motion which argued that LaScola was not an indispensable party. The court found that due to wife's fraudulent procurement of a mortgage on the marital property and provision of the funds to LaScola to pay her own mortgage, LaScola's residence could be characterized as marital property, rendering LaScola an indispensable party. Since the court previously addressed and ruled upon the issue raised, the law of the case doctrine applied. Therefore, the court refused to change its previous ruling regarding LaScola's status as a party to the action. A trial court has wide latitude to see that justice is done in divorce proceeding. The court found sufficient evidence to support the master's conclusion that wife fraudulent obtained the mortgage on the marital property and used the funds to unjustly enrich LaScola. As such, the court denied wife's exception on this issue.

Divorce • Equitable Distribution • Indispensable Party

Fagnilli v. Fagnilli, PICS Case No. 17-0832 (C.P. Lawrence Feb. 14, 2017) Hodge, J. (20 pages).