Radakovich v. Radakovich

846 A.2d 709 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W filed a complaint in divorce averring that H and W were married on November 23, 1974, and have one child, Son, who was then seventeen years old. W sought custody of Son, equitable distribution, spousal support and/or alimony, and possession of the marital residence. W listed in her income/expense statement a PNC brokerage account number 57840375 as an asset belonging to H/Son. The account contained approximately $113,000 and was formed for the purpose of financing Son's post-secondary education. W believed that H and W were joint owners. The Master found W's testimony about joint ownership unbelievable. The master then recommended that the PNC brokerage account number 57840375 be placed in trust for Son, to be given to him when he reaches the age of majority. H filed exceptions to the master's report and wanting an order the PNC brokerage account be placed in trust for Son. W filed exceptions to the master's report wherein she alleged, inter alia, that the master erred in ordering the PNC brokerage account be placed in trust and released to Son when he reached the age of majority, and the master erred in failing to make a recommendation concerning equitable distribution. W asserted that it was never intended that the entire account would be used for Son's educational purposes. The trial court concluded that the account contained $113,825.00 and that the account was primarily established for Son's education. However, the trial court further concluded that Son's education would cost $48,000.00 only, and that the remaining $65,825.00 was marital property subject to equitable distribution. H filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order contending, inter alia, that the court erred in concluding that a portion of the brokerage account was marital property. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on May 25, 2000. H appealed and Son filed a petition to intervene. The trial court granted Son leave to intervene, and W filed a response to Son's petition to intervene. The trial court concluded that Son was not barred from asserting his claim as an intervener and that the PNC brokerage account number 7784-0037 was Son's property under the Pennsylvania Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (PUTMA). W filed an appeal.