Tambria Bower v. Carl R. Bower

I dissent. Although in most instances we agree with the trial courts distribution of marital property, the 92%/8% division espoused by the majority seems to avoid altogether the equitable factor of equitable distribution. While we realize that equitable distribution does not necessarily connote an even partition, Semasek v. Semasek, Pa. Super. 479 A.2d 1047 (1984), Platek v. Platek, 309 Pa. Super. 16, 454 A.2d 1059 (1982), we feel that in this instance one in which neither party contributed the lions share of their modest assets, such disproportionate allotment as that ordered by the trial judge constitutes a clear abuse of judicial discretion.