Background
J-S23011-26 2026 PA Super 158 DOLORES DUGAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : MATTHEW DUGAN : No. 3167 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered November 7, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Domestic Relations at No(s): CV-2025-00613, PACSES: 57030337 BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. * OPINION BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED JULY 23, 2026 Dolores Dugan (Wife) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, denying her de novo appeal in this support matter.1 After careful review, we affirm. Wife and Appellee Matthew Dugan (Husband) were married on December 23, 1989, and separated on January 15, 1997. Husband continued to support Wife financially for more than 27 years following their separation. In July 2024, Wife began living at Revelle Senior Living Nursing Home. In September 2024, the parties sold the marital home for $300,000.00. Wife ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Because neither of the parties have filed for divorce, the court’s November 7, 2025 order is appealable. Super. 1996) (spousal support order not appealable until all economic issues as part of divorce action have been resolved).
tition to modify support because no support order had ever been entered. De Novo Support Hearing, 10/14/25, at 43. -2- J-S23011-26 Following an August 7, 2025 support hearing, a hearing officer entered the following order dismissing Wife’s claim for support: Jennifer Munroe[,] [Agent] for [Wife,] was present. Parties are still married and no divorce action was initiated despite being separated for over 28 years. The parties were together as husband and wife for approximately 8 years. The parties owned real estate that recently sold and [Wife] retained the proceeds from the sale of approximately $300,000.00[.] [Wife] is currently residing in a nursing care facility and has social security income of approximately $1,500.00 per month. [Husband] receives approximately $4,000.00 per month in social security benefits and receives a draw or salary of approximately an additional $4,000.00 per month. Arguments were made regarding entitlement to spousal support with supporting law[. W]hile it appears that [Wife] is entitled[,] pursuant to the statute[,] to file for spousal support[,] the facts of this case[,] specifically related to the length of marriage, the separation of the parties for 28 years[,] and the support/assets received [by Wife] over 28 years[,] the equities and fairness inherent in these requests dictate[] that the petition for support be dismissed. On October 14, 2025, the trial court held a de novo support hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11(i). At the hearing, Husband, who was seventy years old, provided documentation of payments he voluntarily made to Wife over the prior seven years, totaling over $500,000.00. 5 See N.T.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held the matter under advisement and ordered the parties to submit briefs on the issue of whether Husband’s post-separation payments to Wife constituted a gift and whether the sale of the parties’ marital home is considered income. On November 7, 2025, following the parties’ submission of post-hearing memoranda, the court entered an order denying Wife’s support claim. The order states: The parties were married a total of eight (8) years, yet they have been separated for twenty-eight (28) years. Since separation, nearly all twenty-eight (28) years, [Husband] has made payments towards [Wife’s] personal expenses totaling several hundred[s of] thousand[s] of dollars. Thus, [Husband] has provided support to [Wife] in excess of three (3) times the length of the marriage. Moreover, in 2024, [Wife] received funds in an amount slightly in excess of $300,000[.00] from the sale of jointly owned property, of which [Husband] did not receive a share of the sale proceeds. Order, 11/7/25. -4- J-S23011-26 Wife filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held the matter under advisement and ordered the parties to submit briefs on the issue of whether Husband’s post-separation payments to Wife constituted a gift and whether the sale of the parties’ marital home is considered income.
- On November 7, 2025, following the parties’ submission of post-hearing memoranda, the court entered an order denying Wife’s support claim.
- The order states: The parties were married a total of eight (8) years, yet they have been separated for twenty-eight (28) years.
Why It Matters
Superior Court affirms the denial of spousal support after decades of voluntary payments Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.