author: CAVANAUGH, Judge:

text:
    567 A.2d 303
    Cheryl TOCCO, Appellant, v. John D. TOCCO, Jr., Appellee.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 2, 1989.
    Filed Oct. 12, 1989.
    Reargument Denied Dec. 19, 1989.

      Laurence M. Kelly, Montrose, for appellant.
    Joseph P. Hester, Jr., Montrose, for appellee.
    Before CAVANAUGH, TAMILIA and KELLY, JJ.
   CAVANAUGH, Judge:

The parties involved in this appeal were married on June 18, 1983. They separated in August, 1985. There was a short reconciliation from February, 1986 until August, 1986 when a final separation occurred.

There was a bifurcation of the divorce and equitable distribution proceedings. A divorce decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff below, Cheryl Tocco, and no appeal has been taken from the entry of the divorce decree. A final hearing on the equitable distribution of marital property was held in January, 1988. An order was entered on June 1, 1988 directing distribution and an appeal has been taken to this court from that order.

The marriage of the parties was the second for each. Both parties had two sons from a previous marriage. John Tocco is approximately ten years older than the appellant, Cheryl Tocco, who was about thirty-two years old at the time of the marriage. When the marriage took place, the appellee had an extensive securities portfolio which he had either purchased with his own funds or inherited. He also had a farm in Montrose, Pennsylvania and two other pieces of real estate in New York State, which he rented. The appellant at that time owned a house in Montrose, Pennsylvania and was employed as a personnel manager at Savin Corporation.

After the parties were married, they worked together on appellee’s farm, known as Foxglove Farm, and endeavored to breed and sell Arabian horses. The farm was owned by the appellee at the time of the marriage and after he was married, he purchased several horses. However, the business did not prosper and operated at a loss during the entire time of the marriage. The value of the horses decreased drastically.

Not only did the appellee’s horse farm decrease in value, but his portfolio of securities was drastically reduced. At the time of his marriage, the appellee’s securities were valued well in excess of $1,000,000.00. He owned a great deal of stock in International Business Machine (IBM) and American Telephone & Telegraph (AT & T). In August, 1986, when the final separation took place, the appellee’s securities were worth about $1,800,000.00. However, by March, 1987, the appellee was subject to margin calls as the value of his securities against which he had borrowed money to purchase options, had dropped dramatically. In the spring of 1987, he was forced to sell the balance of his AT & T and IBM stock and the entire proceeds were used toward reducing the outstanding balance in his margin accounts. In August, 1987, the appellee sold additional securities to be used toward reducing his margin account, but even these sales did not satisfy his indebtedness. The appellee’s financial situation further deteriorated as a result of the drastic sell-off in the stock market in October, 1987. By that time, the net value of his securities was reduced to about $350,000.00 which represented a loss of about $1,000,-000.00 in the value of his securities from the time of his marriage.

The appellee’s assets when he married, beside real estate and securities, included horses worth about $350,000.00. However, due to a decline in the market for Arabian horses, the value in January, 1988 was only about $100,000.00. The gross value of the assets which the defendant owned at the time of his marriage was also reduced by his indebtedness to the Endicott Trust Company of New York of some $100,000.00.

The appellant owned a house in Montrose at the time of the marriage and the appellee made substantial improvements on the home. The two rental properties owned by the appellee in Endicott, New York increased in value during the marriage by about $29,000.00 and the appellant was properly awarded $14,500.00 which represented one-half of the increase in the value of the houses.

In reviewing equitable distribution of marital property, we must defer to the decision of the hearing court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Johnson, 365 Pa.Super. 409, 529 A.2d 1123 (1987). The appellant contends that the court below erred in valuing assets as of the date of the hearing on equitable distribution which was January 7, 1988, rather than on the date of the separation of the parties. The Divorce Code does not set forth a specific benchmark date for valuation and it is appropriate for the trial court to select a date which serves to provide for economic justice between the parties. Winters v. Winters, 355 Pa.Super. 64, 512 A.2d 1211 (1986). The date chosen by the court in valuing marital assets will control in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Aletto v. Aletto, 371 Pa.Super. 230, 537 A.2d 1383 (1988). The Supreme Court in Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534 (1988) affirmed the use of the date of equitable distribution for valuing assets rather than the date of the separation of the parties as substantial fluctuation occurred in the value of the assets between the two dates. The court stated at 518 Pa. at 381, 543 A.2d at 536: “It is implicit, however, in the statutory provisions governing equitable distribution that a valuation date reasonably proximate to the date of distribution must, in the usual case, be utilized.”

The court properly valued the parties’ assets as of January 7, 1988 which was the final date of the hearing on equitable distribution. It would have been unrealistic and inequitable in the extreme to use the date of the final separation of the parties in August, 1986 to set a valuation of the husband’s property. There was a capital gain to the appellee on that date with reference to his securities, but it was unrealized. When the securities were ultimately liquidated as a result of a margin call, there was no gain at all and instead, a very large capital loss.

The appellant attributes the capital loss to the appellee’s squandering “a large percentage of his portfolio on the folly of gambling,” and alleges that he “lost over a million dollars in the stock market playing options, which was a gamble.” It is true that the margin calls against the appellee’s brokerage account required the sale of his securities, but the decrease in value of the underlying securities, which were sound investments, was beyond his control. Further, the appellee did well with his investments in options in 1986, although he lost over $1,000,000.00 on options in 1987. The decrease in the value of the appellee’s investments after his marriage was due to market forces beyond his control. While trading in the option market has a high degree of risk, all investments in the stock market involve risk as there is no guarantee that the value of one’s principal will remain constant.

The Pennsylvania Divorce Code 23 Pa.S.A. § 401(e) provides in pertinent part:

(e) For purposes of this chapter only, “marital property” means all property acquired by either party during the marriage, including the increase in value prior to the date of final separation of any nonmarital property acquired pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3), except:
(1) Property acquired prior to marriage or property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage.
(3) Property acquired by gift, except between spouses; bequest; devise; or descent.

Appellant argues that there was an increase of about $550,000.00 in the value of the appellee’s securities from the date of marriage until the date of final separation and that the increase in value represented marital property in which she was entitled to equitable distribution. This argument ignores the reality of the situation. As noted above, the capital gain was unrealized by the appellee and when the securities were ultimately sold, they had a value far less than their value not only on the date of final separation in 1986, but also on the date of the marriage in 1983. The gain as of the date of separation, as far as being marital property, is illusory. When the appellee’s assets were valued at the time of equitable distribution, any gain had vanished. Appellant cannot expect to be awarded a share in an asset that does not exist. In January, 1988 the appellee’s assets were very substantially depleted from what they had been at the time of the marriage. In addition, he was deeply in debt and had to borrow money to meet his current obligations, including support that he was paying to the appellant.

Our en banc decision in Anthony v. Anthony, 355 Pa.Super. 589, 514 A.2d 91 (1986) does not compel a different result. In Anthony, supra, one spouse owned real estate at the time of the marriage which was then worth $43,-500.00 and was valued at $65,000.00 at the time of the parties’ separation. We .affirmed the order of the court below, holding that the increase during the parties’ marriage in the value of the real estate was marital property subject to equitable distribution. However, the property in Anthony had increased in worth at the time of its valuation. We also must read Anthony in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sutliff v. Sutliff, supra, which approves the valuation of assets at the time of equitable distribution. In Aletto v. Aletto, supra, we held that the increase in value of stock owned by the wife at the time of her marriage to the date of hearing on equitable distribution was marital property, and that there was no abuse of discretion in valuing assets as of the date of the hearing rather than the date of separation. Winters v. Winters, supra, involved a situation analogous to our own. The husband had an interest in a trust established by his father, which increased in value after his father’s death. The value of the trust at the date of separation was considerably higher than the value on the date of the equitable distribution hearing. We held that the court below properly valued the trust as of the date of the hearing.

The appellant’s financial picture is, relatively speaking, better than the appellee’s. When she married, she was employed at Savin Corporation which subsequently entered bankruptcy. She owned a home in Montrose, Pennsylvania, which she considered to be the basis of her security. During the marriage, the appellee made improvements on the appellant’s home at his own expense. Further, the appellee’s father presented a gift of $10,000.00 to the appellant so that she could make investments of her own. The appellee also gave the appellant a new Chrysler automobile and the court awarded a Saab automobile to her as part of equitable distribution. Finally, the appellant is now working in a position at a salary higher than she received before her marriage and in the same field of personnel management.

During the marriage, the appellant enjoyed a high standard of living provided for her by the appellee. Her argument that she was a business partner in the operation of Foxglove Farm is not supported by the record. The farm was always owned by the appellee and the parties never entered a partnership agreement, nor did they file a partnership tax return, which they would have been required to do had a partnership existed. Certainly, the appellant helped her husband in running the business but the horse farm always showed a loss during the course of the. marriage. While the parties’ income tax returns showed substantial income during the marriage, at the time of equitable distribution, the appellee’s assets were substantially depleted. Presumably, the parties enjoyed a high standard of living during marriage, but a change in financial circumstances necessitates a corresponding change in one’s living standards.

The purpose of equitable distribution is to make an award that the court deems just, and wide discretion is given to the hearing court. Madden v. Madden, 336 Pa.Super. 552, 486 A.2d 401 (1985). Equitable distribution is to effectuate economic justice. 23 Pa.S.A. § 102(a)(6). The Divorce Code, 23 Pa.S.A. § 401(d) sets forth various factors to be considered by the court in equitably distributing property. The court considered all relevant factors and we discern no abuse of discretion. It included all property that was part of the marital estate and carried out its obligation to allocate the interests therein fairly. Flynn v. Flynn, 341 Pa.Super. 76, 491 A.2d 156 (1985).

Judgment affirmed.

      . The order appealed from by O’Malley, P.J. provided:
      NOW TO WIT, this 1st day of June, 1988, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is awarded the amount of $14,500.00 cash, the valuation of one-half increase of the two rental properties located in Endicott, New York. Plaintiff is also awarded the amount of $5,000 cash, the valuation of Vs interest in the purchased horses. Plaintiff is awarded the Saab automobile. No alimony will be ordered due to the court’s determination on lack of need.

      . Mr. Tocco explained the reasons for decline in value of his horses and horse farm:
      Q. As of the present time, if you were to liquidate these animals, can you indicate to us the value of them — it is my understanding that the value has been somewhat reduced?
      A. It has been greatly reduced.
      Q. Can you explain to the court the circumstances?
      A. I think there are three major reasons why the horse market has fallen so drastically. Number one was that when the horses were so high priced, of course, everybody went out and bred their mares and so within a couple of years we had more supply than demand. The second reason was that the tax changes scared a lot of people and they weren’t sure whether they were going to be able to keep going with their horse farms because you really need to have your tax write offs to have a viable business in the horse business and that scared a lot of people, so people started selling horses right and left and it really brought the market way down and the other is that the horses are always a good hedge in times of inflation and with inflation going down, the horse market also came down. That is the major reason for it.

      . At the time of his marriage, the appellee’s holdings included 5,776 shares of IBM and 8,090 of AT & T.

      . Under the Internal Revenue Code, there is no capital gains tax until a gain is realized by a sale or exchange of property. The tax laws illustrate the folly of attempting to equitably distribute a mere paper gain on an asset that is not present when the asset is sold.

      . Appellee was desirous of entering a pre-marital agreement since he and appellant had previously married and each had two children. The appellant originally agreed to it but then refused to sign the agreement when it was prepared. She testified concerning the agreement:
      We worked out between the two of us, we talked about it. My main concern and my main concern about getting married or anything was security. My security is the property that I purchased for my sons and myself in Montrose. That is why we wanted the pre-nuptial because I was scared that something would happen and we might lose it. We talked about protecting our properties so that they would never come, if anything ever happened that I would still be secure with my own personal property and he would have his personal property in Montrose and that they would never end up in a divorce battle or anything else. That is where that began.
      Mr. Tocco testified that under the proposed pre-marital agreement each party waived his or her right in the assets of the estate of the other party. He testified that the appellant refused to sign, because of the following reason:
      She told me that she gave me her word that she was not in any way interested in any of my money and that basically she felt that we should trust each other and not have to have something like this and I could believe her and take her for her word.

      . The relevant factors to be considered under 401(d) include:
      (1) The length of the marriage.
      (2) Any prior marriage of either party.
      (3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties.
      (4) The contribution by one party to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other party.
      (5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income.
      (6) The sources of income of both parties, including but not limited to medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.
      (7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as a homemaker.
      (8) The value of the property set apart to each party.
      (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.

        (10) The economic circumstances of each party, including Federal, State and local tax ramifications, at the time the division of property is to become effective.
      (11) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any dependent minor children.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: MONTEMURO, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    567 A.2d 308
    Elizabeth O’CALLAGHAN, Appellant, v. William O’CALLAGHAN, Appellee.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Sept. 27, 1989.
    Filed Nov. 20, 1989.
    Reargument Denied Jan. 2, 1990.

      Jane M. Schoener, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Ronald Ervais, Philadelphia, for appellee.
    Before MONTEMURO, KELLY and HESTER, JJ.
   MONTEMURO, Judge:

This is an appeal from a final decree in divorce and equitable distribution.

The parties were married in 1953, and separated in November, 1982, two months after appellant’s Complaint in Divorce was filed. The complaint was predicated upon allegations of adultery, indignities, cruel and barbarous treatment, and irretrievable breakdown. Since the initial pleading, the record has become a repository for accusations of misbehavior filed in various formats by one party against the other; the course of conduct by both parties thus revealed, during the marriage and subsequent to separation, may charitably be termed uncivilized. The excuse offered by both is that each acted only in response to the other’s provocation. Included in the filings have been appellee’s petition for injunctive relief to prevent appellant from harassing his employers, customers, co-workers and suppliers. The trial court’s grant of such relief was affirmed by this court.

Several masters were assigned to the case in succession, and, after three days of hearings held by the fourth and final Master, a recommendation of divorce and allocation of marital property was made. Recourse was had to the trial court on exceptions, culminating in the order now appealed from, which granted the parties a § 201(d) divorce, and allocated to appellant 60% of marital assets equalling $128,162.18.

Appellant first argues that the court’s grant of a divorce under section 201(d) of the Divorce Code was in error. While appellant does not dispute the propriety of a divorce per se, she requests entry of a decree on alternate grounds, e.g., adultery, indignities, or cruel and barbarous treatment, claiming that 201(d) grounds are absent from the pleadings.

The trial court, on the recommendation of the Master, refused to divorce the parties on fault grounds as there is ample evidence in the record to demonstrate that despite appellee’s abusive behavior, appellant was not an injured and innocent spouse, a point which she disputes. Although several times appellant returned violence for violence, expressing regret while testifying that she had not variously shot, stabbed or strangled appellee on those occasions, appellant nevertheless contends that her actions were dictated by a sense of self-preservation. The reason for appellant’s insistence that her own behavior was beyond reproach concerns the award of permanent alimony, which the trial court denied. In her second issue, appellant continues to argue the self-defense theory in advancing her suggested grounds for the divorce.

However, we need not reach the merits of these two arguments as the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for three years subsequent to separation was in fact pleaded by appellee in his Amendment to Answer and Counterclaim, filed December 1, 1987, with affidavit attached, after the Master’s report was filed, but prior to final determination by the court. Our affirmances can depend upon any basis, even if the reasons offered by the trial court for its decision are incorrect, Coatesville Development Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers, AFl-CIO, 374 Pa.Super. 330, 542 A.2d 1380 (1988). Therefore, despite the court’s having overlooked the existence of the particular document raising 201(d) grounds, we find that the three year separation had been presented, and that the court correctly based its decision to terminate the marriage thereon.

Appellant next claims that the court erred in refusing to award her permanent alimony, having failed to consider all the relevant factors as prescribed by the Code. Specifically, appellant urges that her age, education and physical condition militate against the finding that she can engage in gainful employment, particularly to the extent found by the Master.

Preliminarily, we note that our scope of review in assessing the propriety of a grant or denial of alimony is whether the trial court abused its discretion. In the context of alimony determinations proper employment of judicial discretion includes the mandate to apply the Code in a compassionate and reasonable manner, Dyer v. Dyer, 370 Pa.Super. 377, 536 A.2d 453 (1988), so that the overriding goal of effectuating economic justice between the parties may be achieved. Clearly the accomplishment of this purpose requires that we avoid an overly mechanistic application of the factors to be considered. Nuttall v. Nuttall, 386 Pa.Super. 148, 562 A.2d 841 (1989); Williams v. Williams, 373 Pa.Super. 143, 540 A.2d 563 (1988). Absent such abuse, we will not disturb the court’s decision. Miller v. Miller, 352 Pa.Super 432, 508 A.2d 550 (1986).

The parties to this case were married for 29 years, and produced four children, all of whom were emancipated adults at the time of the divorce. Appellant is 56 years old with a high school education, and suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, which has made her progressively disabled. Despite these facts, the Master concluded, and the trial court agreed, that appellant was capable of earning $35,000 per year as a paralegal experienced in immigration work. It was explained that the nature of appellant’s relationship with her former employer, a George Gershenfeld, her counsel until sometime in 1987, was not limited to the usual one of employee to employer, or attorney to client: appellant’s trips, her food bill, her legal representation, and her transportation were provided, items not accounted for by her salary, which as a result, did not reflect her worth. Moreover, Mr. Gershenfeld lived with appellant in the marital residence for over a year, and was co-owner with her of a business, the value of which is also disputed. In the trial court’s view, the limitations imposed by appellant’s medical condition were adequately addressed by having been factored into the award to her of 60% of the marital estate, which it was further concluded, might reasonably be expected to garner a return of 10% or $12,000 per year.

Appellee is a 59 year old college graduate, with some post graduate education, who earns approximately $50,000 per year as a pharmaceutical salesman with Hoffman LaRoche. He testified to being in good health despite the accusations leveled by appellant of his excessive indulgence in alcohol.

Appellant testified that her earnings as a paralegal never exceeded $150 per week, a salary consistent with her physical limitations, although in 1971, when first employed by Mr. Gershenfeld, she received $130 per week. The differential over approximately 13 years is unconvincing given the extensive responsibility of appellant’s position in Mr. Gershenfeld’s law firm. Therefore, we agree that appellant’s past wages in Mr. Gershenfeld’s employ do not accurately reflect her earning power at that time. However, we find unacceptable the Master’s assessment of appellant’s current potential marketability, as it is unsupported by any evidence. Quite the contrary, since the unrebutted testimony concerning appellant’s illness is inconsistent with normal employability; according to medical records seemingly ignored by the Master and the trial court, appellant is clearly hampered by considerably more than “some physical limitation.” (T.C.O. at 14) Even appellee’s counsel noted that appellant may be eligible for Social Security disability payments (N.T. August 11, 1988 at 21, Appellee’s Brief at 9), surely a position inconsistent with the argument that she is fully capable of self-support, and one, moreover, which does not affect appellee’s financial responsibility. Compare, Remick v. Remick, 310 Pa.Super. 23, 456 A.2d 163 (1983). Given these facts, we agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in finding so little impediment to her professional functioning. See, Hess v. Hess, 327 Pa.Super. 279, 475 A.2d 796 (1984).

Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in failing to award her a continuation of her present medical coverage to be maintained by appellee. We agree, but find that the question of appropriate coverage is soluble in conjunction with an award of permanent alimony.

Next appellant contests the award of present value of appellee’s pension, arguing that only the deferred distribution method would assure her some income in the future. However, once an award of permanent alimony is made, appellant’s lack of a current income source will be remedied, leaving the immediate offset method as the more viable plan. As appellant herself is aware, the reason for such a distribution is to “avoid further entanglement between the parties.” Braderman v. Braderman, 339 Pa.Super. 185, 198, 488 A.2d 613, 620 (1985). See also, Hutnik v. Hutnik, 369 Pa.Super. 263, 535 A.2d 151 (1987). The animosity between these parties is extraordinary even by the usual standard of domestic relations cases, and official supervision of alimony payments will be crucial. We see no reason to further burden our courts, and affirm the trial court’s choice of a method of allocating appellee’s pension.

Finally, appellant presents us with several claims relating to the equitable distribution of marital property. These are largely repetitions of arguments made earlier in other contexts but tending toward the same conclusion, viz., the finding as to the amount of return appellant might receive for her share of the marital assets, the finding as to appellant’s employability, and the finding as to her earning potential. One of these claims, however, is worthy of attention, and concerns the valuation of Bet Tee Oh, Ltd., a joint import/export venture of appellant and George Gershenfeld. The record reveals that appellant was the incorporator, sole named shareholder, and president of the corporation which was formed in January, 1982 with an infusion of $10,000 capital. Despite appellant’s disclaimers of involvement with the company, she did travel to the Orient and South America, at least partially on company business. The court notes that although Mr. Gershenfeld represented the company to have made no sales, (his) total investment had been over $100,000.

Appellant’s share of the business to be included as an item of marital property for distribution was assessed by the trial court, adopting the Master’s recommendation, at $5,000. As this finding is borne out by the testimony at hearing, we reject appellant’s challenge to its validity.

Accordingly, having found that the trial court’s dissolution of the marriage on the basis of § 201(d) of the Divorce Code, and its proportional distribution of marital property to be correct, to that extent we affirm the trial court’s actions. Insofar as permanent alimony and medical benefits are concerned, however, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

      . The Master suggested a divorce under section 201(c) of the Code, relating to irretrievable breakdown. However, the trial court found this a procedurally inappropriate basis for dissolving the marriage, as appellant refused to file an Affidavit of Consent as the statute requires.

      . 23 Pa.S. § 201(d)(1). It shall be lawful for the court to grant a divorce where a complaint has been filed alleging that the marriage is irretrievably broken and an affidavit has been filed alleging that the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of at least three years, and that the marriage is irretrievably broken, and:
      (i) the respondent does not deny the allegations set forth in the affidavit; or
      (ii) the respondent denies one or more of the allegations set forth in the affidavit, but after notice and hearing, the court determines that the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of at least three years, and that the marriage is irretrievably broken.

      . We would also note, as did the trial court, that appellant at no time has contested the duration of the separation, and, indeed, testified at the hearing that she had insisted upon appellee’s leaving the marital residence on October 2, 1982. The Decree, entered March 1, 1988, is therefore clearly more than three years subsequent. In addition there was reference made of record to a stipulation, signed by both counsel, to the effect that the requisite separation period had occurred. This document, although apparently filed, does not appear on the docket; its existence is recognized only because transcribed discussion concerning it further supports the propriety of the 201(d) divorce. See, Wiegand v. Wiegand, 363 Pa.Super. 169, 525 A.2d 772 (1987).

      . 23 P.S. § 501. Alimony
      (a) The court may allow alimony as it deems reasonable, to either party, only if it finds that the party seeking alimony:
      (1) lacks sufficient property, including but not limited to any property distributed pursuant to Chapter 4, to provide for his or her reasonable needs; and
      (2) is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment.

        (b) In determining whether alimony is necessary, and in determining the nature, amount, duration, and manner of payment of alimony, the court shall consider all relevant factors including:
      (1) The relative earnings and earning capacities of the parties.
      (2) The ages, and the physical, mental and emotional conditions of the parties.
      (3) The sources of income of both parties including but not limited to medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.
      (4) The expectancies and inheritances of the parties.
      (5) The duration of the marriage.
      (6) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party.
      (7) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because said party will be custodian of a minor child, to seek employment outside the home.
      (8) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.
      (9) The relative education of the parties and the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking alimony to find appropriate employment.
      (10) The relative assets and liabilities of the parties.
      (11) The property brought to the marriage by either party.
      (12) The contribution of a spouse as a homemaker.
      (13) The relative needs of the parties.
      (14) The marital misconduct of either of the parties during the marriage; however, the marital misconduct of either of the parties during separation subsequent to the filing of a divorce complaint shall not be considered by the court in its determinations relative to alimony.