Bennett, P. v. Bennett, P.
168 A.3d 238
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Peter and Pamela Bennett divorced in 1995 after ~23½ years of marriage; they executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated (but not merged) into the divorce decree.
- The PSA contained an explicit recital stating each party had "made a full and complete disclosure" and was "informed and familiar with the property, estate and assets" of the other, and released claims to all assets subject to equitable distribution.
- Husband had pension benefits earned during the marriage (pension entered pay status in Oct. 2012); Wife later learned of those benefits and claimed she had not been aware of them when signing the PSA.
- In Sept. 2014 Wife petitioned under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3505(d) for a constructive trust over the undisclosed pension (seeking 50% of past and future marital value), claiming nondisclosure of a marital asset.
- The trial court granted the constructive trust; Husband appealed. The Superior Court reviewed whether the PSA recital of full disclosure could be rebutted and whether Wife proved fraud/misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3505(d) constructive trust may be imposed for pension omitted from distribution | Wife: pension was not disclosed; §3505(d) entitles her to constructive trust over undisclosed marital assets | Husband: PSA recited full disclosure; no required inventory was filed; Wife did not plead fraud; statutory prerequisite not met | Court assumed §3505(d) could apply but reversed constructive trust because record did not support rebuttal of disclosure recital or fraud |
| Effect of PSA recital that "full and complete disclosure" was made — presumption & burden to rebut | Wife: the recital can be overcome because she was unaware of the pension when she signed | Husband: the recital creates a presumption of full disclosure that Wife must rebut by clear and convincing evidence | Court: recital gives presumption of full disclosure; Wife failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Wife proved fraud/misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence (to void PSA recital) | Wife: circumstantial testimony and gaps show Husband withheld info; credibility findings support fraud | Husband: Wife never pled fraud and produced no clear/convincing evidence of the elements required to void the contract | Court: Wife did not plead or prove fraud; trial court’s credibility-based finding of misrepresentation was unsupported; fraud not shown |
| Whether the PSA should be enforced as a contract despite omission of the pension | Wife: enforcement would be unfair because she did not know about pension | Husband: PSA (incorporated but unmerged) is a binding contract and enforceable absent fraud, duress, or misrepresentation | Court: Enforce PSA recital; absent clear and convincing proof of fraud/misrepresentation, parties are bound by agreement; reversed constructive trust |
Key Cases Cited
- Simeone v. Simeone, 581 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1990) (spouses bound by property settlements absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress)
- Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2002) (plurality) (elements required to void a contract for fraudulent misrepresentation)
- Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 2004) (contract interpretation principles; intent from the writing)
- Lugg v. Lugg, 64 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2013) (parties may waive economic disclosure; waiver enforceable even if extent unknown)
- Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061 (Pa. Super. 2005) (a recital of disclosure in a PSA can suffice even without attached financial statements)
- Busch v. Busch, 732 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 1999) (full and fair disclosure requires enough information for an informed decision)
- Colonna v. Colonna, 791 A.2d 353 (Pa. Super. 2001) (without material misrepresentation, court will not examine whether parties understood rights surrendered)
- Creeks v. Creeks, 619 A.2d 754 (Pa. Super. 1993) (failure to include asset in inventory under disclosure clause may trigger constructive trust)
- Berrington v. Berrington, 598 A.2d 31 (Pa. Super. 1991) (non-vested pensions are marital property subject to equitable distribution)
- Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006) (PSAs not merged into decree are governed by contract law)