Bienert, E. v. Bienert, S.
168 A.3d 248
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Eric and Suzanne Bienert separated March 1, 2014; they signed a Marital Property Agreement (MPA) on March 20, 2014 allocating assets (boat to Wife; house to Husband). The MPA stated it finally settled all rights and could be incorporated into a divorce decree.
- Husband filed for divorce March 26, 2014 and the trial court entered the Agreement as an order March 27, 2014.
- Wife (with counsel) later sought alimony pendente lite; she argued the Agreement did not cover such relief. The court denied her petition on February 18, 2015, concluding the Agreement was a final settlement barring support claims absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress.
- Wife’s counsel withdrew; Wife, pro se, filed multiple petitions to enforce the Agreement and succeeded on several. She later asserted duress/misrepresentation defenses in pleadings and at an August 28, 2015 hearing, but the court found those challenges untimely because prior rulings had relied on the Agreement.
- Wife obtained new counsel and, on June 9, 2016, filed a counseled petition to void the MPA alleging duress, fraud, and mutual mistake. The trial court denied the petition June 13, 2016 without a hearing, explaining the issue had been previously ruled upon. Wife appealed; trial court entered final divorce decree September 29, 2016. Wife appealed the denial of the June 2016 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Wife’s petition to void the MPA without an evidentiary hearing | Wife: she was induced to sign by duress, fraud, misrepresentation and mutual mistake and thus was entitled to a hearing to prove invalidity | Husband: no entitlement to a hearing; Wife is barred by prior litigation positions, equitable doctrines, and precedent binding parties to agreements | Court: No abuse of discretion — denial affirmed because Wife previously litigated and relied on the Agreement and raised validity too late; law-of-the-case / judicial estoppel principles justified no new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Foley v. Foley, 572 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 1990) (vacated decree where spouse was denied a fair opportunity to litigate economic claims due to intimidation)
- Simeone v. Simeone, 581 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1990) (spouse bound by terms of agreement; validity not excused by failure to read or fairness concerns)
- Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 (1912) (articulation of the law-of-the-case doctrine refusing to reopen decided matters)
- Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (discussing purposes and limits of the law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Ligon v. Middletown Area Sch. Dist., 584 A.2d 376 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (judicial estoppel bars parties from asserting positions inconsistent with those successfully maintained earlier in the same litigation)