Brace, C. v. Lyons, D.
827 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Christine M. Lyons (Wife) and Dennis J. Lyons (Husband) divorced; parties executed a Marital Settlement Agreement and a QDRO (11/28/2012) awarding Wife 50% of Husband’s marital portion of his Scranton police pension for marriage years (6/29/1996–6/5/2002) and stating Wife’s right survives Husband’s death.
- Husband retired 10/24/2012 and died 4/10/2015. Wife received pension payments under the QDRO until Husband’s death; the Scranton Police Pension Fund (Pension Fund) then stopped payments citing city ordinances.
- Wife filed a pro se “Motion to Compel the City of Scranton to Comply with the November 28, 2012, QDRO” on 9/4/2015 and named Husband (deceased) as defendant; the trial court issued a show-cause Rule against the City of Scranton.
- The Pension Fund (which asserted it is legally distinct from the City) filed preliminary objections arguing lack of jurisdiction and legal insufficiency; the trial court granted the objections on 4/18/2016 and dismissed Wife’s motion with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Superior Court treated the trial court’s order as final under the unique circumstances and affirmed, reasoning the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the Pension Fund because it was not a named party and Wife did not properly bring the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife is entitled to continued pension payments after Husband’s death under the QDRO | QDRO expressly preserves Wife’s right to benefits after Participant’s death; she should continue to receive payments | Pension Fund relies on city ordinances and contends the Fund is a separate entity and not properly before the court; statutory/ordinance conditions (married 5+ years at retirement and dependency) limit survivor benefits | Court did not reach the substantive merit; dismissed Wife’s motion because the Pension Fund was not a named party and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief |
| Whether the trial court’s 4/18/2016 order was a final, appealable order | Implicitly contested by Wife by filing appeal | Trial court’s order disposed of Wife’s claim as to post-death payments; despite procedural defects, order treated as final under unique facts | Superior Court found the order sufficiently final and reviewed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McCutcheon v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 567 Pa. 470, 788 A.2d 345 (Pa. 2002) (court may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
- In re Adoption of Z.S.H.G., 34 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for appellate jurisdiction and final orders)
- Commonwealth v. Sperry, 577 A.2d 603 (Pa. Super. 1990) (unpublished decisions lack precedential value)
- Commonwealth v. McPherson, 533 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Super. 1987) (same)