Cherkas, J. v. Cherkas, D.
Cherkas, J. v. Cherkas, D. No. 2249 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Manufacture: married 2005, separated 2011; daughter M.C.;
- PSA executed March 22, 2011; SPSA executed June 24, 2013; divorce decree 2013 incorporating PSA/SPSA.
- Wife files Motion to Enforce Marital Settlement Agreement April 10, 2015; Husband answers May 1, 2015.
- Two hearings: November 6, 2015 and May 4, 2016; trial court issues June 14, 2016 order.
- Court awards $3,000 unallocated monthly support; declines downward modification per PSA.
- Husband appeals challenging guidelines use, downward modification, and need-based analysis for unallocated support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May trial court apply guidelines post-divorce? | Cherkas argues guidelines inappropriate after divorce; alimony pendente lite not applicable. | Cherkas argues PSA requires modification; guidelines misapplied. | No error; guidelines properly considered. |
| Did court err in not downward-modifying under PSA? | PSA allows downward modification upon substantial change; income below $500k triggers the clause. | Modification not mandatory; guidelines show a higher obligation than PSA; court acted within discretion. | Court did not abuse discretion; no downward modification warranted. |
| Must Wife show need to keep unallocated $3,000? | Wife should prove need to continue receiving her share. | Agreement does not require need demonstration for continued payment. | Need demonstration not required; provision remains unallocated support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaccarello v. Vaccarello, 757 A.2d 909 (Pa. 2000) (contract governs matrimonial settlement agreements)
- Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 2004) (contract interpretation governs actions involving settlements)
- Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (limits on trial court role in contract disputes)
- Lang v. Meske, 850 A.2d 737 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (intent of parties when interpreting contracts)
- Osial v. Cook, 803 A.2d 209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (contract interpretation principles)
- Brosovic v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 841 A.2d 1071 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (contract language controlling interpretation)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (shall vs. modifiable language in contracts)