182 A.3d 464
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Beverly Cunningham sued Alvin Cunningham for failing to make periodic payments required by a Post-Nuptial Family Trust Agreement executed in 1996 (the Agreements). The Agreements were not incorporated into the divorce decree.
- Beverly alleged the Trust required annual payments (equating to $20,000/year with CPI increases) and moved to enforce the Agreements after payments ceased in August 2011.
- Trial court previously entered interim judgment for arrearages and ordered Alvin to resume monthly payments; Alvin repeatedly asserted the Trust was insolvent from market losses and that he lacked ability to pay.
- At the contempt hearing, the court found Alvin owned valuable real estate that he had later placed in tenancy by the entireties after remarriage, and concluded the transfers were fraudulent attempts to evade his obligations.
- The court found Alvin willfully disobeyed prior orders, held him in civil contempt, set a $111,666.66 purge amount due within 60 days, and conditioned 60 days’ jail on failure to purge. Alvin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly found Alvin in civil contempt for failing to make Trust payments | Beverly: court may enforce the Agreements and hold Alvin in contempt for nonpayment | Alvin: lack of present ability to pay (Social Security income), so contempt improper | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; Alvin failed to prove inability to pay and willfulness was found |
| Whether court had authority to use contempt/coercive incarceration to enforce a private agreement not merged into divorce decree | Beverly: Divorce Code permits enforcement of post‑divorce agreements as court orders | Alvin: private contract cannot be enforced by incarceration (imprisonment for debt) | Affirmed — under 23 Pa.C.S. §§3105 and 3502, agreements after 1988 may be enforced by contempt and conditional incarceration |
| Whether procedural/due process protections were violated by contempt process and 60‑day purge deadline | Beverly: Alvin had notice and full opportunity to be heard | Alvin: procedural due process violated; 60‑day purge deadline unreasonable | Affirmed — procedural steps and opportunity to be heard satisfied; deadline permissible as coercive purge condition where ability to pay found |
| Whether Alvin could satisfy purge by conveying his half interest in the marital home | Alvin: offered deed of his half interest so Beverly could sell and obtain proceeds | Beverly: would leave her homeless and is not legally required to accept conveyance in lieu of payment | Affirmed — trial court properly rejected the offer; no legal mandate to accept such conveyance as purge |
Key Cases Cited
- Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of appellate review for civil contempt)
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements of civil contempt: notice, volitional act, wrongful intent)
- Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 664 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 1995) (Divorce Code amendments permit enforcement of private agreements as court orders and incarceration for civil contempt)
- Barrett v. Barrett, 368 A.2d 616 (Pa. 1977) (contemnor bears burden to prove present inability to comply)
- Knoll v. Uku, 154 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2017) (fraudulent transfer principles applicable to entirety property transfers in fraud of creditors)
- Garden State Standardbred Sales Co. v. Seese, 611 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 1992) (limits on using entireties property to satisfy a single spouse’s creditor absent fraudulent transfer)