125 A.3d 792
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Edward Egan (Husband) and Rachel Egan (Wife) divorced in Maryland in 2002; the Maryland decree awarded specified child support and alimony payments. Husband registered that foreign judgment in Montgomery County, PA in 2004.
- In 2005 the parties executed a stipulation transferred to the Pennsylvania court: Wife accepted $7,000 to extinguish arrears; Husband agreed to pay $1/month alimony through June 2012 and then $3,000/month thereafter until death, remarriage, or cohabitation. The stipulation was adopted as a court order.
- The stipulation included a clause that an alimony increase tied to a voluntary child-support reduction would not be subject to judicial modification, reflecting the parties’ use of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105 language.
- Husband petitioned to modify alimony in 2013; the trial court concluded the adopted stipulation was not subject to judicial modification under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(c) and denied relief. At a later hearing the court found Husband in contempt and ordered back payments and continuation of $3,000/month alimony.
- Husband appealed, arguing that a post-judgment stipulation modifying court-ordered alimony should be subject to modification under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(e); he also challenged the contempt finding and claimed the payment obligation unreasonably impaired his standard of living.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stipulation modifying a prior court alimony order is subject to judicial modification under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(e) | Stipulation only covered alimony and was entered post-divorce; § 3105(c) should not apply, so § 3701(e) allows modification for changed circumstances | The stipulation is an agreement regarding alimony; § 3105(c) bars judicial modification absent express reservation | The court held § 3105(c) governs such stipulations; the adopted agreement is not judicially modifiable absent express language permitting modification |
| Whether an indefinite alimony stipulation that modifies prior court-ordered alimony becomes permanent and not subject to modification | Stipulation should remain modifiable because it merely altered a prior court disposition | Stipulation is a private agreement re alimony and is insulated from court modification under § 3105(c) unless it permits modification | Held that an agreement on alimony can be non-modifiable under § 3105(c); parties may contract to preclude judicial modification |
| Whether § 3105(c) applies only to comprehensive pre-divorce marital settlement agreements | § 3105(c) should be limited to broader settlement agreements made at divorce; not to later narrow stipulations | § 3105(c)’s plain language applies to any agreement provision regarding alimony unless the agreement expressly allows modification | Court rejected Husband’s limiting construction and applied § 3105(c) to the 2005 stipulation |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Husband in contempt and ordering continued $3,000/month alimony | Husband claimed inability to comply and that the award denied him a reasonable standard of living | Wife urged enforcement of the clear court-adopted stipulation; Husband failed to prove present inability to comply | Court found Husband violated the order, his evidence of inability was unpersuasive, and his post-contempt income left him above poverty; contempt finding and alimony order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McMahon v. McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. 1992) (discussing § 3105(c) codification and nonmodifiable agreement principles)
- DeMatteis v. DeMatteis, 582 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 1990) (protecting contractual rights in marital settlement agreements)
- Lawson v. Lawson, 940 A.2d 444 (Pa. Super. 2007) (alimony determinations governed by statutory factors)
- Levine v. Levine, 520 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1987) (recognizing changed circumstances may warrant alimony modification)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (civil contempt requires proof of order violation and allows alleged contemnor to show present inability to comply)
- Mazurek v. Russell, 96 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate review standard for contempt determinations)