Elliott, G. v. Elliott, M.
69 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Parties married in 1990, separated in 2012; two adult children. Wife sought spousal support in 2013.
- August 12, 2013 support order set Husband’s monthly net income at $5,260.76 and required $1,610/month support; order included a legal notice requiring parties to report material changes in income within seven days. Husband acknowledged receipt.
- Wife later discovered at a 2015 equitable-distribution hearing that Husband’s 2013–2014 income from his company A&E Electric, Inc. was substantially higher than reported; Wife promptly filed a modification petition on March 9, 2015.
- The Master found Husband’s monthly net income to be $4,142.57 and recommended support of $1,170/month (no retroactive arrears); the trial court adopted the Master’s report and declined to award retroactive arrears, citing hardship and no intentional misrepresentation.
- Wife appealed, arguing Husband failed to report a material income increase as required by law and seeking retroactive arrears to the date Husband first failed to report his higher income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elliott) | Defendant's Argument (Elliott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive spousal support arrears may be imposed when obligor failed to report a material income increase | Husband had a statutory duty to report income increases and failed to do so; Wife promptly filed when she learned, so retroactive arrears are proper | Trial court found no intentional misrepresentation and that retroactive arrears would cause hardship, so refused retroactive relief | Reversed and remanded: trial court misapplied law; remand to determine when Husband first failed to report and make arrears retroactive to that date |
| Whether an intent requirement is necessary to trigger duty-to-report consequences | Duty to report is mandatory within seven days; no intent element required for triggering retroactive modification analysis | Trial court imposed an intent requirement (must intentionally misrepresent) before retroactive arrears | Court held no intent requirement exists in the duty-to-report statute or notice; intent not required to justify retroactive modification where duty was breached |
| Whether the trial court may deny retroactivity because obligor later suffered business decline | Husband’s later business decline and reduced earning capacity justify denying retroactive arrears | Wife argued decline does not excuse earlier failure to report increased income | Court held subsequent business decline does not eliminate the fact of prior failure to report; remand to calculate retroactivity despite post-increase decline |
| Standard and timing for retroactive modification under 23 Pa.C.S. § 4352(e) | Wife promptly filed upon learning; statute allows retroactivity to earlier date if petitioner was precluded by misrepresentation | Husband did not dispute prompt filing but argued no misrepresentation/compelling reason | Court applied statute and precedent (Krebs) instructing retroactivity to date of first failure to report when duty existed and was breached |
Key Cases Cited
- Diament v. Diament, 816 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of appellate review for spousal support; reversal only for abuse of discretion)
- Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768 (Pa. Super. 2008) (duty under §4353 to notify of income increases; failure to notify can justify retroactive modification)
- Brickus v. Dent, 5 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2010) (modification is ordinarily retroactive to date modification was sought unless court states reasons for denying retroactivity)