Hanrahan, M. v. Bakker, J.
151 A.3d 195
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Formerly married attorneys (Father Michael Hanrahan; Mother Jeanne Bakker) share joint custody of two children; their 2009 Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) tied annual child support recalculation to Pennsylvania Guidelines.
- Father’s income spiked dramatically in 2012 (~$15.6M); he deposited $2.5M into an irrevocable non‑grantor trust for the children and continued certain support/payments (tuition, activities).
- Mother petitioned to enforce the PSA (Dec. 2013); trial court held a hearing (Jan. 2015) and issued an amended order (June 1, 2015) increasing monthly support for 2013–2014 and directing Mother to create separate PUTMA custodial accounts and deposit $30,000/month into them.
- Trial court also granted a $2.5M downward deviation based on Father’s trust contribution and denied Mother’s attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it reversed the PUTMA requirement, vacated the downward deviation based on the trust, instructed reevaluation of the standard‑of‑living factor without regard to post‑minority lifestyle, and ordered Mother’s attorney’s fees awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could require Mother to deposit awarded child support into PUTMA custodial accounts | PUTMA would lock funds, forcing Mother to spend personal assets before accessing support; impermissible use of PUTMA to satisfy current support obligations | Trial court (and Father) argued placing funds in PUTMA preserves children’s future lifestyle and is in children’s best interest | Reversed: ordering support into PUTMA abused discretion; child‑support funds must remain available for immediate needs (PUTMA may not substitute for support) |
| Whether Father’s $2.5M voluntary trust contribution justified a downward deviation from Guidelines | Mother: children’s assets/trust are irrelevant; parent’s support duty is independent of children’s assets; deviation improper | Father/trial court: trust demonstrates funds set aside for children and is a relevant factor warranting downward deviation | Reversed: voluntary transfer into trust is not a proper basis for downward deviation; parents cannot defer present support by creating future trust assets |
| Whether Mother is entitled to attorney’s fees under the PSA’s fee‑shifting clause | Mother: Father breached PSA by refusing to accept Guidelines after 2012 income spike; she successfully enforced the PSA and thus is entitled to fees | Trial court: neither party was fully successful; denied fees | Reversed: Mother succeeded in enforcing the PSA’s Guidelines term and trial court abused discretion in denying contractual fee award; remanded to award fees |
| Whether trial court properly applied Guideline factors (standard of living, reasonable needs) and rule amendments (Aug. 9, 2013) | Mother: trial court applied updated Guidelines and considered factors to protect children’s future standard of living | Father: court disregarded Melzer/reasonable‑needs concept, misapplied Factor 7 (standard of living) by using post‑minority potential lifestyle, improperly applied Aug. 9, 2013 amendment without burden on Mother, and excluded expert testimony/joint‑custody reduction | Mixed: Court held Guidelines (including 2010 high‑income Rule) supplant Melzer; reasonable needs are inherent in Guidelines so separate reasonable‑needs analysis not required. But trial court erred in evaluating Factor 7 by considering children’s post‑minority standard of living; application of Aug. 9, 2013 amendment and joint‑custody reduction were upheld; exclusion of expert testimony was waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192 (Pa. 1994) (Melzer analysis limited; deviation because basic needs could be met by less than guideline amount is impermissible)
- Portugal v. Portugal, 798 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 2002) (voluntary retirement/401(k) contributions count as income for support; cannot be used to reduce support obligation)
- MacKinley v. Messerschmidt, 814 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. 2002) (children should not be made to wait for support; parents may not defer income to avoid support)
- Sternlicht v. Sternlicht, 822 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PUTMA custodial property vests in minor and may not be used to substitute for a parent’s support obligation)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 528 A.2d 1318 (Pa. 1987) (parental support obligation is independent of child’s assets)
- Arbet v. Arbet, 863 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 2004) (guidelines presumed correct; court will not replace guideline analysis with a separate reasonable‑needs/Melzer calculation)