Hassenplug, M. v. Hassenplug, T.
619 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Mark and Teresa Hassenplug divorced in 2012; their divorce decree incorporated a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) governing disposition of marital assets, including the marital residence and certain vehicles.
- PSA paragraph 8 required listing the marital residence with a realtor, consulting both parties, and provided that if parties consented to repairs and one advanced costs, that person would be reimbursed from sale proceeds before a 60/40 split in Wife’s favor. Proceeds were to be held in escrow pending reconciliation of credits/adjustments.
- Wife petitioned to enforce the PSA in September 2015, alleging Husband failed to list and sell the marital residence and seeking specific relief and attorney’s fees.
- At a January 2016 hearing, the trial court ordered Husband to list the residence “as is,” deny Husband credit for approximately $35,000 in unapproved repairs, direct sale/auction of specified vehicles with proceeds split 60/40 to Wife, and required arbitration steps; it also fashioned an equitable attorney-fee adjustment.
- Husband appealed, contesting the trial court’s interpretation and application of the PSA, the denial of credit for repairs, reliance on realtor agency, and the fee ruling. Wife moved to quash; the Superior Court denied the motion and addressed the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly enforced PSA paragraph requiring party consent for repairs and reimbursement | PSA requires consent before reimbursement; Wife denied consenting to repairs, so no reimbursement due | Husband argues he made and should be credited for ~$35,000 in repairs and court misapplied PSA and ignored testimony | Court held consent was a condition precedent; credited Wife’s testimony that she did not consent; no credit to Husband |
| Whether court erred by ordering house listed "as is" and altering PSA terms | Wife sought enforcement of PSA; court’s order effectuates PSA by preventing unilateral repairs without consent | Husband argued court changed PSA terms by listing "as is" and ignoring negotiated agreement | Husband withdrew some challenge; court’s interpretation of PSA upheld as consistent with agreement and fact findings |
| Whether reliance on realtor’s agency rebutted need for Wife’s consent for repairs | Wife: realtor recommendations do not dispense with the PSA’s requirement that party consent is needed for reimbursement | Husband: realtor had agreed agency and both parties were to be consulted, so his reliance on agent justified repairs | Court found Wife did not consent; Husband was not justified in relying on realtor; trial court credibility findings upheld |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in waiving Husband’s fee claim as equitable remedy | Wife requested enforcement and fees; court fashioned equitable fee adjustment to offset Husband’s financial position | Husband argued court erred in weighing fee claim and waiving his fee claim without evidence of Wife’s counsel fees | Court held fee decision was equitable and within discretion; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bianchi v. Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2004) (treating PSA/consent decree interpretation like contract construction)
- Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review: contract interpretation de novo; defer to trial court credibility findings)
- Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court defers to trial court fact-finding absent abuse of discretion)
- Chen v. Chen, 840 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same principle regarding trial court factfinding and credibility)
- Miller v. Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. 2009) (appellate review of attorney-fee awards: abuse of discretion standard)
- In re S.T.S., 76 A.3d 24 (Pa. Super. 2013) (an appellate brief’s undeveloped argument can result in waiver)