134 A.3d 449
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- In October 2008 Amy Huss and James Weaver (then in a romantic relationship) signed an agreement establishing custody/visitation terms if they had a child; it included a clause requiring Weaver to pay Huss $10,000 each time he filed to modify custody/visitation.
- The parties had a son in November 2010; Weaver filed for custody in December 2010.
- Huss sued in 2013 for breach of the $10,000 modification clause; amended complaint added negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims alleging Weaver, who drafted the agreement, had advised her to sign.
- Weaver filed preliminary objections arguing the $10,000 clause violated public policy and the non-contract tort claims were barred; the trial court sustained the objections and dismissed Huss’s amended complaint with prejudice.
- A Superior Court panel initially reversed, then the case was reheard en banc. The en banc court reversed the dismissal, holding the $10,000 clause was not facially unenforceable as against public policy and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contractual fee for seeking custody modification is unenforceable as against public policy | Huss: Clause is a valid contractual allocation (possibly a defense fund) and not a per se bar to seeking court review; no dominant public policy invalidates it on its face | Weaver: Clause penalizes and chills filings to protect child’s best interests and thus is contrary to public policy | Court: The $10,000 clause is not facially unenforceable as against public policy; dismissal was error and claims proceed to develop factual record |
| Whether Weaver (drafting attorney) should be estopped from claiming unenforceability after advising Huss agreement was valid | Huss: Weaver drafted and advised her, so he should not avoid enforcement now | Weaver: (implicit) may challenge enforceability despite drafting | Court: Did not reach this issue on merits because resolution of first issue made it unnecessary; remanded for factual development |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims were properly dismissed for lack of damages | Huss: Breach of the $10,000 clause could yield damages and thus sustain tort claims | Weaver: No real damages because clause invalid / unenforceable | Court: Dismissal of tort claims was premature because breach damages may be available if clause enforced |
| Whether parol evidence could be used to explain parties’ intent about the $10,000 payment | Huss: Parol evidence admissible to show intent the payment served as a defense fund; ambiguity exists about relative financial ability | Weaver: (implicit) rely on four-corners to show clause penalizes filings | Court: Parol evidence may be admissible later; ambiguity exists and must be resolved on the record rather than on demurrer |
Key Cases Cited
- Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503 (Pa. 1991) (parents cannot bargain away a child’s right to adequate support)
- Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa. 2007) (public‑policy invalidation of contracts requires clear, dominant indication in law)
- Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. 2007) (contract provision penalizing a parent for seeking review of child‑support terms is invalid)
- Mumma v. Mumma, 550 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Super. 1988) (custody agreements are subject to court modification in child's best interest)
- Lee v. Child Care Service Delaware County, 337 A.2d 586 (Pa. 1975) (private placement or custody agreements do not automatically bar court from making a contrary disposition in child’s best interest)