Kraisinger v. Kraisinger
34 A.3d 168
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Marriage Settlement Agreement (First Agreement) of 4/20/2002 divided marital assets; Wife received farm ($252,000) and Husband to be paid mortgage and shared taxes; paragraph VII(5) obligated Wife to pay Husband’s attorney fees if she challenged the agreement.
- Wife filed a child support action on 2/8/2005; Husband earned roughly $300,000/year vs. Wife’s $15,000/year; Husband contested the action as precluded by the First Agreement.
- Court found Husband in contempt (8/16/2006) for underpaying support and held the fee-shifting provision void and against public policy.
- Third and Fourth Agreements (2007–2008) sequentially modified support and equity distributions; Third Agreement (4/3/2008) terminated all support orders prematurely and waived Wife’s claim to attorney-fees; Wife later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (5/9/2008).
- Bankruptcy Trustee alleged a fraudulent scheme to defeat creditors by terminating equitable distribution and creating vague support obligations; Attorney Chicka filed petitions for counsel fees in late 2008, later seeking relief in state court.
- Trial court (5/18/2011) awarded Chicka $40,026.13 in counsel fees; Husband appealed, raising standing, interest, and fraud theories under DRL and UFTA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek fees under §4351 | Chicka had standing under §4351(a) to seek fees in his own right. | Husband argues only a party may seek fees; Chicka lacks standing. | Chicka had standing; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Award of interest on counsel fees | Interest may be awarded under §5107 of the UFTA and related provisions. | §4351 does not authorize interest; thus error. | Interest authorized; no abuse of discretion. |
| Fraudulent transfer under UFTA | Third Agreement was fraudulent to evade Chicka’s fees; transfers favored insider Husband and left Wife insolvent. | Arguments of fraud insufficient to negate agreements; challenged evidence. | Trial court’s finding of fraudulent transfer affirmed; UFTA remedies applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallaher ex rel. Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Riddle, 850 A.2d 748 (Pa.Super.2004) (limited appellate review of equity decrees; must show no abuse of discretion)
- Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768 (Pa.Super.2008) (factors for awarding counsel fees under DRL)
- Bowser v. Blom, 807 A.2d 830 (Pa.2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard in fee awards)
- Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa.Super.2003) (standards for awarding attorney's fees under DRL)