Kurtas, M., Jr. v. Kurtas, R.
1569 MDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 11, 2022Background
- Parties married in 1982, separated in 2010, divorced in 2014; they executed a comprehensive postnuptial agreement in October 2013.
- Postnuptial agreement required Husband to pay $3,400/month for eight years (then $1,000/month for two years) and made support non‑modifiable except for specified events, including an involuntary reduction in income if Husband made reasonable efforts to mitigate. Parties agreed to use Husband’s base gross salary of $263,588 to calculate modifications.
- Husband was terminated April 3, 2020; he received $70,000 severance and unemployment. Parties agreed temporarily that Husband would pay $2,026.40/month for the rest of 2020; hearing continued to December 1, 2020.
- At the December 2020 hearing Husband sought a further permanent reduction based on continued unemployment; Wife argued Husband failed to mitigate and proposed imputing earning capacity.
- Trial court found Husband failed to adequately mitigate (narrow job search, ~32 applications over eight months), assessed an earning capacity of $157,100, and kept the monthly alimony at $2,026.40. Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of mitigation effort | Husband: pandemic, age (66), and industry‑specific skills made broader job search unreasonable; his search was adequate. | Wife: Husband submitted ~1 app/week and limited search to club industry; did not act in good faith to mitigate. | Court: No abuse of discretion—credibility findings support conclusion Husband failed to mitigate. |
| Use/imputation of earning capacity | Husband: Agreement does not authorize imputing earning capacity; court lacked authority to impose it. | Wife: Because Husband failed to mitigate, he is entitled to full contract amount; imputing capacity is appropriate to deny further reduction. | Court: Although agreement does not mandate earning‑capacity calculation, court effectively denied further reduction and maintained interim $2,026.40; no error. |
| Admissibility/weight of Wife’s testimony about pre‑agreement and financial background | Husband: Such testimony was irrelevant and improperly influenced the decision. | Wife: Background testimony was probative/contextual. | Court: Any background testimony was harmless; trial court relied on Husband’s failure to mitigate as dispositive. |
| Failure to specify method to apply stipulated $2,270.72 overpayment credit | Husband: Court acknowledged the credit on the record but failed to order how it would be applied. | Wife: Parties agreed to compute/prorate credit after court decided modification; no method was proposed to the court. | Court: No error—parties intended to agree on a method post‑decision; Husband may propose method to trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2005) (marital settlement agreements are contracts and impose a duty of good faith and fair dealing)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 234 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2020) (standard of review for trial court’s application of contract principles and factual findings)
- Stackhouse v. Zaretsky, 900 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2006) (spouses are bound by valid marital agreements absent fraud, duress, or misrepresentation)
- Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 218 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2019) (harmless‑error doctrine in appellate review)
- Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (explaining prejudice requirement for new trial under harmless‑error analysis)