Mazurek v. Russell
96 A.3d 372
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Parents (Mother Joanne Russell, Father Edward Mazurek) executed a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) in 2010 stating the children may attend reasonable undergraduate institutions "with the parties' mutual consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld," and Father shall pay 100% of reasonable undergraduate expenses.
- Mother filed an emergency contempt petition (July 2013) seeking to compel Father to pay for their son Luke’s tuition at Marymount Manhattan College; Father responded that he had not consented and had reasonably withheld consent.
- Father testified he had paid older children’s college costs previously but withheld consent for Luke due to a multi‑year estrangement, lack of access to Luke’s academic records, concerns about Luke’s high‑school performance, and conditions he wanted (GPA ≥ 3.0, access to records, no car in NYC).
- Trial court found Father in contempt, ordered immediate payment of college expenses and Mother’s counsel fees; Father appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed the PSA as a contract (incorporated but not merged), found the phrase "unreasonably withheld" ambiguous, admitted extrinsic evidence, and concluded Father’s withholding was reasonable under the circumstances.
- Court reversed the contempt order and fee award; a concurring opinion agreed result-wise but expressed concern about vagueness of the estrangement condition while endorsing the other conditions as reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Mazurek) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father was in contempt for refusing to pay Luke’s college expenses | Mother: Father breached the PSA by withholding consent and refusing payment for Luke’s enrollment at Marymount Manhattan | Father: He did not consent and reasonably withheld consent based on estrangement, academic concerns, and conditions for payment | Reversed: Father reasonably withheld consent; contempt finding vacated |
| Whether the PSA obligated Father to pay absent prior consultation/consent | Mother: PSA requires Father to pay 100% for reasonable institutions; he must pay when child enrolls in such institution | Father: PSA conditions payment on mutual consent; Mother/child failed to secure his consent or consult him | Held: Contract language requires mutual consent; father’s withholding may be reasonable and can bar obligation |
| Whether extrinsic/parol evidence can resolve ambiguity in PSA phrase "unreasonably withheld" | Mother: Contract language is enforceable; limited need for extrinsic evidence | Father: Ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence showing his reasons were reasonable | Held: Phrase is ambiguous; extrinsic evidence admissible and persuasive in this case |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by finding contempt and ordering immediate payment and fees | Mother: Trial court acted within discretion to enforce PSA and sanction contempt | Father: Trial court misapplied law by ignoring ambiguity and extrinsic evidence, abusing discretion | Held: Trial court abused discretion; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Fina v. Fina, 737 A.2d 760 (Pa. Super. 1999) (refusal to enforce father’s share of college costs where mother/daughter failed to consult father as contract required)
- Wineburgh v. Wineburgh, 816 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2002) (contrast case holding no affirmative duty to consult where agreement gave father a say but did not condition payment on consultation)
- Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006) (property settlement incorporated but not merged into divorce decree; PSA treated as standalone contract)