McKernan, G. v. McKernan, T.
135 A.3d 1116
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Gerald McKernan (Husband) and Teresa McKernan (Wife) divorced after a 24-year marriage; original alimony was $1,106.77/month (2005).
- In 2012 Husband sought modification; court found reduced income and lowered alimony to $750/month.
- In 2015 Husband petitioned again, citing early Social Security retirement (he began benefits at 62, reducing his SS from $2,276 to $1,721/month), decreased rental income, and Wife’s eligibility for spousal Social Security benefits.
- Wife, age ~63.5, is employed and eligible for (but does not intend to take) early Social Security spousal benefits based on the long marriage.
- Trial court denied Husband’s 2015 modification request; Husband appealed, arguing the court should (1) compel Wife to apply for spousal Social Security or (2) impute to Wife the amount of benefits she is eligible for but declines to take.
- Appellate court affirmed: held trial court did not err or abuse discretion by refusing to force Wife to claim early Social Security or to impute that benefit as income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may compel Wife to apply for early Social Security spousal benefits | Husband: Court should require Wife to apply for spousal SS to reduce his alimony obligation | Wife/Trial court: No statutory authority to force a party to apply for early SS; election is personal | Court: No authority to compel; trial court properly refused to order Wife to apply |
| Whether trial court must impute to Wife income equal to SS benefits she is eligible for but elects not to take | Husband: Wife’s eligibility should be counted as income and reduce alimony | Wife/Trial court: Eligibility alone is not a basis to impute income; election to receive reduced early benefits is voluntary | Court: Eligibility without receipt is not a substantial changed circumstance warranting modification; trial court didn’t abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review of alimony orders limited to errors of law or abuses of discretion)
- Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for appellate review of support orders)
- S.M.C. v. W.P.C., 44 A.3d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of abuse of discretion in family-law context)
- Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 849 A.2d 582 (Pa. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard articulated)
- Lee v. Lee, 507 A.2d 862 (Pa. Super. 1986) (retirement benefits can constitute changed circumstances, but modification under statute is discretionary)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural rules on record transmission and appellate briefing)