193 A.3d 999
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Married in 1984; divorced in Maryland in 2003. Marital Settlement Agreement provided $5,000/month alimony to Wife until at least June 30, 2007 and allowed either party to petition for modification after July 1, 2007 (with a $1,000 minimum).
- Husband filed a Petition to Modify in 2007 seeking reduction; trial court reduced alimony to $1,000/month in 2007 and again in 2011; Wife appealed.
- During proceedings, Wife discovered Husband had produced false financial documents and false tax returns and had given fraudulent testimony about income and assets. Parties later stipulated to Husband’s true income figures and to the reasonableness of Wife’s attorneys’ fees.
- Trial court acknowledged Husband’s fraud but declined to invoke equitable doctrines, reanalyzed statutory alimony factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 3701) using corrected figures, and left the reduced $1,000/month award in place; it awarded Wife only 75% of fees from date of fraud discovery.
- Superior Court vacated the trial court’s order, held the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the doctrine of unclean hands and by underawarding attorneys’ fees, and remanded with instructions to deny Husband’s modification ab initio, reinstate $5,000/month retroactively, and award 100% of Wife’s fees from the inception of Husband’s fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the doctrine of unclean hands barred Husband’s petition to modify alimony | Husband’s long‑running, material fraud on the court and Wife (false tax returns, documents, testimony) makes invocation of unclean hands appropriate; modification should be denied ab initio | Trial court applied statutory alimony factors and allowed modification despite finding fraud; Husband essentially contends modification under §3701 was proper | Court held trial court abused its discretion by not applying unclean hands; ordered denial of Husband’s 2007 petition ab initio and reinstatement of $5,000/month alimony retroactively |
| Scope and timing of attorneys’ fees award | Wife: stipulated fees were reasonable; all fees caused by Husband’s fraudulent concealment should be awarded (100%) from inception of fraud (2007) | Trial court awarded only 75% of fees and only from date Wife discovered the fraud | Court held trial court abused discretion; remanded to award 100% of Wife’s attorneys’ fees from inception of Husband’s fraud and additional specified fees |
| Application of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus and credibility determinations | Wife: Husband’s repeated demonstrable falsities should preclude reliance on his testimony and warrant exclusion under falsus doctrines | Trial court found some evidence credible and declined to apply the doctrine to bar consideration of Husband’s testimony | Court did not reach merits of remaining credibility/falsus issues because disposition on unclean hands and fees was dispositive |
| Procedural/jurisdictional challenges to trial court’s post‑appeal actions (Husband) | (Not raised by Wife) | Husband argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter the contract/judgment and relitigate issues after appeals; various procedural objections | Court declined to reach Husband’s jurisdictional/procedural claims as moot given disposition; those issues not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Builders, Inc. v. Moon Motor Lodge, Inc., 244 A.2d 10 (Pa. 1968) (unclean‑hands generally denies equitable remedies)
- Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2005) (marital support agreement incorporated but not merged is enforceable at law or equity)
- Shapiro v. Shapiro, 204 A.2d 266 (Pa. 1964) (equity court may refuse to apply unclean‑hands doctrine if considering the whole record indicates inequitable result)
- Krebs v. Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2009) (fraudulent concealment causing litigation supports awarding full attorneys’ fees)
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (counsel fees may be awarded where a party shows need or where opposing party’s dilatory/obdurate/vexatious conduct necessitated fees)