Morgan, S. v. Morgan, D.
117 A.3d 757
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- MORGAN v. MORGAN, 2015 PA Super 127, concerns Father’s appeal from a July 21, 2014 order denying his motion to strike child support enforcement orders (Nov. 5, 2013; Dec. 4, 2013; Jun. 4, 2014).
- PSA from 2003 Maryland divorce provided alimony and child support; alimony potentially modifiable after July 1, 2007.
- Father registered the Maryland decree in Franklin County (May 3, 2007) and sought to reduce alimony; discovery later exposed income deception and falsified tax returns in support/alimony proceedings.
- Trial court issued enforcement orders to collect arrears and fees; Father challenged these orders as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Prior panel held the trial court had jurisdiction to modify child support regardless of PSA merger into the divorce decree; this law-of-the-case determination is controlling; Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a trial court modify a child support order that is nonexistent? | Mother argues jurisdiction exists under prior decision; underlying PSA can be modified regardless of merger. | Father argues no underlying enforceable order exists; lacking modification authority. | Yes; court had jurisdiction to modify child support despite PSA not merged. |
| May the court modify an agreement to pay child support if no modification was requested? | Mother contends changed circumstances permit modification; no bargain away CM’s rights. | Father contends no modification was requested, so no authority to modify. | waive(d) due to law-of-the-case and lack of new challenge; jurisdiction exists. |
| Does modification require notice and an opportunity to be heard when no modification request was made? | Mother asserts due process is satisfied by ongoing enforcement post-remand.# | Father argues lack of notice/hearing for modification. | Court did not reach merits because issue waived; nonetheless law-of-the-case supports jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Morgan, 99 A.3d 554 (Pa. Super. 2014) (jurisdiction to modify child support despite PSA merger issue; law of the case)
- Ario v. Reliance Ins. Co., 980 A.2d 588 (Pa. 2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent proceedings)
- Cruse v. Cruse, 737 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court may enforce its orders absent a supersedeas)
- Travitzky v. Travitzky, 534 A.2d 1081 (Pa. Super. 1987) (inherent power to enforce orders pending appeal)
- Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate court may impose counsel fees for frivolous appeals)