Petit, N. v. Petit, M., 1577 EDA 2023

Nancy Petit (Mother) and Michel Petit (Father) are divorced and have one minor child; Mother is the child's primary caregiver and has not been employed for several years.
Father, formerly an NHL player, now works as a sales representative in Texas, earning variable income through salary and employer-issued stock.
The parties' divorce included a property settlement agreement distributing various assets, including Father's workers' compensation claim, NHL concussion settlement, and life insurance policy.
Mother's initial support claims led to numerous modifications, findings of Father's misrepresentations about income, and significant support arrearages.
The trial court's orders regarding support, arrearages, and the treatment of certain assets as income were appealed by Mother, challenging the computation of Father's income and the method of arrears enforcement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Inclusion of workers’ comp, concussion settlement, 401(k), and life insurance as income	These are post-marital assets, not distributed in equitable distribution, thus should be counted as income for support	Those assets were part of the marital estate and awarded in the property settlement, so cannot be counted again as income	Assets already distributed in equitable distribution cannot be double-counted as income for support
Whether employer stock awards count as income for support	Stock was compensation in lieu of salary and should be included as income	Stock is subject to vesting and fluctuates in value; no realized income unless cashed out	Vested, unrestricted stock with ascertainable value is income for support calculation
Failure to require lump sum payment towards arrearages	Father's misstatement of income and access to assets justify lump sum payment of arrears	No evidence presented of available assets to fund a lump sum payment	Remand to determine if assets (including stock) allow lump sum payment; must reassess in light of new stock value findings
Application of unclean hands doctrine and priority of attorney’s fees	Father's deceit in litigation warrants equitable relief/sanction	Doctrine of unclean hands is inapposite in support case; law requires support owed to obligee has priority over fees	Unclean hands not applicable; statutory payment order for support, APL, and then attorney’s fees is correct

Miller v. Miller, 783 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Assets awarded in equitable distribution cannot later be counted as income for child support purposes)
Hess v. Hess, 212 A.3d 520 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Double-counting of distributed assets as income is impermissible)
MacKinley v. Messerschmidt, 814 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Vested stock options are income for child support regardless of when exercised)
Hanrahan v. Bakker, 186 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2018) (Child’s immediate needs take priority; parent cannot defer accessing income to lower support)
Blue v. Blue, 616 A.2d 628 (Pa. 1992) (Abuse of discretion standard in review of support orders)