Porterfield, R. v. Porterfield, E., Porterfield, R. v. Porterfield, E. No. 553 MDA 2016

Eric Jon Porterfield (Father) and Rose Ann Porterfield (Mother) divorced; their 2008 Marital Settlement Agreement was incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree.
Agreement §4.3 allocated private school and college expenses: Mother pays 45%, Father pays 55% of education costs not covered by the child’s funds, scholarships, awards, or grants; payments due "on or before the date that the payment is due."
Mother paid substantial college costs for the two older children and sought reimbursement of Father’s 55% share and an initial $55,000 contribution toward anticipated future college costs for each of the two younger children.
Trial court granted reimbursement for past expenses ($51,965.58 in total) and also entered two prospective judgments of $55,000 each for future college expenses of the second and third children; denied attorney’s fees.
Father appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to require prepayment of future/unincurred expenses and that some charged expenses were unsubstantiated.

Issue	Mother's Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether trial court could impose prospective/prepaid obligations for future college expenses	Mother sought prepaid initial contributions for anticipated college costs to secure funding	Father argued Agreement requires payment only when bills are due and does not authorize prepayment for unincurred or speculative expenses	Reversed as to prospective/prepaid $55,000 judgments for the two younger children; Agreement does not authorize prepayment before expenses are incurred
Whether trial court erred by awarding payment for unsubstantiated educational expenses already paid by Mother	Mother presented exhibits and requested reimbursement of Father’s 55% share of incurred expenses	Father contended trial court failed to distinguish bona fide educational charges from general expenses and did not substantiate items	Affirmed reimbursement judgment ($51,965.58) for past expenses; Father waived appellate challenge to substance of claimed expenses by failing to raise it in Rule 1925(b) concise statement

Chen v. Chen, 840 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court is sole fact-finder in interpreting marital settlement agreement)
Tuthill v. Tuthill, 763 A.2d 417 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review on contract interpretation and abuse of discretion)
In re Deed of Trust of Rose Hill Cemetery Ass’n Dated Jan. 14, 1960, 590 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1991) (definition and limits of judicial discretion)
Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2005) (contract interpretation as a question of law; appellate review scope)
Mazurek v. Russell, 96 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2014) (court must construe contract as written and cannot modify plain meaning)
Nessa v. Nessa, 581 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 1990) (effects of incorporation but not merger of agreement into divorce decree)