S.M.C. v. W.P.C., 44 A.3d 1181

Husband appeals from a May 9, 2011 order dismissing his exceptions to, and finalizing, a hearing officer’s order on spousal and child support obligations.
Wife left the marital home on June 9, 2010; one child, E.C., age 7, was involved at the October 2010 hearing.
At the October 18, 2010 hearing, Wife testified to a long history of emotional abuse and separation from Husband; she began dating another man after separation.
Hearing Officer Ferber recommended monthly spousal support of $5,562 (including child support), medical insurance, and partial unreimbursed medical expenses; also arrears and a lump-sum payment of $30,000.
Husband challenged the spousal support award on grounds including post-separation conduct, the lump-sum payment, the sale of his stock as a purported income reduction, and counsel-fee award; trial court denied those exceptions; this appeal followed.
The court affirmed, holding that post-separation conduct cannot defeat spousal-support entitlement and that the other challenged items were properly decided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-separation conduct may defeat spousal support.	Husband argues post-separation affair and indignities justify denial of support.	Wife contends post-separation conduct is not a fault-based basis for denying support.	Post-separation conduct cannot defeat entitlement to spousal support.
Whether post-separation misconduct can negate entitlement to spousal support.	Husband asserts post-separation misconduct supports denial.	Wife argues conduct after separation does not illuminate pre-separation conduct; cannot justify denial.	post-separation misconduct not a basis to deny spousal support; Jayne v. Jayne applicable.
Whether the lump-sum payment of $30,000 was proper.	Husband claims error since spousal support was affirmed ab initio.	Wife argues lump-sum payment within hearing officer’s discretion.	Court did not abuse discretion; lump-sum payment affirmed.
Whether the sale of Conroy Foods stock was a voluntary income reduction.	Husband contends sale was arms-length and not a voluntary reduction.	Wife/ourt relies on record showing voluntary reduction in income.	Claim waived for lack of supporting authority; affirmed.
Whether counsel-fee award of $3,500 was proper.	Husband contends award was improper.	Wife argues disparity in finances and Bowser factors support award.	Counsel fees upheld as within court’s discretion.

Jayne v. Jayne, 443 Pa. Super. 664 (Pa. Super. 1995) (post-separation conduct not considered unless sheds light on pre-separation behavior)
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 762 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2000) (adequate legal cause for leaving can support alimony denial or modification)
Brobst v. Brobst, 173 Pa. Super. 171 (Pa. Super. 1953) (indignities as fault-based divorce ground foregoing support)
Moon v. Moon, 151 Pa. Super. 555 (Pa. Super. 1943) (definition of adultery for fault-based grounds)
Bonawitz v. Bonawitz, 246 Pa. Super. 257 (Pa. Super. 1976) (indignities may support fault-based divorce)
McCaskey v. McCaskey, 253 Pa. Super. 360 (Pa. Super. 1978) (pre-separation conduct considered in context of pre-separation gedrag)
Lee v. Lee, 185 Pa. Super. 252 (Pa. Super. 1958) (post-separation conduct may illuminate pre-separation conduct)
Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609 (Pa. 2002) (factors for awarding counsel fees in support actions)
Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 578 Pa. 20 (Pa. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for spousal-support awards)
Jayne v. Jayne, 443 Pa. Super. 664 (Pa. Super. 1995) (post-separation conduct generally not admissible for indignities unless related to pre-separation conduct)
Schuback v. Schuback, 412 Pa. Super. 233 (Pa. Super. 1992) (indignities standard in fault-based divorce)