48 Pa. D. & C.5th 551
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Parties executed a Marriage Settlement Agreement (MSA) on December 5, 2013, allocating retirement benefits (Wife 55% of marital portion; Husband 45%) “pursuant to current law.”
- Conrad Siegel prepared QDROs for Husband’s City of Williamsport Police Pension (defined-benefit), Husband’s City of Williamsport Deferred Compensation (account balance), and Wife’s Lycoming County Employees’ Retirement System plan; plan administrators approved the drafts.
- Wife signed the QDRO drafts and asked Husband to sign; Husband refused to sign the QDROs.
- Dispute focused on whether the QDRO language (particularly for the defined-benefit pension) correctly implements the MSA and Pennsylvania statutory law on coverture fractions and post‑separation enhancements.
- Husband argued the parties intended to limit Wife’s share to benefits fully earned only during marriage (e.g., highest-three-year average drawn only from marital years) and that “pursuant to current law” allowed contract deviation; Wife and QDRO drafters relied on 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3501(c)(1).
- Wife sought contempt/enforcement to compel Husband to sign; the court held a hearing and declined to find wrongful intent for contempt but ordered Husband to execute the QDROs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSA requires division of the defined-benefit pension pursuant to the statutory coverture fraction and to include post‑separation enhancements (except post‑separation monetary contributions) | MSA expressly gives Wife 55% of the marital portion “pursuant to current law,” which at execution meant §3501(c)(1); therefore QDRO applying coverture fraction and including post‑separation enhancements is correct | Parties’ dates should limit the computation so Wife’s share is based only on earnings/years within marriage; “pursuant to current law” permits contracting around statute | Court: MSA is clear and unambiguous; parties agreed to distribute pursuant to §3501(c)(1); statutory coverture fraction applies. |
| Whether Husband’s highest‑three‑year average should be computed using only years within marriage (excluding post‑separation years) | Wife: statutory rule includes post‑separation enhancements (except post‑separation monetary contributions); pooling post‑separation years that enhance benefit are marital | Husband: pension formula’s highest‑three‑year average should be limited to years within marriage so Wife’s share excludes post‑separation years | Court: Post‑separation increases (including years used to compute highest‑three‑year average) are marital under §3501(c)(1) and precedents; Husband’s argument fails. |
| Whether QDRO for Deferred Compensation improperly awards Wife post‑separation monetary contributions | QDRO gives Wife 55% of balance as of separation (Oct 24, 2012) adjusted for earnings/losses after that date, so it does not include post‑separation contributions | Husband claimed QDROs include monies earned after separation and post‑separation contributions as Wife’s benefit | Court: Deferred compensation QDRO limits Wife to balance as of separation adjusted only for investment gains/losses — it does not award post‑separation monetary contributions; QDRO is consistent with MSA and law. |
| Whether Husband should be held in contempt for refusing to sign the QDROs | Wife: Husband’s refusal to sign violates MSA and court-ordered process and warrants contempt to compel execution | Husband: no wrongful intent demonstrated; ongoing counsel communications and disputes over legal interpretation | Court: No evidence of wrongful intent; contempt not imposed. Court nevertheless ordered Husband to sign the three QDRO documents within 10 days and comply with payment to the actuary per stipulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Meyer, 749 A.2d 917 (Pa. 2000) (purchasing additional service credits to obtain a retirement option was marital property)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 681 A.2d 732 (Pa. 1996) (supplemental retirement incentives and bonuses based on years of service are marital property)
- Siniako v. Siniako, 664 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 1995) (contempt power is inherent to the court)
- Lachat v. Hinchliffe, 769 A.2d 481 (Pa. Super. 2001) (civil contempt standards and burden of proof for enforcement of private‑benefit orders)