Uveges, B. v. Uveges, S.
103 A.3d 825
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Wife and Husband divorced after entering a 2010 property/support agreement providing Husband would pay Wife $2,500/month permanent alimony (modifiable for remarriage, cohabitation, or Wife receiving SSDI).
- Wife alleged Husband ceased payments after January 1, 2012 and sought enforcement; trial court found Husband in contempt and initially ordered attachment of Husband’s LHWCA benefits.
- Consolidated Coal (Husband’s former employer) challenged attachment, arguing LHWCA §916 exempts benefits from attachment; trial court partially vacated the LHWCA attachment but later renewed enforcement requests by Wife.
- After briefing and a contempt hearing, the trial court (Jan. 21, 2014) ordered $2,000 monthly withheld from Husband’s LHWCA benefits (increasing with future increases) toward ongoing alimony, arrears, and attorney fees, and continued attachments of UMWA pension and Social Security.
- Husband appealed, arguing the LHWCA’s anti-assignment/anti-attachment clause (33 U.S.C. §916) precluded using LHWCA benefits to satisfy alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LHWCA benefits are subject to attachment to satisfy alimony | LHWCA benefits are "remuneration for employment" and not a creditor’s claim; spousal support is not a "debt," so §916 does not bar attachment | §916’s broad anti-assignment/anti-attachment language precludes seizure of LHWCA benefits for alimony; Congress intended benefits to go directly to the disabled worker | Attachment is permitted: LHWCA benefits may be garnished to satisfy alimony because support obligations are not "claims of creditors" or "debts" under §916 |
| Whether later statutes/regulations allow garnishment despite §916 | SSA garnishment provision and administrative rules treat workers’ comp as subject to garnishment for support; thus §916 is effectively displaced for support enforcement | §916 remains controlling; any displacement does not apply to employer/carrier-paid LHWCA benefits (argues distinction) | Court adopts Moyle reasoning: SSA garnishment framework treats workers’ compensation as "remuneration for employment," so LHWCA benefits are subject to attachment for support; distinction between Special Fund and employer/carrier payments rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 454 So.2d 813 (La. 1984) (held LHWCA benefits not subject to garnishment under §916)
- Parker v. Parker, 484 A.2d 168 (Pa. Super. 1984) (anti-attachment clause does not bar using federal benefits as income for spousal support because obligor’s spouse is not a "creditor")
- Moyle v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 147 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluded SSA garnishment provision permits attachment of LHWCA benefits for delinquent support obligations)
- Cigna Prop. & Cas. v. Ruiz, 834 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (treated child support as not a "debt" for purposes of LHWCA anti-alienation, allowing garnishment)
- Hollman v. Hollman, 528 A.2d 146 (Pa. 1987) (trial court may attach ERISA pension to satisfy spousal support despite anti-attachment language)
- Comm. ex rel. Magrini v. Magrini, 398 A.2d 179 (Pa. 1979) (upheld attachment of pension to satisfy support arrears despite statutory anti-attachment)
Decision: Order affirmed — LHWCA disability benefits may be attached to satisfy Husband’s alimony and arrears.