W.A.M. v. S.P.C.
95 A.3d 349
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Father and Mother divorced in Missouri in 2001 and executed a settlement agreement requiring child support starting Oct 1, 2001, continuing until emancipation; the Agreement defined emancipation under Missouri law and extended support through post‑secondary education (up to age 22 in certain circumstances).
- The Agreement included a choice‑of‑law clause applying Missouri law and allowed Mother to relocate; Mother and Child moved to Pennsylvania in 2006 and Pennsylvania courts assumed custody jurisdiction in 2007 while preserving the Agreement’s custody schedule.
- Father claimed limited contact with the Child and filed a petition for special relief on July 29, 2013, asserting the Child was emancipated because the Child had graduated high school and would attend college, so Father should stop paying support; he requested a hearing.
- The trial court denied the petition after argument without taking testimonial evidence; Father appealed the denial and the dismissal of his appeal from a domestic relations officer decision.
- The trial court and the appellate panel treated Father’s obligation as contractual (arising from the Agreement) rather than a statutory post‑secondary support obligation under Pennsylvania law, and enforced the Agreement as written under Missouri law.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father may cease support because Child is attending college/emancipated | Blue/Curtis make post‑secondary support unconstitutional; enforcing Missouri law requiring college support violates Equal Protection | Agreement is contractual; parties agreed to Missouri definition of emancipation so contract controls | Court: Duty is contractual under Reif; Agreement enforced; no constitutional bar to enforcing contract |
| Whether trial court erred by denying hearing / excluding Father’s testimony (parol evidence) | Father wanted to testify about circumstances of the 2001 Agreement and limited contact with Child to show ambiguity or estrangement | Agreement is unambiguous; intent is in the writing; parol evidence inadmissible | Court: No ambiguity shown; no hearing required; parol evidence properly excluded |
| Whether estrangement can excuse support / warrant hearing | Father argued estrangement is a factual ground to terminate support | Missouri law does not recognize estrangement as emancipation or a termination ground | Court: Estrangement not a recognized Missouri ground; hearing unnecessary |
| Whether UIFSA prevents applying Missouri law per the Agreement | Father argued UIFSA precludes enforcing a foreign statute in PA (raised on appeal) | Mother argued UIFSA requires application of the Agreement’s chosen law | Court: UIFSA argument waived (not raised below); appellate court declines to address it |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 616 A.2d 628 (1992) (state law limits parental duty to support minors to high school graduation/age 18 absent agreement)
- Curtis v. Kline, 542 Pa. 249, 666 A.2d 265 (1995) (statutory scheme for post‑secondary support found unconstitutional on equal protection grounds)
- Reif v. Reif, 426 Pa.Super. 14, 626 A.2d 169 (1993) (parties may contractually assume obligation for post‑secondary support; contractual intent controls)
- Kripp v. Kripp, 578 Pa. 82, 849 A.2d 1159 (2004) (unambiguous contracts are construed as a matter of law; parol evidence admissible only if ambiguity exists)
- Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786 (Pa.Super.2012) (standard of appellate review for support orders)
- Carmack v. Carmack, 947 S.W.2d 842 (Mo. App. 1997) (Missouri does not recognize estrangement as emancipation or a ground to terminate support)