CAN ALIMONY PAYMENTS BE TERMINATED UNDER A MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
/CAN ALIMONY PAYMENTS BE TERMINATED UNDER A MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
Photo by designer491/iStock / Getty Images
The Case of Rosiecki v. RosieckI
In this Superior Court opinion, Rosiecki v. Rosiecki, PA Super 92, Husband tried to terminate his $900 monthly alimony payments to Wife. The previous court found that it did not have the authority to modify the terms of the Husband’s alimony obligation because it was an agreement made by the parties and not court-ordered. Husband also argued that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing before denying his petition to terminate his alimony payments.
The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement while they were before the Master on December 7, 2009. The marital agreement provided that Husband is to pay Wife $900 in alimony until such time that all of the four properties in the estate are sold. The agreement specifically provided the alimony payment would be reduced by specific percentages based upon the sale of the properties with each property having its own specific percentage. Additionally, upon the sale of the each property, Wife would receive 35% of Husband’s net interest in that property. The agreement was incorporated into but not merged into the final divorce decree that entered on January 21, 2010.
On January 7, 2019, Husband filed an emergency petition for Special Relief to Terminate Alimony and a Request for Hearing. The properties had not yet been sold. He argued that he could not afford to make alimony payments to Wife because he was out of work and experiencing health problems. He also argued that he did not understand the settlement as it relates to the payment and/or termination of alimony. He also believed that the terms in the agreement were incorrect and in error. He also argued that the agreement did not take into account all of the resources and income of Wife or Husband’s necessary expenses and loss of income.
WIFE MAKES MOTION TO DISMISS HUSBAND’S PETITION
At the hearing on April 10, 2019, Wife made an oral motion to dismiss the petition. The trial court directed Wife to file a written motion and ordered Husband to file a response. In her motion, Wife argued that the trial court did not have statutory authority to modify the terms of the alimony obligation because it arose from the parties’ agreement and not from a court order. In his response, Husband incorporated the same arguments that he raised in the original petition. He also requested a hearing and for the taking of testimony and the creation of a record.
The trial court found that the “the terms of the agreement… are clear and unambiguous and provide no language for modification or extension or termination.” It also provided that the “alimony awarded is a contractual agreement entered into by both parties, who swore under oath understanding of the agreement. Additionally, there is no evidence of fraud, mistake, or duress. Therefore, this court cannot modify the terms of the agreement.”
Husband filed a notice of appeal on May 31, 2019 and raised 13 issues. The court reordered as follows:
Did the trial court err in failing to find that 23 Pa.C.S. Section 3701 contains a provision for the modification, suspension, or even termination of alimony, and in failing to find that it had both the jurisdiction and power to consider the Emergency Petition for Special Relief to Terminate Alimony and Request for a Hearing Filed by [Husband]?
Did the trial court err in granting the [Wife’s] Motion to Dismiss [Husband’s] Petition to Terminate Alimony?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in failing to permit the calling of witnesses, the presentation of evidence and the cross-examination of witnesses before issuing its May 1, 2019 order?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit an error of law where it appears from a review of the record that there is no evidence to support the [trial] court’s findings?
Husband’s argument relies heavily on 23 Pa.C.S. Section 3105 on the effect of agreements between the parties which provides:
(a) Enforcement.--A party to an agreement regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the court under this part, whether or not the agreement has been merged or incorporated into the decree, may utilize a remedy or sanction set forth in this part to enforce the agreement to the same extent as though the agreement had been an order of the court except as provided to the contrary in the agreement.
(b) Certain provisions subject to modification.--A provision of an agreement regarding child support, visitation or custody shall be subject to modification by the court upon a showing of changed circumstances.
(c) Certain provisions not subject to modification.--In the absence of a specific provision to the contrary appearing in the agreement, a provision regarding the disposition of existing property rights and interests between the parties, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees or expenses shall not be subject to modification by the court.
The court found that because the alimony obligation arose from the marital settlement agreement that was incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree it survives the decree and is enforceable at law or equity. The agreement is governed by the law of contracts unless the agreement provides otherwise. The court goes on to state that the terms of the agreement cannot be modified by a court unless there is a provision in the agreement that specifically provides for judicial modification.
A settlement agreement is “not governed by statute, but [by] express mutual agreement of the parties.” See Woodings v. Woodings, 601. A.2d 854, 859 (Pa. Super. 1992). Alimony payments, therefore, are “not to be subject to modification by the court” unless the agreement contains a “specific provision to the contrary.” 23 Pa.C.S. Section 3105(c). The purpose of marital settlement agreements is to encourage agreements by the parties in that the court will encourage them as written. See Egan v. Egan, 125 A. 3d 792, 798 (Pa. Super. 2015).
HUSBAND REQUESTED A HEARING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.
Husband also argued that the trial court should have held a hearing where he could present evidence and witness testimony. Aside from attempting to prove his “changed circumstances,” Husband also wanted to show the “intent of the parties to the martial agreement.” In his emergency petition, Husband outlined the evidence he planned to submit which went to the change in circumstances. Therefore, even if the court accepted his allegations as true, Husband had no legal basis for relief because a marital settlement agreement that does not specifically allow for modification cannot be changed. The trial court also found that the terms were clear and unambiguous and there was no need for a hearing to determine the parties’ subjective intent. Finally, since Husband did not allege fraud, misrepresentation, or duress he failed to raise any claims that could entitle him to relief.
The court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that Husband was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or a modification to the alimony payments.