Opinion
J-A13001-17 No. 1954 EDA 2016
07-11-2017
JANE GOLDBERG LANDAU Appellee v. ELIAS B. LANDAU Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 3, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 2001-24912 Pacses #475104080 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Elias B. Landau ("Husband") appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, granting Jane Goldberg Landau's ("Wife") third petition for contempt/enforcement of the parties' agreed order of support and alimony. After our review, we affirm.
Husband and Wife were married in 1981. They divorced in 2006. The divorce decree incorporated the parties' July 22, 2005 Property Settlement Agreement ("PSA"). Pursuant to the PSA, Husband agreed to transfer to Wife $950,000.00 in stock and $150,000.00 in cash, as equitable distribution, by October 23, 2005. Husband also agreed to pay Wife alimony in the amount of $6,480.00 per month until the stock and cash transfers were made.
On March 13, 2006, Wife filed a petition for contempt, averring that Husband never presented the required paperwork from his stockbroker in order to complete the stock transfer. Wife also asserted that Husband failed to make the monthly alimony payments and failed to turn over certain personal property as directed by the PSA.
The parties entered into an agreement on May 2, 2006, which required Husband to continue the $6,480.00 per month alimony payments until the remaining $1.1 million lump sum payments owed to Wife were paid in full. Additionally, Husband was required to sell his condominium in Bala Cynwyd and obtain unclaimed monies from his deceased mother's estate in order to help satisfy this debt.
The property is known as 191 Presidential Boulevard, Apartment 415-416, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.
Husband failed to comply with the May 2, 2006 agreement. On February 25, 2008, Wife filed a second petition for contempt. Wife entered into another agreement with Husband in the form of an Agreed Order for Support. See Agreed Order, 4/9/08. Husband agreed to transfer all rights, title and interest in the Bala Cynwyd condominium to Wife by April 30, 2008. Husband also agreed to be responsible for outstanding assessments, to pay Wife $100,000.00 in cash, and to refinance or sell another Bala Cynwyd condominium. The order also set forth a payment schedule, as well as Husband's agreement to refinance or sell another condominium in the same building in order to generate funds to meet his obligations.
The property is known as 191 Presidential Boulevard, Apartment 818-819, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.
Husband again failed to meet his obligations under the order and, on October 27, 2015, Wife filed a third petition for contempt. Following three days of evidentiary hearings, the court entered an order, dated June 3, 2016, granting Wife's petition. Husband filed a timely appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Husband raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court committed error of law and/or abused its discretion when it refused to grant [Husband] a continuance to obtain counsel where his two paid counsel had withdrawn their appearances without [Husband]'s permission and without leave of court four days and one day prior to trial and where [Husband] suffered from a serious heart condition impairing his ability to represent himself?
2. Whether the trial court committed error of law and/or abused its discretion by refusing to allow [Husband] to cross-examine [Wife] or to testify on direct about matters which would have provided circumstantial evidence of the existence of an oral modification of the Agreed Order for Support/Alimony of April 9, 2008, to it wit, cross-examination regarding [Husband]'s representation of [Wife] in major litigation without charging a fee while also bearing the costs of litigation,[Husband]'s excellent relationship with [Wife]'s family, and the person [Wife] for
whose benefit [Wife] actually spent funds from the checks [Husband] gave her, and testimony on direct examination about [Wife]'s non-filing of tax returns from 2008 through 2016?Appellant's Brief, at 2-3.
3. Whether the trial court committed error of law/abused its discretion in holding that the checks totaling $423,643.23 that [Husband] paid to [Wife] or paid to her rental agent and her health and dental insurer after April 9, 2008 were not for equitable distribution except for those with memos stating "ED Second Phase?"
4. Whether the trial court committed error of law/abused its discretion in holding [Husband] in contempt of the April 9, 2008 Order for Support/Alimony?
5. Whether the trial court committed error law and/or abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to [Wife] and awarding excessive attorney's fees?
When reviewing an order holding a party in contempt for failure to comply with a court order, our scope of review is narrow: we will reverse only upon a showing the court abused its discretion. Hyle v. Hyle , 868 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2005). The court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. Id.
After careful review of the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion, authored by the Honorable Risa Vetri Ferman, properly disposes of Husband's issues on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/12/16, at 4-13. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's June 3, 2016 order finding Husband in contempt of the April 9, 2008 court order. We direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/11/2017
The court's order was agreed upon and recited on the record in open court. See N.T. Hearing, 4/9/08, at 68-70. --------
Image materials not available for display.