Opinion
J-A20028-16 No. 1778 WDA 2015
11-15-2016
BERNARD J. RUSSELL Appellant v. MARGARET A. RUSSELL Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated October 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division at No: No. 2006-6151 BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant Bernard J. Russell ("Husband") appeals from the October 5, 2015 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County ("trial court"), granting in part Margaret A. Russell's ("Wife") petition for special relief/enforcement and denying his petition to modify. Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are undisputed. Briefly, on October 24, 2006, Husband filed a complaint in divorce against Wife. On December 11, 2007, the parties entered into a marriage settlement agreement ("MSA"), which Wife filed in the trial court on December 12, 2007. On December 13, 2007, both parties signed and filed their respective waiver of notice of intention and affidavits of consent to effectuate a no-fault divorce under Section 3301(c) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c). On December 21, 2007, the trial court issued a final divorce decree, releasing the parties from the bonds of matrimony under Section 3301(c). The trial court also incorporated the MSA into the divorce decree "for enforcement purposes only." Divorce Decree, 12/21/07.
Paragraph 19 of the MSA, relating to mutual waivers and releases, provides in part: "Neither party may apply to any court for a modification of this Agreement, except under Paragraph 11 (Custody) or Paragraph 12 (Child Support) of this Agreement, whether pursuant to the Divorce Code or any other present or future statutory authority."
On May 12, 2015, Wife filed a petition for special relief/enforcement, alleging that Husband had failed to comply with the terms of MSA. In particular, she alleged that Husband failed to (1) make alimony payments to her, and (2) pay her $475,000.00 that represented her interest in Husband's business, and half of his loyalty bonus or $125,000.00, totaling $610.000.00. Wife also sought confirmation that Husband maintained two life insurance policies, $1,000,000.00 and $750,000.00 respectively, listing her as the sole beneficiary. Finally, Wife requested attorney's fees pursuant to the MSA. On May 14, 2015, Husband filed an answer to the enforcement petition and a concomitant petition to modify the MSA. In his answer, Husband claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the valuation of his business at the time the parties executed the MSA. In his petition, Husband requested reformation of the MSA based on mutual mistake and frustration of purpose as they relate to the valuation of his business. The trial court conducted a hearing on June 1, 2015, after which it issued an order granting in part Wife's enforcement petition and denying Husband's modification petition on October 5, 2015. Following the trial court's denial of Husband's reconsideration motion, Husband timely appealed to this Court on November 4, 2015.
$475,000.00 is the difference between Wife's $575,000.00 marital interest in the business, which was valued at $1,150,00.00, and $100,000.00 in payments received by Wife from Husband. N.T. Hearing, 6/1/15, at 47-48..
The trial court did not order Husband to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of error complained of on appeal. The trial court, however, filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion addressing issues Husband raised in his reconsideration motion.
On appeal, Husband raises five issues for our review.
In Pennsylvania, we enforce settlement agreements between husband and wife in accordance with the same rules applicable to contract interpretation. Osial v. Cook , 803 A.2d 209, 213-214 (Pa. Super. 2002). Thus, our review is guided by the following standards:
Because contract interpretation is a question of law, this Court is not bound by the trial court's interpretation. Our standard of review over questions of law is de novo and to the extent necessary, the scope of our review is plenary as the appellate court may review the entire record in making its decision. However, we are bound by the trial court's credibility determinations.Kraisinger v. Kraisinger , 928 A.2d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Furthermore:
When interpreting a marital settlement agreement, the trial court is the sole determiner of facts and absent an abuse of discretion, we will not usurp the trial court's fact-finding function. On appeal from an order interpreting a marital settlement agreement, we must decide whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.
this Court must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand.Mackay v. Mackay , 984 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 995 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2010).
1. Does the [the trial c]ourt have authority to modify a marriage settlement agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a final divorce decree by applying standard contract principles related to (a) mutual mistake of fact and/or (b) impossibility of performance?Husband's Brief at 4-5.
2. Was there a mutual mistake of fact by the parties regarding the value of the business to be gained upon sale of the business, and of the value of Wife's equitable interest in the business?
3. Is it impossible for Husband to perform the terms and conditions of the MSA as to division of his business interests, given the evidence regarding the actual sales value of the business, the downturn in his income and prospects, and his other MSA financial obligations?
4. Is the [trial c]ourt nonetheless foreclosed from modifying a marriage settlement agreement when the mistake particularly is overvaluation of a closely held business?
5. Is the [trial c]ourt, in consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this MSA, bound by special equitable principles to ensure a fair and just determination and settlement of property rights in divorces, in addition to applying regular contract principles?
We observe that Husband does not challenge the trial court's calculation of the amount due to Wife under the October 5, 2015 order.
After careful review of the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court's October 5, 2015 opinion and its Rule 1925(a) opinion, authored by the Honorable Michael J. Lucas, cogently disposes of Husband's issue on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/5/15, at 10-16; Trial Court's Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 12/28/15, at 6-8. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's October 5, 2015 order granting in part Wife's enforcement petition and denying Husband's modification petition. We direct that a copy of the trial court's October 5, 2015 opinion and December 28, 2015 Rule 1925(a) opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/15/2016
Image materials not available for display.