Opinion
J. A18004/15 No. 1698 MDA 2014
09-16-2015
SHELLEY A. TUZZATO v. JOSEPH TUZZATO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered September 8, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Civil Division at No. 2002 CV 441
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE AND MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
Joseph Tuzzato ("Husband") appeals from the order entered September 8, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County that granted Shelley Tuzzato's ("Wife") petition to enforce a provision in the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") under which both parties agreed to pay one-half of their children's college expenses if they attended a "state institution." We affirm.
On appeal, Husband raises three issues for our consideration:
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF LAW IN FAILING TO CONCLUDE THAT PARAGRAPH 25 OF THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COMPRISED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WHICH THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN?
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF LAW BY REQUIRING JOSEPH TO REIMBURSE SHELLEY FOR EXPENSES SHE DID NOT PAY, BUT RATHER WERE PAID FOR ENTIRELY BY THE PROCEEDS OF FUNDS BORROWED BY THE CHILDREN?Husband's brief at 4.
3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF LAW BY NOT INTERPRETING PARAGRAPH 25 OF THE PARTIES' MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO REQUIRE THE PARENTS TO EACH PAY FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF ANY REMAINING ACCOUNT BALANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AFTER APPLICATION OF GRANTS, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND LOANS GRANTED TO THE CHILDREN?
We review an order interpreting an MSA to determine whether the trial court committed an error of law or abuse of discretion. Tuthill v. Tuthill , 763 A.2d 417, 419 (Pa.Super. 2000) ( en banc ), appeal denied , 775 A.2d 808 (Pa. 2001).
We do not usurp the trial court's fact-finding function. In interpreting a marital settlement agreement, contract principles apply. Thus, the following principles are relevant:
The paramount goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the parties' intent. To accomplish this goal, each and every part of the contract must be taken into consideration and given effect, if possible, and the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the entire instrument.
Id. (some internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
[ Laudig v. Laudig , 624 A.2d 651, 653 (Pa.Super. 1993)].
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeannine Turgeon, we determine there is no merit to the issues Husband raises on appeal. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the issues presented. ( See trial court opinion, 12/18/14 at 4-6.) Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of that opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/16/2015
Image materials not available for display.