Pennsylvania Superior Court Cases - Superior Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Superior Court - unoffical reports

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

J. A01027/01
2001 PA Super 138
KENNETH R. RICHARDSON,
:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
:
:
v.
:
:
ANN L. RICHARDSON,
:
:
Appellee
:
No. 1819 EDA 2000
Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2000
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Domestic Relations Division at No. 94-01987.
BEFORE: STEVENS, MONTEMURO* and BECK, JJ.
OPINION BY BECK, J.:
Filed: May 3, 2001
¶ 1
This appeal arises from contempt proceedings following the 1996
bifurcated divorce, in Chester County,1 of appellant Kenneth Richardson and
appellee Ann L. Richardson.2 The parties married in 1975 and separated in
1994. They are the parents of one emancipated child, born in 1978.
Husband-appellant remarried shortly after the divorce.
¶ 2
A special master held a hearing on economic issues and issued a
recommendation in May, 1997. In an order of May 20, 1997, the court
adopted the master's recommendations concerning the division of real
estate, retirement accounts, automobiles, a trailer, a boat, household

1 Wife-appellee now lives in Virginia.
2 Ordinarily, an adjudication of contempt, with a directive to specifically
perform, without sanctions, is interlocutory and not appealable. Sonder v.
Sonder, 549 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 1988). In this case, however, the
contempt proceeding resulted in the award of appellant's pension to
appellee, and is therefore appealable.
* Retired Justice assigned to Superior Court.

J. A01027/01
furnishings, bank accounts and cash. That part of the order is not in issue in
this appeal. The court's order for equitable distribution also awarded wife-
appellee sixty per cent of husband-appellant's DuPont Savings and
Investment Plan (SIP); sixty per cent of that part of appellant's pension from
DuPont that had been acquired during the marriage, three years coverage of
medical insurance, plus $2,750 per month in alimony for an indefinite
period, modifiable and terminable upon a substantial change in
circumstances. The SIP division and the award of part of the pension
required the court to issue a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO),3
which had not yet been signed by husband-appellant at the time this appeal
was filed. Husband-appellant did not appeal the order of May 20, 1997.
¶ 3
Due to husband-appellant's general lack of compliance, including
dispute over the disposition of marital real property, wife-appellee filed a
petition for civil contempt and special relief on August 5, 1997. In a
subsequent petition, filed September 16, 1997, she stated that she had
information that appellant was about to leave his employment at DuPont,
and would receive a "buy-out" in lieu of pension benefits. Wife-appellee
asked the court to freeze husband-appellant's SIP and pension funds until he
complied with the order for him to sign the QDROs.
¶ 4
Husband-appellant did leave his employment at DuPont in September,

3 Term as used in the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, P.L. 98-397 and
defined in ERISA, 206(d)(3)(B)(I) and 414(P)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
- 2 -

J. A01027/01
1997. He paid alimony until the beginning of 1998. He paid for appellee's
medical insurance until late 1997, when the coverage lapsed. By an order
dated December 22, 1997 the court4 required the parties to proceed with the
equitable distribution as it had been determined, and to make final and sign,
within thirty days, the QDROs as they applied to the distribution of husband-
appellant's SIP and pension funds.
¶ 5
Wife-appellee subsequently brought another petition for contempt and
enforcement of the May 20, 1997 and December 22, 1997 orders. Husband-
appellant's lawyer responded by asserting his inability to pay because of
involuntary termination of employment by DuPont, and his inability to
request an amendment of the court's alimony order because he had been
living out of the country since 1997. Following a hearing on August 9, 1999,
the court found husband-appellant in willful contempt and issued a bench
warrant for his arrest, sentencing him to six months in prison or until such
time as he paid his arrearages in alimony and complied with the orders
relating to the QDROs. The court also ordered him to pay wife-appellee's
medical expenses in the amount of $16,000, and counsel fees in the amount
of $2200.
¶ 6
Because of husband-appellant's failure to comply, the matter was
relisted for another contempt hearing on May 17, 2000. On May 22, 2000

4 The Honorable Jacqueline Cody (nee Carroll).
- 3 -

J. A01027/01
the court5 directed that wife-appellee should receive 100% of the present
value of appellant's DuPont retirement pension,6 provided the sum did not
exceed $243, 467.23. To the extent the present value of the pension was
less than $243,467.23, the difference between its value as of the date of
implementation and that sum was to be entered as a judgment against
appellant. The court ordered him to sign the QDRO within ten days of its
receipt, and if he did not sign, the court directed the prothonotary of Chester
County to sign it on behalf of husband. Husband-appellant appeals from this
order.
The pension allocation
¶ 7
Husband-appellant's position is that his pension from DuPont, a
qualified plan, cannot be attached in favor of his former wife beyond what
was earned during the marriage. Appellant cites Hollman v. Hollman, 515
Pa. 288, 528 A.2d 146 (1987), where the Court allowed attachment of a
pension after a divorce following twenty-nine years of marriage, and the
bulk of the pension was earned during the marriage. The rationale for the
decision is that pensions are for the benefit of a participant's family, and the
money placed in the pension fund is money that the family defers spending

5 The Honorable Katherine B. L. Platt.
6 At some point, husband-appellant liquidated the SIP, of which appellee
was to receive 60%, and she received no funds from the SIP.
- 4 -

J. A01027/01
until a later time. Therefore, he argues, the only part of his DuPont pension
which can be attached for wife-appellee's support is that which was earned
prior to their separation on February 5, 1994. Moreover, he argues, because
he remarried as soon as the divorce was final, that portion of the pension
earned after his remarriage is properly saved for the benefit of his new wife
and any children of that marriage.
¶ 8
Husband-appellant's argument fails because it is misdirected. His
argument is one that is appropriate in the context of an award of equitable
distribution. The order of the court in issue here does not involve the initial
distribution of the assets of the marriage. Rather, it resulted from the
court's finding that appellant remained in willful contempt of the orders of
May 20, 1997 and December 22, 1997. The award was designed to
compensate wife-appellee for the losses she incurred as a result of
husband's failure to comply.
¶ 9
The Divorce Code7 grants trial courts broad powers to enforce orders
of equitable distribution, and provides remedies available against one who
fails to comply with a court's order of equitable distribution. These remedies
include, in § 3502(e), the transfer or sale of any property required to comply
with the court's order. As the hearing court explained in its opinion
supporting the order under appeal, the non-marital part of husband-
appellant's pension that was allocated to wife-appellee was not in equitable

7 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502.
- 5 -

J. A01027/01
distribution, but rather property awarded under the court's equitable powers
to effectuate the support award that appellant has evaded paying. The
purpose of the proscription, in ERISA, on alienation and assignment of
pension funds is to protect the participant from his or her own financial
improvidence. It is not intended to alter support obligations. Stinner v.
Stinner, 520 Pa. 374, 554 A.2d 45 (1989).
Failure to agree to a stipulation
¶ 10 Husband-appellant takes the position that a court has no authority to
hold a litigant in contempt because he fails to agree on some business
before the court. The court therefore cannot hold him in contempt for failing
to sign the QDRO pertaining to his pension. We accept the rationale of the
hearing court that the only asset remaining to satisfy husband-appellant's
financial obligations to wife-appellee is the pension, and that distribution of
pension benefits would not ordinarily accrue until husband's retirement age
is reached in 2014. The signing of the QDRO was therefore a necessary
mechanism to insure that wife-appellee would receive arrearages due.
Medical insurance
¶ 11 Husband-appellant challenges the court's calculation that his
indebtedness includes the payment of medical bills incurred by his former
wife, which amount to $15,681.23. The court's order of May, 1997 required
- 6 -

J. A01027/01
him to pay the cost of medical insurance for her, comparable to current
COBRA coverage, for three years from the date alimony commences. That
obligation ran from May 1997 to May 2000. At some time in 1997, the
COBRA coverage lapsed for non-payment of premiums. Wife-appellee
testified that the COBRA coverage originated with appellant's employment at
DuPont, that when he stopped making payments and the coverage lapsed,
she was unable to resume the coverage by making her own payments, that
she was unable to obtain other private medical insurance on her own, and as
a result of her medical expenses and the cost of prescription drugs, she has
had to declare bankruptcy. N.T., 8/9/1999, at 23, 33; 5/17/2000, at 28.8
We reject husband-appellant's argument that his obligation was only for
medical insurance, and not for medical costs incurred as a result of his
permitting her coverage to lapse. His obligation to pay for medical insurance
was to prevent wife-appellee from incurring uninsured medical expenses.
His failure to fulfill his legal obligations in this instance are the cause of the
indebtedness for medical bills, and are properly included in the calculation of
what he owes.
Alimony
¶ 12 Husband-appellant asserts that he should not be held in contempt for

8 The master's report of 1996 indicated that appellee had ongoing medical
problems resulting from an automobile accident; that she had physical
limitations and could not sit without a brace.
- 7 -

J. A01027/01
failure to pay alimony because he "lost" the job on which alimony was
predicated in 1997. He further asserts that the court should not hold him in
contempt for failure to pay alimony before his petition to terminate or
modify alimony, filed on March 6, 2000, was heard. Husband-appellant
never appeared in court to testify about his termination of employment at
DuPont. When he filed his petition, the amounts for alimony and medical
insurance were more than two years overdue. Although he claims that he
had no notice of the contempt proceedings, he was represented by counsel
at the hearings. We find no merit in this issue.
Future value of a debt
¶ 13 Husband-appellant challenges the court's calculation of his pension
indebtedness, because the court imputed an amount owed in 2014,
appellant's earliest retirement year. The court accepted wife-appellee's
worksheet, entered as exhibit P-3, that stated the amounts owed for alimony
plus interest to date, the SIP award plus interest, medical expenses plus
interest, and counsel fees. To this sum was added legal interest to
November 2014, the earliest date that appellant could begin to receive
retirement benefits. N.T., 5/17/2000, at 20-29. The amount does not
include any future award of alimony, merely interest on the amount
currently due, calculated to the date she will receive it. The court stated, "I
will be double-checking the math myself just because that is the kind of
- 8 -

J. A01027/01
person I am." N.T., 5/17/2000, at 46. As the court explained, "Appellant's
counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine on the contents of the
calculations, and to argue to the court as to its legal value and relevance."
Opinion, p. 4. The court, having reviewed the calculations in the exhibit and
finding that they were credible and supported by the record, issued its order.
Our review leads to the conclusion that the court acted correctly, and we
therefore affirm the order.
¶ 14 Order affirmed.
- 9 -