Promislo, J. v. Steinhouse, J. ( 2020 )

J-A13011-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JACQUELINE PROMISLO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JONATHAN I. STEINHOUSE :
:
Appellant : No. 3271 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Dated November 8, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): No. D15078464
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2020
Jonathan I. Steinhouse (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s
November 8, 2019 order requiring him to pay to Jacqueline Promislo (Wife)
an amount of child support and alimony as a result of this Court’s order
directing a remand in a prior appeal. After review, we affirm.
This Court’s prior memorandum opinion provides the factual and
procedural background of this matter:
The parties married in June 1999[,] and two children were
born of the marriage: a son, currently age nineteen, and a minor
daughter, presently age seventeen. Wife filed a divorce complaint
on July 15, 2015, and the parties were divorced on October 17,
2016. On July 28, 2016, the parties entered into the [Property
Settlement] Agreement, which provided, inter alia, as follows:
8 CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13011-20
8.1 Effective August 1, 2016, [Husband] will pay
support to [Wife at] the rate of $4,500 per month,
allocated $2,000 child support, and $2,500 to alimony
pendente lite (“APL”)/alimony through March 31,
2017. In April, 2017, the parties will recalculate child
support and alimony using the support guidelines
formula applied to their incomes/earning capacities at
the time. In the event [Wife] has no income at that
time, the calculation will be done using an earning
capacity for her of $50,000. Effective April 1, 2017[,]
and continuing until [Husband’s] child support and
alimony obligations have been recalculated by
agreement or court order, [Husband] will pay
support to [Wife] at the rate of $3,792 a month,
allocated $1,854 for child support, and $1,938 to
alimony, on an interim basis (“the interim period”).
The recalculated support and alimony obligations shall
be retroactive to April 1, 2017, and [Husband’s]
payments going forward will be adjusted to account
for any shortfall or overpayment during the interim
period.
Agreement, 7/28/16, at ¶ 8.1 (emphasis added). The Agreement
also provided, “No modification or waiver of any of the terms of
this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by
both parties.” Id. at ¶ 10.1 (emphasis added). Wife avers that
the parties negotiated a Second Addendum to the Agreement but
never signed it. Wife’s Brief at 10; N.T., 8/9/17, at 7, 20. She
offered an addendum, unsigned, and identified it as “M-2.” N.T.,
8/9/17, at 7-8, 11.
On May 30, 2018, Wife filed a “Petition for Enforcement and
Contempt of the July 28, 2016 Property Settlement Agreement.”
The trial court conducted a hearing on August 9, 2018, following
which it entered the appealed order, which provides:
AND NOW, THIS 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018, UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER BEFORE THIS
COURT, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED THAT:
THE COURT DOES NOT FIND WILLFUL [sic] AND
THEREFORE THE COURT DOES NOT FIND FORMER
HUSBAND, JONATHAN I. STEINHOUSE IN CONTEMPT.
-2-
J-A13011-20
THE REQUEST BY COUNSEL FOR FORMER WIFE,
JACQUELINE PROMISLO[,] THAT THE COURT ORDER
FORMER HUSBAND TO PAY SUMS TO FORMER WIFE
AT THIS TIME IS DENIED.
Order, 8/9/18 (verbatim).
Promislo v. Steinhouse, No. 2755 EDA 2018, unpublished memorandum at
1-3 (Pa. Super. filed August 14, 2019) (Promislo I).
Wife appealed from the August 9, 2018 order and after review, this
Court in Promislo I affirmed the trial court’s refusal to hold Husband in
contempt. However, it reversed the trial court’s refusal to enforce the parties’
Agreement and remanded the matter, directing the trial court “to enforce
paragraph 8.1 for the amounts Husband was contractually obligated to pay
Wife and adjust for any amounts Husband already has paid.” Id. at 8-9.
Following this Court’s issuance of its opinion in Promislo I on August
14, 2019, Husband filed a petition on September 17, 2019, requesting that
his support payments be lowered for the period between September of 2017
and May of 2018. Notably, for the period beginning April 2017, Husband made
monthly payments in varying amounts, but all lower than the $3,792 required
by the Agreement. Husband’s September 17, 2019 petition was assigned to
another common pleas court judge.1 The trial judge, whose decision was the
subject of the Promislo I appeal, scheduled a hearing on the remand order
from this Court for November 8, 2019. Husband was informed that his newly
____________________________________________
1The hearing relating to Husband’s September 2019 petition has been stayed
pending the conclusion of the present appeal to this Court.
-3-
J-A13011-20
filed September 17, 2019 petition would not be considered at the hearing.
Rather, the November 8th hearing was solely scheduled for the purpose of
complying with this Court’s remand order. After the November 8, 2019
hearing was held, the trial court issued the following order:
And now, this 8th day of November, 2019, it is hereby
ORDERED that [Husband] pay [Wife] $21,032.16, plus $387.44
for costs incurred, totaling $21,419.60. It is further ORDERED
that this amount be paid in full within fourteen (14) day[s] of the
date of this Order.
Trial Court Order, 11/8/19. The amounts stated in the trial court’s order
reflected the application of paragraph 8.1 of the parties’ Agreement and taking
into consideration the sums paid by Husband during the period beginning in
April 2017.
Husband filed his appeal from this order and now raises the following
two issues for our review:
A. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion when
it failed to enforce Paragraph 8.1 of the parties’ July 28, 2016
Property Settlement Agreement requiring the recalculation of
[Husband’s] support obligation effective April 1, 2017[?]
B. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion
when it entered the November 8, 2019 Order on [Wife’s] Petition
for Special Relief for Entry of Order while [Husband’s] Petition to
Enforce Property Settlement Agreement on the very same issue
was still pending before the Court of Common Pleas[?]
Husband’s brief at 6.
In his first issue, Husband asserts that the trial court failed to enforce
paragraph 8.1 of the parties’ Agreement in that it did not recalculate his
support obligation. With reliance on Lipschutz v. Lipschutz, 571 A.2d 1046-4-
J-A13011-20
(Pa. Super. 1990), Husband explains that “[a] property settlement agreement
containing support provisions is enforceable by utilizing the same rules of law
used in determining the validity of contracts….” Husband’s brief at 18. He
further lists the requirements, indicating that
it is a detailed agreement covering all aspects of the economic
relationship of the parties; it is not one-sided; both spouses are
adequately counseled; the amount of support is not inadequate;
and the agreement does not merge into a divorce decree or court
order.
Lipschutz, 571 A.2d at 1049. Husband then acknowledges that these terms
exist and, thus, the Agreement is valid, a fact that neither party attacks.
Husband further claims that the Agreement is binding and not modifiable,
citing McGough v. McGough, 522 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 1987).
Essentially, Husband is claiming that the trial court should have
recalculated his support obligation and should not have merely applied the
amounts stated in paragraph 8.1, which were designated as the amounts he
should pay during “the interim period.” See Paragraph 8.1 of the Agreement.
In its opinion, the trial court noted that “no signed writing [was] offered as
evidence in this case” that would have supported a modification of the sums
directed by the Agreement. Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/19, at 3. The court
also explained that because Husband had not filed his petition asking for a
recalculation of his support obligation until September 17, 2019, two years
after he could have made this request, and because Husband’s petition was
assigned to another judge, the appropriate action was to only conduct a
hearing as per the remand order from this Court. That is exactly what
-5-
J-A13011-20
occurred. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not commit any
errors regarding this Court’s order remanding the matter. Thus, Husband’s
first issue does not provide him with any relief.
Husband’s second issue centers on his objection to the trial court’s
decision to only comply with this Court’s remand order rather than to combine
the remand directive with his request to modify the monthly amounts he was
to pay for support. His argument is addressed to what he deems is not “a fair
and just determination of the parties’ settlement rights.” Husband’s brief at
23. Instead, Husband asserts that the trial court should have considered both
the remand order and his petition to modify the amount he was required to
pay. It is evident that Husband’s petition to modify the support amount was
only filed after this Court’s Promislo I decision was rendered. Therefore, the
trial court’s decision to limit the hearing solely to the remand directive was
not an error. Moreover, Husband’s petition to modify will be heard in due
time. He has not convinced us otherwise and, thus, is not entitled to relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/5/2020
-6-