Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-1349 civilJOHN R. HURLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 1349 CIVIL 1980 : THELMA I. HURLEY, : IN DIVORCE Defendant : IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, pur~s t / q ! 1999, after careful consideration of the parties' briefs and to the Opinion filed this date, Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement is denied. By the Court, Michael L. Bangs, Esquire ? 302 South 18th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 For the Plaintiff R. Mark Thomas, Esquire 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Defendant JOHN R. HURLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 1349 CIVIL 1980 : THELMA I. HURLEY, : IN DIVORCE Defendant : IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address the Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Property Settlement Agreement filed by the plaintiff, John R. Hurley. Defendant, Thelma I. Hurley, is plaintiff's former spouse. The parties filed for divorce in 1980. As a necessary component of the divorce proceeding, the parties negotiated and entered into a property settlement agreement dated November 1, 1987. At the time the parties entered into the agreement, defendant was receiving full Social Security Disability benefits. The agreement specified the manner by which the parties would split a pension earned by the plaintiff, during the parties' marriage, when it became payable in 1990. Defendant has received the agreed-upon portion of all pension payments issued to date. The agreement set out a formula to calculate the amount due defendant from plaintiff's pension after either or both parties were eligible for Social Security Retirement benefits. The agreement specified the following: 1349 CIVIL 1980 (b) The parties agree that if at any time after the parties begin to receive their respective share of the said pension, either or both should be eligible for social security retirement benefits, that the following will occur: (1) If Thelma Hurley is eligible for more monthly social security benefits than John Hurley is eligible for, her share of said pension shall be reduced by the amount of social security benefits she is eligible to receive which exceeds the amount of social security retirement benefits John Hurley is eligible to receive. (2) If John Hurley is eligible for as much or more in social security retirement benefits than Thelma Hurley, the division of the said pension as outlined above shall be unaffected. Property Settlement Agreement dated November 1, 1987. At issue in this case is the interpretation of the phrase "eligible for social security retirement benefits." Plaintiff alleges that the above cited provision in the agreement was triggered when defendant reached age 62 because she could be eligible for old age insurance benefits. Because plaintiff receives $'148.60 in Social Security Retirement benefits and defendant is eligible for $383.00 in retirement benefits, plaintiff claims that defendant's portion of the pension payments should be reduced by $234.40, the difference between the benefits defendant is eligible to receive and the benefits plaintiff actually receives. Final argument was held in this matter November 6, 1998. 2 1349 CIVIL 1980 Discussion Post nuptial agreements are contracts and are governed by contract law principles. Laudig v. Laudig, 425 Pa. Super. 228, 232, 624 A.2d 651,653 (1993). If the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, a court must construe the document as written, not altering the plain meaning of the words. Carosone v. Carosone, 455 Pa. Super. 450, 453, 688 A.2d 733, 735 (1997). A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations and could be understood in more than one way. Purdy v. Purdy, 715 A.2d 473, 475 (Pa. Super. 1998). "Therefore, a contract will be deemed unambiguous if reasonable persons could not differ as to the contract's interpretation." Id~ If a contract is ambiguous, the fact finder may use extrinsic or parol evidence to resolve the ambiguities and find the parties' intent. Metzger v. Clifford Realty Corp., 327 Pa. Super. 377, 385, 476 A.2d 1, 5 (1984). Federal law governs Social Security benefits. Individuals may file for old age insurance benefits at age 62. 42 U.S.C.A. §402(a). "Retirement age" is defined as age 65. 42 U.S.C.A. §416(I)(1). Early retirement age is defined as age 62. 42 U.S.C.A. §416(I)(2). If one is entitled to disability benefits, the period of disability ends in the month preceding the month in which the individual reaches retirement age, 65 years old. 42 U.S.C.A. §416(I)(2)(D). When the disability period ends and 3 1349 CIVIL 1980 the individual has reached age 65, the individual is entitled to old age insurance benefits as a matter of course. 42 U.S.C.A. §402(a). At the time the parties negotiated the agreement, defendant was receiving Social Security Disability benefits. Under federal law, defendant's disability benefits end at age 65 and are converted into old age insurance benefits. Plaintiff argues that because individuals can be eligible for benefits at age 62, the agreement forces defendant to convert her disability benefits to old age benefits before she reaches age 65. If defendant does so, plaintiff will be entitled to a larger percentage of the monthly payments from the pension. The agreement refers only to eligibility for "retirement benefits" as the time to trigger the recalculation provision. Federal law defines retirement age as 65 and early retirement age as 62. Individuals are allowed to apply for old age benefits as early as age 62. The terms of the agreement do not specify if the recalculation provision is triggered by eligibility for retirement or early retirement. Because federal law allows for both early and standard retirement and the agreement does not specify which one applies, the agreement, as written, is ambiguous. It becomes the Court's role to interpret the ambiguous agreement signed by the parties. It is important to note (1) that at the time the agreement was signed, defendant was receiving full disability benefits which would end at age 65 and (2) 4 1349 CIVIL 1980 the express language of the agreement does not specify "early retirement" as the triggering date. Accordingly, we hold that, for purposes of the property settlement agreement, defendant becomes eligible for retirement benefits at age 65 and that, at the time the agreement was signed, the parties intended defendant to receive her full share of the pension until her disability benefits were converted to retirement benefits when she reached age 65. In light of this decision, it is clear that defendant is not in contempt and that there is no breach of the property settlement agreement.~ ~ Because the Court finds that the agreement has not been breached, plaintiff is not entitled to an award of counsel fees and costs.