Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-5092 civil termTHOMAS E. STEFFEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GERALYN M. STEFFEN, DEFENDANT 94-5092 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MARTIAL AGREEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Z~- day of May, 2000, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff may enforce a binding partial settlement of the distribution of the parties' personal property, jointly owned bonds and the net proceeds from the sale of their marital residence. B ythe C%rt, ' Edgar ~. Bayl~ P. Richard Wagner, Esquire For Plaintiff Paul J. Esposito, Esquire For Defendant Robert Elicker, Esquire Divorce Master Rickie Shadday, DRO :saa THOMAS E. STEFFEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GERALYN M. STEFFEN, DEFENDANT 94-5092 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MARTIAL AGREEMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., May 24, 2000:-- Plaintiff, Thomas E. Steffen, age 44, and defendant, Geralyn M. Steffen, age 42, were married on October 3, 1981. They have two children, Kathryn, age 10, and Michael, age 8, who live with wife. Husband is a captain in the United States Navy assigned at the Naval Inventory Control Point in Mechanicsburg. Wife is an assistant pricing coordinator for Giant Foods. Husband instituted this divorce action on September 9, 1994, right after the parties separated. Wife filed a complaint for child support on March 20, 2000, and for alimony pendente lite on April 3, 2000, the disposition of which are pending. The parties' economic dispute is ready for a hearing before a divorce master. Husband maintains that he and his wife entered into an oral agreement in partial settlement of their economic affairs. A hearing was conducted on May 22, 2000, on his claim to enforce that partial settlement. The same principles of law applicable to analyzing the validity of a postnuptial 94-5092 CIVIL TERM agreement are applicable to prenuptial agreements. Adams v. Adams, 414 Pa. Super. 634 (1992). When such agreements are entered into without fraud, misrepresentation or distress, and are based on full and fair disclosure of financial positions, they are enforceable. Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392 (1990). The reasonableness of such agreements and the general knowledge of the parties are not subject to judicial review. Id. Such agreements may be entered into orally; however, when oral they must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Moore's Estate, 439 Pa. 578 (1970). In the summer of 1995, well after husband filed for a divorce and at a time when both parties were represented by counsel, they sought the services of a clinical psychologist to mediate a child custody dispute. They also entered into mediation with the psychologist regarding their economic affairs. The parties reached a written agreement regarding custody. Wife had become an alcoholic for which she received considerable treatment and for a period of time the children lived with husband? Husband testified that in their joint discussions of their economic affairs with the psychologist they reviewed all of their marital assets and debt. Both of them were aware of the value of the assets except the value of husband's military pension and wife's civil service pension? Husband paid an actuary to value both pensions. The ~ From what we can discern wife is now doing well. 2 Wife was an executive secretary with the federal government for whom she worked for eighteen years. She took early retirement and on February 13, 1998, she received her retirement benefits in a lump sum of $18,341. -2- 94-5092 CIVIL TERM report of the actuary was provided to both parties. Husband testified that in the fall of 1995, as a result of mediation, he and his wife entered into an oral agreement that (1) they would sell their jointly owned marital residence, which was sold in March, 1997, with the net proceeds of about $18,000 divided equally; (2) they would distribute their personal property which was done to their satisfaction; (3) they would distribute their marital saving bonds, which was done to the satisfaction of each;3 (4) he would assume joint credit card debt of approximately $15,000, which he did; (5) he would pay wife's substantial unreimbursed medical expenses, which he did; (6) he would pay wife spousal support of $800 per month for three years commencing in January, 1996, for which wife waived all rights to alimony and further support, and that he paid wife $800 each month for three years between January, 1996 and December, 1998;" and (7) they would equally divide the marital portion of their pensions. The report of the actuary set forth two methods whereby wife could receive her share of husband's pension. Wife did not choose either of the two methods which husband maintains is the only issue to be decided by the divorce master. Husband testified that he also orally agreed to pay wife $900 per month in child support. When she had the children he voluntarily paid her that amount, 3 Husband also delivered to wife saving bonds which she owned prior to their marriage. 4 Husband testified that he did not believe he was entitled to take a tax deduction for the spousal support, so he did not, and wife did not claim the support on her separate tax returns. -3- 94-5092 CIVIL TERM later increasing it to $1,200 per month, and to $1,350 per month when he was promoted to captain in October, 1999. Wife testified that she never agreed to a comprehensive economic settlement whereby she waived her statutory rights to spousal support, alimony pendente lite, alimony and the equitable distribution of marital property. She testified that she needed spousal support, asked her husband to voluntarily provide her assistance, and that he dictated the terms at $800 a month for three years. When she moved into an apartment husband sent a statement to her landlord that he would be paying her $800 a month for three years. This assistance was necessary for her to meet the financial requirements to rent the apartment. Wife testified that there was no agreement regarding the distribution of their pensions. One of her requirements that she discussed with husband, and which he refused to do, was for him to opt for a survivor benefit annuity, and provide her life insurance in order to protect her and the children should he die. Husband testified that he and his wife never discussed a survivor benefit annuity or life insurance. When they were still in mediation the psychologist prepared a written memorandum of understanding regarding economic issues but neither party signed the document. Wife testified that she met with her lawyer in December, 1995, and instructed him to try to negotiate an acceptable property settlement agreement. On May 16, 1996, a half year after husband maintains that he and wife had an oral partial settlement agreement that resolved almost all economic issues, his attorney wrote to -4- 94-5092 CIVIL TERM the attorney for wife: I trust that Lynn has shared with you the custody agreement mediated by Arnie Sheinvold. Please incorporate it into a Stipulation with any other provisions Lynn wants and send it to me for Tom's review. Arnie is also helping them resolve their economic issues. I will be meeting with Tom June 4, 1996 and will thereafter send you a draft Marital Settlement Agreement. I understand that the parties have hired Harry Leister to do a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The attorneys exchanged numerous drafts of property settlement agreements none of which the parties signed. We are satisfied by the clear and convincing evidence that the parties entered into an oral partial settlement, which they implemented, regarding the distribution of their personal property, jointly owned bonds and the net proceeds from the sale of their marital residence. We are not satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that this partial settlement involved their respective pensions or a waiver by wife of her statutory rights regarding spousal support, alimony pendente lite, alimony and counsel fees and costs. Husband's laudatory voluntary payments of substantial spousal support and child support was satisfactory to wife at the time but that does not preclude her from proceeding on her current complaint for alimony pendente lite.s There remains before the master a resolution of the equitable distribution of the pensions of both of the parties, wife's collateral claims, and her claim for alimony, counsel fees and costs. That s Wife's complaint seeking child support can proceed as parents may not limit the amount of support that should be paid in the best interest of children. Knorr v. Knorr, 527 Pa. 83 (1991). -5- 94-5092 CIVIL TERM is not to say, however, that what the parties have resolved with respect to some of their property, and what husband has voluntarily paid during their lengthy separation, including his payment of substantial marital debt, will not have a bearing on the outcome of their economic litigation. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~1-. day of May, 2000, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff may enforce a binding partial settlement of the distribution of the parties' personal property, jointly owned bonds and the net proceeds from the sale of their marital residence. By the Court, P. Richard Wagner, Esquire For Plaintiff Paul J. Esposito, Esquire For Defendant Robert Elicker, Esquire Divorce Master Rickie Shadday, DRO :saa -6-