Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0559 civilCAROL JEAN BARRICK, PLAINTIFF V. DAVID A. AGAR, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 93-0559 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO ENFORCE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT BAYLEY, J., April 29, 1999:-- Carol Jean Barrick and David A. Agar were divorced by a final decree on October 18, 19947 Wife has filed a petition against husband to enforce a property The agreement settlement agreement that the parties entered into on May 18, 1994. provides: Pursuant to a QDRO, Husband agrees that the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) from his Pension Account at Masland shall be allocated into an account for Wife and shall become the Wife's sole property. Wife waives any further claim relative to the remaining money in the mentioned Pension Account. Each of the parties shall, from time to time, at the request of the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other party any and all further instruments or documents that may be reasonably required to give full force and effect to the provisions of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.) Wife's attorney sent husband's attorney a letter on May 31, 1994, requesting the documentation from Masland Industries necessary to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to fulfill the requirement of husband allocating to wife the $5,000 as provided for in the property settlement agreement. There was no 1. For ease of reference we will still refer to the parties as husband and wife. 93-0559 CIVIL TERM response. On June 27, 1994, wife's attorney sent another letter to husband's attorney requesting the same information. There was no response. The matter then slipped through the cracks and no further action was taken until last year when wife's attorney again requested that husband provide the necessary documentation to prepare a QDRO. Through March, 1998, the $5,000 in husband's pension account has grown to $10,533.37. Wife maintains that husband must now allocate to her through a QDRO the current invested value of the $5,000. The evidence shows that if the $5,000 had been allocated in the summer of 1994, and invested by wife in a comparable IRA, the current value would be approximately $10,897. Husband argues that whether wife would have invested the $5,000 in a comparable IRA is problematical and, notwithstanding, he should only be required pursuant to the terms of the property settlement agreement to now allocating $5,000 by a QDRO. Besides breaching the provision in the property settlement agreement that he allocate to wife $5,000 from his pension pursuant to a QDRO, husband has breached the provision that required upon the request of his wife that he deliver to her "[a]ll further.., documents that may be reasonably required to give full force and effect to the provisions of this Agreement." The requests were made on May 31, 1994, and again on June 27, 1994. In Styer v. Hugo, 442 Pa. Super. 262 (1993), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: 'Unjust enrichment' is essentially an equitable doctrine. The elements of unjust enrichment are 'benefits conferred on defendant by -2- 93-0559 CIVIL TERM plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.' Wolf v. Wolf, 356 Pa. Super. 365, 514 A.2d 901 (1986), overruled on other grounds, Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 4 (1991); see also Burgettstown-Smith Township Joint Sewage Authority v. Langeloth Townsite Co., 403 Pa. Super. 84, 588 A.2d 43 (1991). Whether the doctrine applies depends on the unique factual circumstances of each case. In determining if the doctrine applies, we focus not on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insur. Co. v. Jim Bowe & Sons, Inc., 372 Pa. Super. 186, 539 A.2d 391, 393 (1988) (citing Myers-Macomber Engineers v. M.L.W. Constr. Corp. and HNC Mortgage and Realty Investors, 271 Pa. Super. 484, 414 A.2d 357 (1979); Gee v. Eberle, 279 Pa. Super. 101,420 A.2d 1050 (1980)). Moreover, the most significant element of the doctrine is whether the enrichment of the defendant is unjust. The doctrine does not apply simply because the defendant may have benefited as a result of the actions of the plaintiff .... Where unjust enrichment if found, the law implies a contract .between the parties pursuant to which the plaintiff must be compensated for the benefits unjustly received by the defendant. This contract, referred to as either a quasi-contract or a contract implied in law, requires that the defendant pay the plaintiff the value of the benefits conferred, i.e. that the defendant make restitution to the plaintiff in quantum meruit. See Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 436 pa. 279, 290-91,259 A.2d 443, 449 (1969); DeGasperi v. Valicenti, 198 Pa. Super. 455, 457, 181 A.2d 862, 864 (1962). Under the unique facts in the case sub judice, we find that husband would be unjustly enriched if he is allowed to keep the substantial earnings on the $5,000 that he was, by contract, required to allocate to wife in 1994. Accordingly, the following order is entered. AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT day of April, 1999, IT IS ORDERED that David A. Agar -3- 93-0559 CIVIL TERM shall allocate to Carol Jean Barrick, pursuant to a QDRO, his current invested value of the $5,000 that he failed to allocate to her pursuant to their property settlement agreement dated May 18, 1994. Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire For Plaintiff Edgar B. Bayl~. P. Richard Wagner, Esquire For Defendant :saa -4-