Alza, L. v. Alza, A. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S62027-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LINDA M. ALZA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ALFREDO W. ALZA Appellee No. 742 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Dated February 7, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s): 1223 DR 2005, 8498 CV 2005 BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. FILED DECEMBER 10, 2013 Linda M. Alza (Wife) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County denying her petition for special relief in which she sought to extend her alimony payments and finalize the wording of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). After careful review, we affirm based on the opinion of the Honorable Stephen M. Higgins. The parties were married on October 18, 1987, and are the parents of an adult daughter. On October 26, 2005, Wife filed a divorce complaint seeking, inter alia, equitable distribution and alimony. At a master s hearing on April 22, 2009, the parties agreed that Alfredo W. Alza (Husband) would provide Wife alimony in the amount of $2,500 per month for three years followed by $1,200 for six months. J-S62027-13 With regard to Husband s pension, counsel for Wife stated at the hearing that the parties agreed that Wife would be entitled to 50 percent of the marital value or the marital benefit based upon the proper coverture fraction. N.T. Master s Hearing, 4/22/09, at 12. Counsel for Wife further stated: I believe there may be a methodology by which we can say we want a survivor annuity just on the marital portion of the pension. If that is in fact the case, I have agreed with [Husband s counsel] that we will investigate that and determine what it is, acknowledging on [Wife s] behalf that if she wishes for the survivor annuity to be elected with regard to her portion that we would have to redo the percentages in order to effectuate an equitable distribution because obviously [Husband] would receive less in his overall pension benefit. Id. at 13. On April 22, 2009, the parties signed affidavits of consent pursuant to section 3301(c) of the Divorce Code. The master filed his report and recommendation on May 6, 2010, and on May 28, 2010, the court adopted the recommendation and issued a divorce decree. Wife filed a petition for special relief on September 12, 2012, in which she sought an extension of alimony and an order directing that certain language be included in the QDRO. With respect to the QDRO, she averred: 6. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties and the . . . [QDRO], as it was anticipated that there would be a reduction in [Husband s] monthly pension benefit as a result of his selection of the aforesaid survivor annuity, [Wife] agreed to accept a reduced percentage interest in that asset. 7. The aforesaid notwithstanding, the parties have been unable to agree upon the appropriate language to be included in -2- J-S62027-13 the [QDRO] relating to that reduction in benefit and/or more specifically, how the same is to be financed. 8. More specifically, while it is believed, and therefore averred, that it was the expressed and knowing intention of the parties that the survivor annuity option would be financed through a reduction of Husband s benefit, as, again, Wife agreed to accept a lower percentage of the asset in consideration thereof, Husband is now insisting that the option be financed through a reduction in Wife s benefit. 9. Further, the aforesaid QDRO cannot be finalized unless and until this issue is resolved, and hence, [Wife] is seeking the Court s intervention on the same. Petition for Special Relief, 9/12/12, at 2. The petition further averred that Wife had experienced health issues that warranted the continuation of alimony until she begins receiving her share of Husband s pension benefits. The trial court held a hearing on Wife s petition for special relief on November 21, 2012. By opinion and order dated February 7, 2013, the court denied the petition. Wife filed a timely appeal in which she raises the following issues for our review: 1. Did the lower court abuse its discretion by not allowing [Wife] to receive an increased percentage of [Husband s] marital pension benefit in order to compensate for the cost of the survivor annuity pursuant to the stipulation of the parties? 2. Did the lower court abuse its discretion by denying [Wife s] petition for special relief and not allowing [her] alimony award to be modified and/or extended in light of her disability determination which occurred some six months following the entry of the final divorce decree? Brief of Appellant, at 4. -3- J-S62027-13 On appeal from the denial of a petition for special relief under the Divorce Code, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. Johnson v. Johnson, 908 A.2d 290 (Pa. Super. 2006). With respect to the QDRO, the trial court properly concluded that at the master s hearing, Wife agreed to investigate the survivor option, and if she selected that option, an adjustment would be made because it would require Husband to receive a reduced pension benefit. The trial court correctly relied on Adams v. Adams, 848 A.2d 991, 993 (Pa. Super. 2004), for the proposition that absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress, parties are generally bound by terms of their agreements. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in determining that Wife failed to establish her right to an order directing that the QDRO be drafted contrary to the agreement reached on the record at the master s hearing. In setting forth the parties agreement, counsel for Wife stated at the master s hearing that alimony . . . will be subject to modification by any court of competent jurisdiction upon either party demonstrating a substantial change in financial circumstances. N.T. Master s Hearing, 4/22/09, at 6. In her petition for special relief, Wife averred that she has experienced substantial health issues since the entry of the divorce decree which have rendered her totally and permanently disabled. Petition for Special Relief, 9/12/12, at 3. At the time of the master s hearing in September 2009, Wife had applied for social security disability benefits. On November 9, 2010, she was -4- J-S62027-13 determined to be completely disabled and was granted benefits retroactive to November 2007. Based on the testimony from the November 2012 hearing, the trial court concluded that Wife s financial situation had improved due to her social security benefits, the fact that she lived with her her mother after the divorce, and the inheritance she received after her mother s death. Because Wife had not established a substantial change in financial circumstances, the court concluded that she was not entitled to additional alimony. We rely on the opinion of the Honorable Stephen M. Higgins in disposing of both issues on appeal. We instruct the parties to attach that decision in the event of further proceedings in this matter. Order affirmed. Appellee s request for counsel fees and costs denied.1 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/10/2013 ____________________________________________ 1 In his brief, Husband requests that Wife pay his counsel fees and costs as a sanction for vexatious and dilatory conduct. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(6). While Wife s claims lacked merit, they were neither frivolous nor raised in bad faith. Accordingly, we deny Husband s request. -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.