J-S72032-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

FREDERICK FLOECK 

Appellant

v.

BRENDA LEE FLOECK

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1505 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order May 1, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations at 

No(s): No. 11-09083

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Frederick Floeck (“Husband”) appeals from the May 1, 2017, order 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Domestic Relations, 

denying his Petition to Terminate Alimony.

1 After a careful review, we affirm. 

The trial court has exhaustively set forth the facts and procedural history 

underlying this appeal as follows:

Husband and Wife were married on September 18, 1983. 

They separated in July of 2011 and [a final decree in divorce was 

entered] on August 11, 2015. Husband is 68-years-old. His 

employment background is in sales management. He worked for 

Mid-Atlantic Medical where he increased growth from $800,000 to 

$5 million in two years. N.T. 11/29/16 at 79-80.

____________________________________________

1

In addition to denying Husband’s Petition to Terminate Alimony, the trial 

court’s May 1, 2017, order granted Brenda Lee Floeck’s (“Wife”) petition for 

contempt and counsel fees. On appeal, Husband indicates that he is not 

challenging this portion of the trial court’s order. See Husband’s Brief at 9. 
J-S72032-17

- 2 -

In 1994, Husband started his own company, Patient Care 

Systems, later renamed Ergo Sciences, then renamed Ergo 

Midwest. Id. at 13. Ergo Midwest (“Ergo”) provides medical 

equipment for rent to nursing homes and hospitals in the Midwest. 

The equipment includes beds, wheelchairs, lifts, commodes, 

mattresses, and pressure wound therapy devices. Id. at 14, 17. 

Ergo has distribution centers in St. Louis and Kansas City. Id. at 

15. Husband operated the business from his Pennsylvania home 

and traveled to St. Louis and Kansas City once every two weeks.

Regarding the parties’ divorce, an Arbitration Award[2] dated 

May 26, 2015, was incorporated, but not merged, into the August 

11, 2015, Decree in Divorcee [sic]. Pursuant to the Arbitration 

Award, Husband is required to pay $7000 per month in alimony 

until the death of either party, Wife’s marriage/cohabitation, or 

May 1, 2022. 

Of particular relevance to these proceedings, the Arbitration 

Award stated that alimony shall not be subject to modification, 

except in the event of Husband’s medical disability or a decrease 

in Husband’s gross annual earned income as a result of 

circumstances beyond his control in excess of twenty-five percent 

(25%) of Husband’s gross annual earned income for calendar year 

2013. 

On May 3, 2016, Husband filed a Petition to Terminate 

Alimony.[3] He claimed that he sold Ergo on May 2, 2016, and 

since the sale of the business, he receives no earned income.4 

Husband testified that[,] in 2015, the company struggled 

financially, specifically with cash flow problems. Husband testified 

that Ergo had cash flow issues in 2013, 2014[,] and 2015. Id. at 

17. He stated that the cost to provide health insurance for his 

employees increased. Id. at 18.

____________________________________________

2 The parties executed an agreement to arbitrate the economic claims 

pertaining to their divorce, and on May 26, 2015, the arbitrator entered his 

conclusions/award with regard thereto. 

3 Thereafter, upon Husband’s failure to pay alimony, on July 8, 2016, Wife 

filed a petition for contempt and counsel fees. Further, on August 26, 2016, 

she filed a petition for special relief for counsel fees under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

2503.

4 Husband receives Social Security payments.
J-S72032-17

- 3 -

Ergo had fifteen employees. Husband testified that his 

insurance rates increased when some of his employees filed for 

Workers’ Compensation benefits. Id. at 75. [Specifically, he 

testified that] “[o]ur health insurance increased 43 percent in two 

years, and our Workmen’s Comp went up, I think 25 percent in 

one year.” Id. at 76.

Husband testified that Ergo spent a lot of money getting into 

the hospice market. Id. at 29. Husband stated that, in 2014 and 

2015, some manufacturers of medical equipment sold directly to 

Ergo’s customers, eliminating the need to rent the equipment. Id.

at 30. Husband stated that the sales/gross revenue of Ergo 

increased between 2014 [to] 2016 because the company rented 

negative pressure wound therapy devices. Id. at 137. The pumps 

rented for $40 per day. [Husband testified] “that was our highest 

revenue per diem equipment type.” Id. at 27. The company had 

to buy more equipment as the sales increased, which increased 

the debt. Id. at 152-53. Husband stated that his employees’ 

salaries also increased. Id. at 153-54. 

Jennifer Gallagher began working in Husband’s business as 

a receptionist seventeen years ago and advanced to the position 

of office manager. Id. at 200.5 Ms. Gallagher was responsible for 

overseeing the day-to-day operation of the business, including 

accounts payables and accounts receivables, supervising the 

drivers, and placing orders for equipment and repair parts. Id. at 

201. Ms. Gallagher and Husband spoke daily by telephone and 

they corresponded daily via email. Husband also traveled to the 

office in Missouri a couple of times a month. Id. at 202.

Ms. Gallagher testified that, in 2014, Ergo [ ] experienced 

increasing expenses. [She specifically testified that] “[t]he cost 

of fuel and healthcare, cost to maintain our medical equipment, 

all of those things had increased cost. So, you know, we were 

having a tough time. We had a lot of customers that paid slowly 

or did not pay, and we would have to chase after them. So it was 

a good juggle to keep things going.” Id. at 202-03. [She further 

testified that] “[w]e were always trying to expand the business. 

He was always pushing to drive the sales team. There were some 

opportunities that we had hoped to take advantage of going back 

into the hospice foray for one of our customers, for the HSI Group, 

____________________________________________

5 Ms. Gallagher works for the current owners of Ergo in the same capacity as 

office manager. 
J-S72032-17

- 4 -

providing hospice for them and their nursing home and hospice 

services.” Id. at 205. 

Ms. Gallagher stated that, in 2015, some suppliers and 

vendors threatened legal action against Ergo. Health insurance 

increased and workers’ compensation insurance increased. Id. at 

206. [She testified that] “[w]e had an employee at one of our 

sites who was injured...it drove our [insurance] policy up.” Id. at 

207. She stated that the cost of fuel and equipment increased. 

Id. [She indicated that] “[i]t was very difficult and we were 

having a problem making payroll. And there were times when we 

had to defer direct deposits and issue employees paper checks 

instead because we simply did not have the funds in place at the 

time that they needed to be in place for the direct deposits into 

the employee accounts.” Id. at 207-08.

Ms. Gallagher stated that vendors wanted to be paid within 

30 days but the average time to collect accounts receivables was 

75 to 100 days. When Ergo failed to pay vendors within 30 days, 

some vendors refused to provide additional supplies and [Ms. 

Gallagher testified that] “one or two vendors took legal action 

against us.” Id. at 209. Ms. Gallagher testified that at times 

Husband deposited his personal funds into the company “because 

we were not able to run independently on what we were making.” 

Id. at 219. 

Tony Coladonato, C.P.A., provided business and personal 

accounting services to Husband. He testified that Husband put his 

own funds into the company in 2013, 2014, and 2015. He stated 

that Husband would have to put money back into the company at 

the end of the year, sometimes to buy more equipment, 

sometimes to make payroll. 

Since 2005, Husband borrowed from Penn Liberty Bank, 

receiving business loans and lines of credit. The loans were 

secured by business assets and marketable securities. Id. at 163. 

Husband testified that, after the divorce in 2015, he had no equity 

to borrow for the business. [He testified that] “[w]ith the alimony 

allocation of [$]7,000 a month, which was hurting our cash flow 

even more and the continued decline of our revenue stream, I was 

no longer able to effectively borrow from the bank for these 

equipment types, and our drive to build the business was being 

stymied by that.” Id. at 20. Husband stated that Penn Liberty, 

his only lender since 2005, would not approve a loan without the 

joint assets as collateral. Id. at 21-22. [He indicated] “I didn’t 

have the relationship with any other bank. I had always gone to 
J-S72032-17

- 5 -

Penn Liberty...But I had no assets to borrow against. Everything 

was pledged to Penn Liberty.” Id. at 24. Mr. Coladonato testified 

that, in 2016, Penn Liberty denied Husband’s request for a 

$50,000 line of credit. He was given a $15,000 loan in March 

2016, nonetheless.

James Danna was the manager of commercial industrial 

lending at Penn Liberty (now WSFS Bank) when Husband 

requested loans from 2009 to 2016. Mr. Danna testified that Penn 

Liberty gave Husband two business loans, a line of credit, and a 

personal loan. Husband received new loans after he paid in full 

the outstanding loans. Id. at 162. In 2016, Husband requested 

a loan of $50,000 to $75,000. Mr. Danna told Husband that Penn 

Liberty was not willing to give Husband a loan of that amount 

based on the financial condition of Ergo. He stated that Husband 

didn’t have the liquid assets he had prior to the divorce, and 

Husband had a credit score under 600. Id. at 164-65. Husband 

testified the reason for the low credit score was because he had 

been a victim of identity theft. 

Husband testified that, on February 11, 2016, he made an 

offer to Health Systems, Inc. (“HSI”) to provide rental equipment 

for HSI’s twenty-three nursing homes in Springfield, Missouri. Id.

at 36-38. [Husband indicated] “I was going to have to have at 

least another 200 to $300,000 available to provide this 

equipment.” Id. at 39. Husband stated that HSI rejected Ergo[’s] 

offer to provide equipment; instead, HSI offered to buy the 

company. Id. at 41.

[Husband testified that] “[n]ursing home chains don’t buy 

the distributors that provide equipment to them. It just isn’t 

done.” Id. [Further,] “[t]hat [this] very large, very wealthy 

nursing home chain would buy a distributorship, keep all my 

employees, I could pay my debt down and come out of it with 

some money, not to worry about making payroll anymore, which 

was becoming more and more difficult.” Id. at 149. [He 

indicated] “it was a complete surprise to see that this nursing 

chain would want to buy their distributor or a distributor.” Id. at 

152.

Husband stated that he had prior offers to sell the business. 

In 2013, Freedom Medical offered to purchase Ergo [ ] for 1.2 

million. Id. at 32. Husband stated that it wasn’t a good deal. In 

2014, Freedom Medical offered $900,000 for the inventory. 

Husband stated that he was not actively seeking to sell the 

business. Id. at 33. [He indicated that] “then came this possible 
J-S72032-17

- 6 -

terrific deal to gain 23 nursing homes in the greater Springfield 

area through HSI, which is the largest nursing home chain in 

Missouri.” Id. at 20-21.

HSI purchased the business and retained his employees. 

Husband testified that HSI was his biggest customer, and without 

the sale to HSI, his business would experience a 25% [to] 30% 

loss of revenue (loss of HSI’s business). Id. at 34, 42. [Husband 

stated that] “[t]o lose HSI, I would have had to reduce staff for 

sure.” Id. at 43. [Further, he indicated] “[o]ur revenues would 

have reduced by 30 percent, at least.” Id. at 44. Husband stated 

that at the time that he accepted the offer in February of 2016 he 

was not trying to sell the business. He was trying to grow it. Id.

at 41.

Husband denied that he sold the business to avoid paying 

alimony. Id. at 44, 78. He stated that he sold [the business] 

because he was afraid that he would lose HSI as a customer, and 

he was pleased that HSI retained all of his employees. Id. at 47. 

Husband offered to stay on with Ergo for a time after the sale. He 

was not retained as an employee or as an independent contractor. 

Id. at 45-46.

Systems Leasing, owner of HSI, bought Ergo [ ] on May 2, 

2016[,] for 1.3 million plus $220,000 accounts receivable. The 

total sales price was 1.52 million. Id. at 46-47. Husband netted 

about $600,000 from the sale of Ergo ($1,500,000- $300,000 

accounts payable- $500,000 payment to Penn Liberty- $70,000 

payment of credit card debt- $39,000 payment of legal fees). 

[Husband stated] “[w]hen I sold the business, Penn Liberty got 

$500,000 to pay off the debts.” Id. at 99. [Further] “I was given 

a final debt load by Penn Liberty of $500,000...and any and all of 

the proceeds from the sale, [$]1.3 million plus the accounts 

receivables, minus that [$]500,000, minus the $300,000 for 

accounts payable, that’s what—that’s what I retained; 

approximately $600,000.” Id. at 100-01. 

Although Husband stated that he was compelled to sell the 

business, the evidence shows that the sales of the business 

increased in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Husband testified that, in 

2015, Ergo had gross revenue of over $1.7 million. Id. at 81. Mr. 

Coladonato testified that the total sales increased from 

$1,547,000 in 2013, to $1,783,684 in 2015. He stated that the 

costs of goods sold also increased: $690,000 in 2013; $770,000 

in 2014; and $900,000 in 2015. Mr. Coladonato prepared the 

corporate tax return for 2015 using the GAAT accounting method. 
J-S72032-17

- 7 -

He stated that if he added back the depreciation into the income 

of the company, it would have offset any loss, resulting in net 

income for the company in 2015.

Wife called as her expert James B. Griffin, Esquire, C.P.A., 

who reviewed the Ergo [ ] financials for 2009 to 2016. [Mr. Griffin] 

stated that sales continued to grow from 2013 to 2015, and Ergo 

had its best year in sales in 2015. Mr. Griffin stated that buying 

equipment and hiring additional employees to maintain the 

equipment is part of funding growth to get sales. [Mr. Griffin 

testified that] “[a]s businesses grow they need to provide and 

purchase equipment and have employees to install and sell the 

product.” Mr. Griffin agreed that Ergo’s expenses increased as the 

sales increased. He stated that the growth gets funded by bank 

loans, owner finances, factoring accounts, and investors.

Husband stated that one of the reasons he sold the company 

was because Penn Liberty denied him further loans to keep the 

company afloat in 2016. In March of 2015, Husband secured a 

$100,000 loan for Ergo from Penn Liberty. On March 21, 2016, 

Penn Liberty loaned Husband $15,000. Id. at 112. He wanted a 

loan of at least $50,000.

Husband had a personal Merrill Lynch account with a value 

of $156,309.82 as of October 31, 2016. Id. at 121-22. Husband 

testified that he believed the value of the Merrill Lynch account 

was $50,000. Id. at 70. He did not offer the funds in the account 

to Penn Liberty as collateral when he asked for the $50,000 loan.

Mr. Danna testified that Husband did not tell him about the 

personal funds he had in the Merrill Lynch account. Mr. Danna 

stated that if he had known that there was $156,000 in another 

investment account, he might have approved a loan. Id. at 177. 

[He indicated] “[t]hat would have helped.” Id. at 176. [He 

specifically asserted that] “[i]t would have helped him very much. 

And I asked him several times if he had more.” Id. Mr. Danna 

testified that had he known about Husband’s $156,000 Merrill 

Lynch funds, he “probably” would have approved a $75,000 loan. 

Id. at 179. Mr. Coladonato testified at the March 1, 2017, hearing 

that he recently became aware of the $156,000 funds in the Merrill 

Lynch account.

Mr. Griffin testified that the net income of Ergo would have 

been positive if accrual basis accounting had been presented to 

Penn Liberty when Husband requested another loan. He stated 

the accrual method of accounting would show how the billings of 

the bank were growing. An accrual statement would have shown 
J-S72032-17

- 8 -

greater net income because depreciation would be much slower 

over longer time. The financial picture would have been more 

positive.

Mr. Griffin believed Husband would have qualified for a loan 

from the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) if Ergo’s 

accounting used accrual based financial statements as an 

alternative to using the $156,000 account as collateral. The 

inventory could be used as collateral. Husband had a previous 

offer to sell the inventory for $900,000. The SBA allows a longer 

payment schedule. Husband never applied for a loan at any other 

bank, and he never applied for a SBA loan. Id. at 83-84.

Mr. Griffin believed that Husband could have secured 

funding from another bank. He stated that it is common today for 

a business owner to go to more than one bank for funding. For a 

business loan, Husband’s guarantee would be required, and he 

would have to explain the identity theft that lowered his credit 

score. Mr. Griffin stated that the bank would look at the 

relationship Husband had with prior loans. He always paid; that 

would outweigh the bad credit score. Mr. Griffin is chairman of 

the board of First Resource Bank in Exton and West Chester. He 

sits on a loan committee.

Husband testified that he would have lost HSI’s business if 

he did not sell Ergo to HSI. Id. at 84. In argument, his counsel 

described HSI’s offer to buy Ergo as a “hostile takeover in which 

Husband had no control.” Wife argued that Husband voluntarily 

chose not to seek additional funding for the business, but instead 

voluntarily chose to sell the business. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/1/17, at 1-11 (footnotes in original) (footnote 

omitted and footnotes added). 

By order entered on May 1, 2017, the trial court denied Husband’s 

Petition to Terminate Alimony. Further, the trial court granted Wife’s petition 

for contempt and request for counsel fees, thereby directing Husband to pay 

Wife $15,418.00 in counsel fees. Husband filed this timely notice of appeal, 

and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements have been met. 
J-S72032-17

- 9 -

On appeal, Husband sets forth the following issues in his Statement of 

Questions Involved:

1. Did the trial court err in denying Husband’s Petition to 

Terminate Alimony?

2. Did the trial court err in ordering Husband to pay Wife the sum 

of $77,000 representing monthly alimony payments from May 

2016 to March 2017?

3. Did the trial court err in its determination that Husband had 

options to continue to operate his business, Ergo, that he chose 

not to pursue?

4. Did the trial court err in its determination that Husband had the 

option of seeking a loan at another bank?

5. Did the trial court err in its determination that Husband had the 

option of attempting to continue to grow his business, Ergo?

6. Did the trial court err in its determination that Husband chose 

to sell his business, Ergo, and chose to stop performing his 

contractual obligation to pay Wife alimony?

7. Did the trial court err in its determination that Husband was 

not forced to sell his business, Ergo?

8. Did the trial court err in its determination that it was Husband’s 

choice to sell the business and not a circumstance beyond his 

control?

9. Did the trial court err in its determination that there was no 

evidence that HSI would have withdrawn its current business 

from Ergo if Husband turned down the sale offer?

10. Did the trial court err in its determination that the parties 

could have enumerated other conditions terminating alimony if 

they so choose?

Husband’s Brief at 5-6. 

Despite setting forth ten separate issues, Husband indicates on appeal 

that the overarching issue is his first issue, namely, whether the trial court 

erred in denying Husband’s Petition to Terminate Alimony. Id. at 12. In this 

vein, Husband’s appellate brief contains a single argument section, indicating 
J-S72032-17

- 10 -

that all of his issues may be addressed under the umbrella of his first issue. 

Id. 

A close examination of Husband’s appellate argument reveals that 

Husband contends he presented competent evidence demonstrating a change 

of circumstances as it related to his gross annual earned income, and thus, 

the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Petition to Terminate 

Alimony. Specifically, he argues he presented competent evidence that his

sale of Ergo was involuntary and constituted a “substantial change of 

circumstances beyond the control of [Husband].” Husband’s Brief at 10. He 

claims that the evidence reveals he “was faced with a hostile takeover of his 

business, Ergo, requiring him to sell the business or risk the loss of significant 

sales from his customer, HSI, [which was] ultimately the purchaser of Ergo[.]” 

Id. at 10, 13. Further, he argues the evidence reveals that he “did not have 

a choice in selling his business[,]...[he] was not actively seeking to sell the 

business but was without personal funds to continue the business,...[and he] 

did not sell his business to avoid his alimony obligation.” Id. Moreover, he 

suggests that “the record shows that Husband paid his alimony obligation 

every month until such time as Ergo [ ] was sold in a hostile bid and he became 

unemployed without income.” Id. at 18. Husband argues that “[l]oss of 

employment may be considered an example of circumstances beyond one’s 

control...[and the competent evidence demonstrates] Husband has suffered a 
J-S72032-17

- 11 -

job loss caused by circumstances beyond his control as set forth above.” Id.

at 19. 

Initially, we note that Section 3701(e) of the Divorce Code permits 

modification and termination of an award for alimony. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

3701(e). Specifically, the Divorce Code provides that:

An order entered pursuant to this section is subject to further 

order of the court upon changed circumstances of either party of 

a substantial and continuing nature whereupon the order may be 

modified, suspended, terminated or reinstituted or a new order 

made. Any further order shall apply only to payments accruing 

subsequent to the petition for the requested relief. Remarriage of 

the party receiving alimony shall terminate the award of alimony.

Id.

An award of alimony may be terminated by a change in circumstances 

beyond a party’s control; however, it is the burden of the party seeking to 

terminate an order of alimony to show by competent evidence that a change 

of circumstances justifies the termination. Litmans v. Litmans, 673 A.2d 

382, 388 (Pa.Super. 1996). 

In reviewing orders granting or denying a request to terminate alimony, 

our standard of review is limited to considering whether the trial court abused 

its discretion or committed an error of law. Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d 

221, 223 (Pa.Super. 1998). While it is not this Court’s duty to create the 

record or assess credibility, we must nevertheless examine the record to 

determine whether there is competent evidence supporting the trial court’s 

order. Jayne v. Jayne, 663 A.2d 169, 176 (Pa.Super. 1995).
J-S72032-17

- 12 -

In rejecting Husband’s claim, the trial court relevantly indicated the 

following: 

Was Husband forced to sell the business? Was the sale of 

the business that resulted in a greater than 25% decrease in 

Husband’s gross annual earned income as compared to 20136 a 

circumstance beyond his control?

There was no evidence that Ergo would have lost HSI’s 

business if Husband turned down the offer of sale; there was only 

Husband’s testimony that he feared losing HSI’s business if he did 

not sell. On the other hand, we cannot know [whether] Ergo 

would have survived the cash flow crisis in 2016 because Husband 

sold the business in May of that year.

It is undisputed that Ergo’s accounts receivables continued 

to grow in 2015 with the addition of pressure wound therapy 

devices (pumps) to the list of rental medical equipment. In a 

letter dated March 17, 2016, to Ergo’s potential buyer, Mr. 

Coladonato stated: “As such, during 2015, the monthly billings for 

Ergo [ ] have been increasing due to various agreements secured 

during the year, and has resulted in increased monthly sales, as 

noted with December sales collected to be approximately $148K.” 

[The trial court] credit[ed] the testimony of Ms. Gallagher that the 

cost of fuel and healthcare increased as well as the cost to 

maintain the medical equipment. She also stated that the average 

time to collect accounts receivables was 75 to 100 days, causing 

problems when Ergo’s venders wanted to be paid within 30 days. 

Despite the rising costs associate[d] with the business, Husband 

managed to purchase a truck for Ergo for $23,425 in August of 

2015, and a second truck for Ergo for $26,025 in November of 

2015. As stated, Penn Liberty loaned Husband $100,000 in March 

of 2015.

Regarding the missed electronic payroll, Ergo paid the 

employees with paper checks on time. The company never missed 

making payroll.

Husband had options that he chose not to pursue. He had 

the option of using the $156,000 funds in his Merrill Lynch 

[account] as collateral for a loan. He chose not to do that. He 

____________________________________________

6 Husband received a salary of $100,000 as Ergo’s sole officer. N.T. 11/29/16 

at 50. Ergo’s 2013 Corporate Tax Return shows officer compensation of 

$126,460.
J-S72032-17

- 13 -

had the option of seeking a loan at another bank. He chose not 

to do that. He had the option of attempting to continue to grow 

the business, as he had done for years. He chose not to do it. 

Instead, he chose to sell the business and he chose to stop 

performing his...obligation to pay Wife alimony.

In Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 

2005), the parties entered into a property settlement agreement 

whereby the husband paid the wife $1200 per week in alimony. 

Per the agreement, alimony was non-modifiable unless the 

husband’s income was greater than $600,000 or less than 

$200,000 in any given year. The husband voluntarily left his 

employment and filed a petition to reduce alimony payments, 

claiming he earned less than $200,000. The trial court denied his 

petition, finding that the husband failed to establish that his 

income was less than $200,000. The Superior Court affirmed the 

trial court on the issue of the amount of the husband’s income. 

The Court noted [the] purpose of alimony, and stated: “[T]he 

parties’ contract imposed a duty of good faith to perform 

contractual obligations diligently and honestly....Husband should 

not be allowed to evade the spirit or abuse the terms of the 

agreement by unilaterally and voluntarily reducing his income. To

do so would destroy Wife’s right to receive the fruits of her 

bargained-for agreement.” Id. at 1261-62. 

[In the case sub judice,] [t]here was nothing in the 

Arbitration Agreement specifying what would constitute a 

circumstance beyond Husband’s control that would cause his 

income to be reduced. Certainly there is no mention of the impact 

on Husband’s income if he sold his business. See McMahon v. 

McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360 (Pa.Super. 1992) [(en banc)]. 

[The trial court] find[s] that it was Husband’s choice to sell 

Ergo [ ] to HSI. He was not forced to sell the business; there is 

no evidence that HSI would have withdrawn its current business 

from Ergo if Husband turned down the sale offer. It was 

Husband’s choice to sell; not a circumstance beyond his control. 

Thus, Husband’s Petition to Terminate Alimony is denied. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/1/17, at 12-14 (italics and footnote in original) 

(citations to record and underline omitted).
J-S72032-17

- 14 -

We conclude the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence,

and the trial court has not abused its discretion or committed an error of law. 

See Jayne, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/30/2017