J-A23004-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MARISSA S. BARKSDALE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JUSTIN T. BARKSDALE

Appellant No. 1891 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Dated November 6, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No(s): FD 14-7960-011

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2016

Justin Barksdale (“Husband”) appeals from the order entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denying his Motion to Enforce 

Consent Order against Marissa Barksdale (“Wife”). After our review, we 

affirm.

Husband and Wife were married on December 19, 2004. Two children 

were born of the marriage, ages five and eleven. On September 26, 2014, 

Wife filed for divorce. On June 11, 2015, Husband and Wife entered into a 

consent order, which resolved the issues of equitable distribution and 

custody. With respect to the marital home, the order provided that Wife 

would sign over the deed to Husband and Husband would assure that Wife 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23004-16

- 2 -

was not obligated on the mortgage. The court entered a divorce decree on 

July 17, 2015. 

Thereafter, on October 26, 2015, Husband filed a Motion to Enforce 

Consent Order. In his motion, Husband averred Wife failed to sign over the 

deed to the marital home, and although Wife’s name was still listed on the 

mortgage instrument, she “is not named in the Mortgage Note.” Motion to 

Enforce Consent Order, 10/26/15, at ¶5. Further, Husband averred that he 

contacted the mortgagee, and has “been assured that because [W]ife is not 

named in and did not sign the Mortgage Note, she cannot be held 

responsible for the mortgage in any way.” Id. at ¶ 6. Husband claimed that 

Wife’s failure to sign over the deed violated the parties’ agreement. 

On November 6, 2015, the court heard argument on Husband’s motion 

and concluded that Wife was not required to sign over the deed until 

Husband removed Wife from the mortgage note. The court entered an order 

denying Husband’s motion and ordering him to remove Wife from the 

mortgage. See Order, 11/6/15. Husband filed a motion for reconsideration, 

which was denied, and this appeal followed. 

Husband raises one issue for our review:

Whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the parties’ 

unambiguous agreement and in requiring the husband to remove 

the wife’s name from the mortgage on the marital residence.

Appellant’s Brief, at 3. 

It is well-established that the law of contracts governs marital 

settlement agreements, and under the law of contracts, the 

court must ascertain the intent of the parties when interpreting a 
J-A23004-16

- 3 -

contractual agreement. Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159, 1163 

(Pa. 2004) (citations omitted). The standard of enforceability of 

a contractual agreement is also clear: absent fraud, 

misrepresentation, or duress, spouses should be bound by the 

terms of their agreements. As such, a trial court may interpret a 

property settlement agreement as it would a contract, but it has 

neither the power nor the authority to modify or vary the decree 

unless there is conclusive proof of fraud or mistake. Moreover, 

the long-standing law of this Commonwealth is that property 

settlement agreements are presumed to be valid and binding 

upon the parties. When construing agreements involving clear 

and unambiguous terms, a trial court need only examine the 

writing itself to give effect to the parties' understanding. A court 

may not modify the plain meaning of the words under the guise 

of interpretation. 

Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308, 312–13 (Pa. Super. 2006)(citations and 

quotations omitted). 

The parties’ consent order provides, in pertinent part:

Husband shall retain the marital residence and assume 

responsibility for all costs associated with it, including payment 

of the mortgage loan, property taxes, and insurance. Deed to be 

signed and transferred to Husband. Husband to assure Wife is

not obligated in any way on the mortgage.

Consent Order, 6/16/15, ¶1 (emphasis added). 

Husband argues that absent a provision allowing for modification, the 

court may not modify the terms of the agreement, which is treated as a 

contract between the parties. Osial v. Cook, 803 A.2d 209, 213 (Pa. Super. 

2002). He claims that the consent order did not specifically obligate him to 

refinance the mortgage and thus his assurances satisfy the condition that 

Wife is not obligated on the mortgage. 

The Mortgage Instrument states:
J-A23004-16

- 4 -

Any Borrower who co-signs this Security Instrument but does 

not execute the Note: (a) is co-signing this Security Instrument 

only to mortgage, grant and convey that Borrower’s interest in 

the Property under the terms of this Security Instrument; (b) is 

not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this 

Security Instrument; and (c) agrees that Lender and any 

other Borrower may agree to extend, modify, forbear or make 

any accommodations with regard to the terms of this Security 

Instrument or the Note without that Borrower’s consent. 

Mortgage, 2/6/12, at ¶12 (emphasis added). A mortgage is generally 

accompanied by a promissory note. The note is evidence of the debt 

obligation for which the mortgage is given. The mortgage and the note, 

while separate instruments, secure the same debt. However, the note is a 

personal obligation of the obligor (mortgagor). Here, Husband signed the 

Note; Wife did not. See Note, 2/6/12, at 2. Although Wife is not personally 

liable on the Note, if Husband defaults on the Note and the mortgagee 

(“Lender”) pursued a foreclosure action against the property, Wife would be 

named and required to defend that action. Additionally, Wife, named as 

Borrower on the Mortgage (“Security Instrument”), retains obligations on 

the Mortgage apart from the Note, such as governmental or municipal 

charges, fines and impositions that are not included in the monthly payment 

as set forth in the Note. See Mortgage, at ¶ 7. 

If Borrower fails to make these payments . . . or fails to perform 

any other covenants and agreements contained in this Security 

Instrument, or there is a legal proceeding that may significantly 

affect Lender’s rights in the Property (such as a proceeding in 

bankruptcy, for condemnation or to enforce laws or regulations), 

then Lender may do and pay whatever is necessary to protect 

the value of the Property and Lender’s rights in the Property, 

including payment of taxes hazard insurance and other items 
J-A23004-16

- 5 -

mentioned in paragraph 2. Any amounts disbursed by 

Lender under this paragraph shall become an additional 

debt of Borrower and be secured by this Security 

Instrument. 

Mortgage, ¶7 (emphasis added). 

Husband’s and mortgagee’s assurances that Wife will not be financially 

responsible for the debt secured by the mortgage is not a satisfactory 

release of Wife from association with the marital home and from all 

obligations under the mortgage. The court determined that it was the 

intention of the parties to “sever Wife’s financial obligation to the mortgage” 

and that in order to enforce the consent order, Husband was required “to 

remove [Wife] from all mortgage documents associated with the marital 

home.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/7/16, at 6-7 (emphasis added). The trial 

court’s interpretation gives effect to the parties’ agreement. Crispo, supra. 

We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/18/2016