J-A07005-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

BETH WILSON, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DONALD WILSON,

Appellant No. 864 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order April 28, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Family Court at No(s): FD No. 11-007162-002

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 31, 2015

Donald Wilson (Husband) appeals from the order dated April 28, 2014, 

that directed that the Domestic Relations Office process a support order 

consistent with Beth Wilson’s (Wife) and Husband’s Marriage Settlement 

Agreement (MSA) and awarded to Wife $1,000 as a sanction.1 We affirm. 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court’s order, dated April 28, 2014, provides:

AND NOW, to-wit, this 28th day of April, 2014, upon 

presentation and consideration of the within Second Motion to 

Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions, it is 

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the prayer of 

said Motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED.

1. Domestic Relations shall immediately process the PACSES 

Order signed by the undersigned.

2. Plaintiff Beth Wilson is awarded $1,000 as sanctions, payable 

to Paul J. Leventon & Associates, P.C., within twenty (20) days. 
J-A07005-15

- 2 -

The trial court set forth the following factual and procedural 

background of this matter, leading up to the instant appeal:

The parties were married on May 20, 1995. They are the 

parents of three (3) minor children. Wife filed an eight (8) count 

Complaint in Divorce on June 1, 2011. The matters of equitable 

distribution and related claims proceeded in the normal course, 

including the filing of inventories, engaging in discovery, and 

attending conciliations. A pre-trial conference was scheduled on 

November 26, 2013, during which the parties reached a 

settlement of their economic claims.

The case history relevant to the within appeal commenced 

at an October 1, 2013 conciliation, wherein this Court, by 

Consent Interim Order, modified Husband's unallocated child 

support and APL obligation. The support order was reduced to 

eliminate the mortgage deviation Husband had been paying, 

because the marital home had been sold.3 Husband had 

previously filed a modification petition and the Order further 

provided that his claim for retroactivity was “. .. preserved to 

equitable distribution, and this Order shall be interim until 

addressed at equitable distribution.” 

3The new APL and child support order was unallocated in 

the amount of $3,100/month.

At the subsequent November 26, 2013 pre-trial 

conference, the parties reached a global settlement of their 

economic claims. They consented to an Order that date which

contained the terms of their settlement, and provided that Wife's 

counsel was to prepare a marriage settlement agreement or final 

equitable distribution order that would incorporate those terms. 

The settlement provided, inter alia, that Wife would receive 

$1,200/month in alimony from December 1, 2013 through 

November 30, 2015. Thereafter, alimony would be reduced to 

$800/month through November 30, 2017. No reference was 

made to Husband's claim for a retroactive mortgage deviation 

credit.

Wife's counsel subsequently prepared and forwarded to 

Husband's counsel, proposed MSA and PACSES Orders. The 

PACSES Order provided for unallocated support of 
J-A07005-15

- 3 -

$2,892/month, which included the $1,200/month in alimony per 

the MSA. Husband's attorney requested some minor changes, 

including the elimination of all child support language from the 

MSA since the parties were also executing a PACSES Order. No 

mention was made of Husband's mortgage deviation credit and 

no objections were made regarding the amounts of child support 

or alimony. Wife's counsel accommodated Husband's requests, 

including the removal of the child support provisions from the 

MSA. By e-mail of January 2, 2014, Husband's counsel 

acknowledged receipt of the revised Orders and indicated that 

his client would be executing them.

On January 17, 2014, Husband's attorney returned the 

MSA, executed by his client. Husband's attorney advised, 

however, that he was retaining the original PACSES Order, and 

suggested that he and Wife's counsel process the Order through 

screening together to “fully participate in the calculation of 

arrears, particularly since there needs to be some credit for the 

mortgage deviation that was contemplated at (the) last 

conciliation.” Wife executed the MSA, and the same was entered 

by this Court on February 3, 2014. 

On April 11, 2014, Husband's counsel advised Wife's 

counsel that Husband had unilaterally gone to the Domestic 

Relations Office and processed the MSA, which resulted in a 

PACSES Order being entered in the amount of the $1,200/month 

in alimony. The new order eliminated child support in its 

entirety, and scheduled a support conference for May 13, 2014. 

Upon learning same, Wife, on April 15, 2014, presented her first 

Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions. 

This Court granted Wife’s petition and ordered that 

Domestic Relations modify, on an interim basis, Husband’s 

support to $2,892/month, unallocated, representing $1,200 for 

alimony and $1,642 for child support. The support 

conference/hearing was cancelled, and the parties were directed 

to cooperate in processing a PACSES Order which conformed to 

the parties’ MSA. This Court deferred Wife’s request for $2,000 

as a sanction for Husband’s action in unilaterally processing an 

order which was contrary to their agreement.

On April 16, 2014, in an effort to prepare and process a 

PACSES Order consistent with the parties’ agreement, Wife’s 

counsel consulted a Domestic Relation Officer. Wife’s counsel 
J-A07005-15

- 4 -

then prepared and submitted a PACSES Order to Husband’s 

attorney. Receiving no response, Wife’s attorney presented a 

Second Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on April 28, 

2014. After argument on same, this Court granted the motion, 

entered the PACSES Order, and directed that the order be 

processed through the Domestic Relations Office. In addition, 

Wife was awarded $1,000 in attorney fee sanctions. 

Husband subsequently presented two (2) motions to this 

Court on May 9, 2014: 1. Motion to Reconsider, arguing that 

Husband had not waived his mortgage deviation credit; and 2. 

Petition to Enforce Marital Settlement Agreement, arguing that 

Wife was only entitled to a total of $1,200/month in combined 

child and spousal support until the parties were divorced. This 

Court found no merit to the motions, and denied both.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/14, at 1-5 (citations to the record omitted). 

Husband then filed the appeal from the April 28, 2014 order that is 

now before this Court. Husband also filed a concise statement of matters 

complained of on appeal in response to the trial court’s order requesting 

same. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925. In his brief, Husband sets forth the following 

three issues: 

A. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and erred 

in disallowing Husband’s mortgage calculation retroactivity that 

was preserved by the trial court’s order of October 4, 2013[?]

B. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and erred 

in denying with prejudice [Husband’s] request for a modification 

hearing in its May 9, 2014 order denying reconsideration[?]

C. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in 

assessing unwarranted sanctions and counsel fees without 

hearing in its April 28, 2014 order, and abused its discretion by 

denying with prejudice Appellant’s request for a hearing on 

sanction in the May 9, 2014 order denying reconsideration[?]

Husband’s brief at 4. 
J-A07005-15

- 5 -

Before we may consider Husband’s issues, we must address Wife’s 

Motion to Quash [Husband’s] Notice of Appeal. Essentially, Wife asserts that 

Husband’s issues arise from two court orders that were entered on May 9, 

2014, and do not arise from the April 28, 2014 order. She further points out 

that Husband did not file appeals from the two May 9, 2014 orders. One of 

the May 9, 2014 orders denies Husband’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 

April 28, 2014 order, wherein he requested that the April 28th order be 

amended to include a mortgage expense credit to Husband through PACSES 

in the amount of $1,972 and to vacate the award of counsel fees to Wife. 

The other May 9, 2014 order denied Husband’s request for a hearing in 

connection with his Petition to Enforce Marital Settlement Agreement that 

also relates back to the April 28th order. Although we agree with Wife that 

Husband’s first two issues do not arise directly from the April 28th order, we

recognize that the May 9th orders are interrelated with that previous order. 

Therefore, we refuse to quash Husband’s appeal for the reasons stated by 

Wife in her Motion to Quash. 

Rather, we review this case in relation to the issues raised by Husband 

and conclude that the court’s order should be affirmed. Having examined 

the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the 

thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Susan Evashavik DiLucente of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated July 25, 2014, we 

conclude that Judge DiLucente’s well-reasoned opinion appropriately 

disposes of the issues presented by Husband on appeal. We discern no 
J-A07005-15

- 6 -

abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge DiLucente’s 

opinion as our own and affirm the April 28, 2014 order on that basis. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/31/2015
Counsel for Defendant: 

Timothy G. Uhrich, Esquire 

909 The Allegheny Building 

429 Forbes Avenue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

.. 

• ::: ', _ _l 

-.:.-.--.) 

. --- _J \:~jU~ 

Counsel for Plaintiff: 

Paul J. Leventon, Esquire 

Meri M. lannetti, Esquire 

Suite # 1230, Grant Building 

310 Grant Street 

Pittsburgh.PA 15219 

CD 

0 ('-! 

v:= 

UJ o.. 

_J L,-_, 

(''1 

LL --- ; 

_____) =. 

_::/' 

COPIES TO: 

Honorable Susan Evashavik DiLucente 

5024 Family Law Center 

440 Ross Street 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

BY: 

Defendant. 

DONALD WILSON, OPINION 

V. 

Superior Court No.: 864 WDA 2014 

Plaintiff, 

BETH WILSON, No.: FD 11-007162-002 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

FAMILY DIVISION 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
2 The parties actually signed a Final Equitable Distribution Order, but as Wife referred lo the same as a Marriage 

Settlement Agreement in her motions. this Court has utilized that term for consistency. 

l This Order was issued in Motions Court. Hence, there is no record or transcript of the proceeding. 

The matters of equitable distribution and related claims proceeded in the normal 

minor children. Wife filed an eight (8) count Complaint in Divorce on June 1, 2011. 

The parties were married on May 20, 1995. They are the parents of three (3) 

Background 

appropriate and should be affirmed. 

Wife $1,000 as sanctions. For the reasons set forth below, this Court's Order was 

consistent with the parties Marriage Settlement Agreement ("MSA11)2, and awarded 

Domestic Relations Office to immediately process a support order {PACSES Order) 

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions. Said Order directed the 

of April 28, 2014. l This Order was entered on Plaintiff, BETH WILSON's (1'Wife"), Second 

The Defendant, DONALD WILSON ("Husband"), appeals from this Court's Order 

Evashavik Dilucente, J. July 25, 2014 

OPINION 

Defendant. 

DONALD WILSON, 

v. 

BETH WILSON, No.: FD 11-007162-002 

Plaintiff, Superior Court No.: 864 WDA 2014 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

FAMILY DIVISION 

FD 1 l -007 l 62-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
3 The new APL and child supporf order was unallocated in the amount of $3, 100/month. 

2 

course, including the filing of inventories, engaging in discovery, and attending 

conciliations. A pre-trial conference was scheduled on November 26, 2013, during 

which the parties reached a settlement of their economic claims. 

The case history relevant to the within appeal commenced at an October l. 

2013 conciliation, wherein this Court, by Consent Interim Order, modified Husband's 

unallocated child support and APL obligation. The support order was reduced to 

eliminate the mortgage deviation Husband had been paying, because the marital 

home had been sold.> Husband had previously filed a modification petition and the 

Order further provided that his claim for retroactivity was 11 ••• preserved to equitable 

distribution, and this Order shall be interim until addressed at equitable distribution:" 

(See, Order of 10/l /13). 

At the subsequent November 26, 2013 pre-trial conference, the parties reached 

a global settlement of their economic claims. They consented to an Order that date 

which contained the terms of their settlement, and provided that Wife's counsel was 

to prepare a marriage settlement agreement or final equitable distribution order that 

would incorporate those terms. The settlement provided, inter alia, that Wife would 

receive $1,200/month in alimony from December l. 20 l 3 through November 30, 2015. 

Thereafter, alimony would be reduced to $800/month through November 30, 2017. 

(See Order of 11 /26/13, ~ 2). No reference was made to Husband's claim for a 

retroactive mortgage deviation credit. 

FD l l -007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
3 

Wife1s counsel subsequently prepared and forwarded to Husband's counsel. 

proposed MSA and PACSES Orders. The PACSES Order provided for unallocated 

support of $2,892/month, which included the $1,200/month in alimony per the MSA. 

Husband's attorney requested some minor changes, including the elimination of all 

child support language from the MSA since the parties were also executing a PACSES 

Order. No mention was made of Husband's mortgage deviation credit and no 

objections were made regarding the amounts of child support or alimony. Wife's 

counsel accommodated Husband's requests, including the removal of the child 

support provisions from the MSA. {See, Exhibit 11C" of Wife's April 15, 2014 Emergency 

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions). By e-mail of January 2, 

2014, Husband's counsel acknowledged receipt of the revised Orders and indicated 

that his client would be executing them. 

On January 17, 2014, Husband's attorney returned the MSA, executed by his 

client. Husband's attorney advised, however, that he was retaining the original 

PACSES Order, and suggested that he and Wife's counsel process the Order through 

screening together to "fully participate in the calculation of arrears, particularly since 

there needs to be some credit for the mortgage deviation that was contemplated at 

(the) last conciliation. ti (See, Exhibit II D" of Wife Is April 15, 2014 Emergency Motion to 

Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions). Wife executed the MSA, and the 

same was entered by this Court on February 3, 2014. 

On April 11, 2014, Husband's counsel advised Wife's counsel that Husband had 

unilaterally gone to the Domestic Relations Office and processed the MSA, which 

FD 11-007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
4 

resulted in a PACSES Order being entered in the amount of the $1,200 /month in 

alimony. The new order eliminated child support in its entirety, and scheduled a 

support conference for May 13, 2014. (See, Exhibit "F" of Wife's April 15, 2013 Motion 

to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions). Upon learning same, Wife, on 

April 15, 2014, presented her first Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for 

Sanctions. 

This Court granted Wife's petition and ordered that Domestic Relations modify, 

on an interim basis, Husband's support to $2.892/month, unallocated, representing 

$1,200 for alimony and $1,642 for child support. The support conference/hearing was 

cancelled, and the parties were directed to cooperate in processing a PACSES Order 

which conformed to the parties' MSA. This Court deferred Wife's request for $2,000 as 

a sanction for Husband's action in unilaterally processing an order which was contrary 

to their agreement. 

On April 16, 2014, in an effort to prepare and process a P ACS ES Order consistent 

with the parties' agreement. Wife's counsel consulted a Domestic Relations Officer. 

Wife's counsel then prepared and submitted a PACSES Order to Husband's attorney. 

Receiving no response, Wife's attorney presented a Second Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement on April 28, 2014. After argument on same, this Court granted 

the motion, entered the PACSES Order, and directed that the Order be processed 

through the Domestic Relations Office. In addition, Wife was awarded $1,000 in 

attorney fee sanctions. 

FDl 1-007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
5 

4 The Order of Court regarding fhe issue of interim support was October l. 2013, not October 4, 2013. 

deviation preserved pursuant to the October l, 2013 Interim Order. Husband relies on 

Husband's first two issues concern his claim for a retroactive mortgage 

Analysis 

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in assessing unwarranted 

sanctions and counsel fees without hearing in its April 28, 2014 order, and 

abused its discretion by denying with prejudice Appellant's (Husband's) 

request for a hearing on sanctions in the May 9, 2014 order denying 

reconsideration. 

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and erred in denying with 

prejudice Appellant's (Husband's) request for a modification hearing in its 

May 9, 2014 order denying reconsideration. 

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and erred in disallowing 

Appellant's (Husband's) mortgage calculation retroactivity that was 

preserved by the trial court's order of October 4 [sic]. 2013.4 

raises the following issues: 

Husband filed his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Husband 

2014, which is the subject of this Opinion. Pursuant to this Court's 1925(b} Order, 

On May 27, 2014, Husband filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order of April 28, 

denied both. 

support until the parties were divorced. This Court found no merit to the motions, and 

that Wife was only entitled to a total of $1 ,200/month in combined child and spousal 

deviation credit; and, 2. Petition to Enforce Marital Settlement Agreement, arguing 

1 . Motion to Reconsider, arguing that Husband had not waived his mortgage 

Husband subsequently presented two (2) motions to this Court on May 9, 2014: 

FD 11-007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
6 

It is well-established that a consent order entered in an action in equity is not 

considered oIeqcl determination made by the court, but is instead a binding 

agreement between the parties. Osial v. Cook, 803 A.2d 209 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

Likewise, judicial policies favor settlements, and it is not the role of the court to reevaluate such agreements. Greentree Cinemas, Inc. v. Hakim, 432 A.2d 1039 (Pa. 

As stated, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement of their economic 

claims at the pre-trial conference. The terms of the settlement were included in the 

Order, which further directed Wife's counsel to prepare a final MSA incorporating the 

same. Husband's mortgage credit claim was not an included term. As noted earlier, 

Wife's Counsel prepared the MSA, and after some minor revisions requested by 

Husband, none of which pertained to his mortgage deviation credit the parties 

executed the same. Pursuant to the terms of the October 1, 2013 Order, Husband's 

claim was extinguished at that time, as equitable distribution was concluded. 

Moreover, provision XVII of the MSA specifically provided that "[a]II other claims 

pending and/or previously raised by either party, but not specifically identified and 

addressed herein are dismissed." 

the provision of that Order which provided that "[ol] issues, including retroactivity, 

preserved to equitable distribution as this order shall be interim until addressed at 

equitable distribution." Following the entry of that Order, this Court scheduled the 

matter for a hearing on equitable distribution and related _claims, and for a pre-trial 

conference. 

FD l l -007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
Super. 1981 ). Rather, the Court will enforce such settlements in accordance with the 

principles of contract law. Lobaugh v. Lobaugh, 753 A.2d 834 (Pa. Super. 2000). 

The law in Pennsylvania is well settled that "[w]hen the words of an agreement 

are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties is to be ascertained from the 

language used in the agreement, ... (citations omitted} ... which will be given its 

commonly accepted and plain meaning ... (citations omitted)." LJL Transp., Inc. v. 

Pilot Air Freight Corp., 962 A.2d 639, 647-648 (Pa. 2009). "When construing 

agreements involving clear and unambiguous terms, this Court need only examine 

the writing itself to give effect to the parties understanding." (Citations omitted}. Osial, 

supra. at 213. 

ln the case sub judice, Husband argues that he is entitled to credit for a 

mortgage deviation, as the same was somehow preserved. His argument is contrary 

to the clear and unambiguous terms of the 10/ 1 I 13 and 11 /26/ 13 Consent Orders, 

and the 2/3/14 MSA. The 10/1 /13 Interim Order only preserved the claim until the time 

of equitable distribution. The 11 /26/13 Order, which set forth the equitable distribution 

terms, did not include the claim. Finally, the MSA did not address the claim, and 

clearly and unambiguously stated that "[a]II other claims pending and/or previously 

raised by either party, but not specifically identified and addressed herein are 

dismissed." (Provision XVII of the February 3, 2014 Final Equitable Distribution Order of 

Court by Consent}. Hence, whether such matter was an issue, Husband has waived it. 

Husband is attempting to resurrect the claim via the PACSES child support 

order. That Order controls child support effective l 2/l /13 and provides for the 

7 

FD l l -007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
8 

Finally, Husband contends that this Court erred in assessing counsel fees without 

conducting a hearing. The authority to award counsel fees is by statute, as taxable 

costs for dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct, and by the Court's own inherent 

power to take appropriate action to ensure that the Court's business is conducted in 

an orderly fashion. A trial court has great latitude and discretion with respect to an 

award of attorney fees. Scalia v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 878 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super. 

2005). "If there is support in the record for the trial court's findings of fact that the 

conduct of the party was obdurate, vexatious or in bad faith," that decision will not 

be disturbed on appeal. Id. at 116. Moreover, where the facts are undisputed, an 

evidentiary hearing is not required prior to an award of counsel fees pursuant to 42 

Pa. C.S.A. § 2503. Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Super. 2003), 

citing Kulp v. Hrivnak, 765 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 2000). 

In the within matter, Husband argues that the imposition of attorney fees was 

unwarranted. However, Husband ignores the fact that his unilateral actions caused 

Wife to seek Court intervention on two occasions to enforce the MSA. It is undisputed 

collection of alimony, as established by the MSA. Husband's mortgage deviation 

claim was extinguished on 11 /26/13. Husband cannot seek a retroactive modification 

of an Order based upon an extinguished claim. As such, his argument has no merit. 

As to the second mortgage deviation related issue, Husband contends that a 

hearing should have been schedule to address this matter. For the reasons set forth 

above, this issue is likewise meritless. 

FD J .J-007162-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM
9 

Susan Evashavik Dilucente 

BY THE COURT: 

affirmed. 

For the reasons set forth herein, this Court's Order of April 28, 2014 should be 

waste of judicial economy, further delay, and additional attorney fees and expenses. 

awarded her $1,000. To conduct a hearing on this issue would have constituted a 

fees incurred as a result of Husband's unwarranted actions. However, this Court only 

Wife sought sanctions in the amount of $2,000 to compensate her for attorney 

Husband's conduct was obdurate, vexatious, and constituted bad faith. 

the pleadings and exhibits of record. There was no need for an evidentiary hearing. 

the same. All of Husband's actions and alleged defenses thereto are contained in 

support. He then refused to cooperate and comply with this Court's Order to remedy 

Domestic Relations Office and obtained a PACSES order, which suspended his child 

that Husband, of his own volition and without his counsel's knowledge, went to the 

FD11~007l62-002 

Circulated 03/18/2015 02:12 PM