Court Opinion

ID: 9880768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 16:08:23.100016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:31.325434
License: Public Domain

J-A12017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 PRINTFLY CORPORATION                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 JORDAN NEMEROFF AND ELYSSA              :
 NEMEROFF                                :
                                         :   No. 1759 EDA 2022
                   Appellants            :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 MICHAEL NEMEROFF AND ALEXIS             :
 NEMEROFF                                :

                Appeal from the Order Entered June 9, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 170404222

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                    FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

     Appellants Jordan Nemeroff and Elyssa Nemeroff appeal from the order

determining the intent of the parties with respect to portions of the parties’

settlement agreement, directing the parties to comply with the trial court’s

September 24, 2019 order, and denying Appellants’ motion to vacate.

Appellants argue that the trial court erroneously interpreted the parties’

settlement agreement, improperly denied Appellants’ motion to vacate, and
J-A12017-23

failed to award pre-judgment interest to Appellant Jordan Nemeroff.         We

affirm.

      The trial court summarized the underlying facts of this matter as follows:

      Plaintiff Printfly Corporation (“Printfly”) is a Pennsylvania
      Corporation with its headquarters located at 2727 Commerce
      Way, Philadelphia, PA 19154. Defendant Jordan [Nemeroff] is an
      adult individual located at 1366 Gabriel Lane, Warwick, PA 18974.
      Defendant Elyssa [Nemeroff] is an adult individual located at 1366
      Gabriel Lane, Warwick, PA 18974. Printfly has three shareholders,
      with ownership interests as follows: (1) Michael Nemeroff
      (“Michael”) is the CEO of Printfly and owns forty percent (40%) of
      Printfly’s outstanding shares; (2) Alexis Nemeroff (“Alexis”) owns
      twenty percent (20%) of Printfly’s outstanding shares; and (3)
      Jordan owns forty percent (40%) of Printfly’s outstanding shares.

      After litigation and negotiation, the parties participated in
      mediation on January 9, 2019 and agreed to terms memorialized
      in a Settlement Agreement term sheet (“Settlement Agreement”).
      Pursuant to paragraphs 1(a) and 2(b) of the Settlement
      Agreement, Jordan is to be “paid deferred compensation from
      Printfly in an amount that will allow him to receive a net of [$8
      million] after taxes.” However, the parties were unsuccessful in
      reaching a fully comprehensive agreement that was referenced in
      the Settlement Agreement after January 10, 2019.

      After filings by both parties regarding enforcement of the
      Settlement Agreement, this court held a hearing where the parties
      jointly drafted and submitted to the court an order to enforce the
      Settlement Agreement, which this court entered on September
      24, 2019. The September 24, 2019 order states that the terms
      of the Settlement Agreement “shall be afforded their plain
      meaning” and that the parties will “cooperate in a commercially
      reasonable manner to effectuate the terms” of the Settlement
      Agreement.

      On October 2, 2019, Jordan had his tax attorney provide his
      calculations to Printfly’s accountants, which required Printfly to
      make a “gross-up payment” to Jordan by “paying him as deferred
      compensation” instead of writing a check for $6.5 million, net of
      taxes.    The calculations required that the payment due be
      “grossed up” to account for the federal, state, and local taxes due

                                     -2-
J-A12017-23

       on such compensation. On October 4, 2019, Printfly began
       performing under the court’s September order. Specifically,
       Printfly sought Jordan’s Counsel Richard Pressman’s (“Pressman”)
       escrow wiring instructions to deposit the $6.5 million due pursuant
       to Paragraph 1(a) of the Settlement Agreement. On October 7,
       2019, Printfly hand delivered a check for $6,500,000, net of taxes,
       to Pressman’s office, and on October 9, 2019, notified the court
       of the same. Jordan refused to accept the check as the payment
       was made as stock redemption instead of deferred compensation.

       Thereafter, on October 11, 2019, Jordan filed a motion for
       contempt and sanctions. On October 30, 2019, Printfly responded
       and filed a cross-motion for contempt and sanctions. On January
       30, 2020, this court ordered the parties to attend a second
       mediation with Judge Diane M. Welsh (Ret.) to clarify the meaning
       of the disputed term “deferred compensation.” On July 30, 2020,
       after mediation with Judge Welsh failed, Printfly attempted to pay
       Jordan pursuant to Paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c) of the
       Settlement Agreement.

       On July 29, 2021, Printfly filed another motion for contempt and
       sanctions. On January 27-28, 2022, the court held a hearing to
       clarify the meaning of the disputed term “deferred compensation”
       included in the Settlement Agreement. On March 21, 2022,
       [Appellants] filed a motion to vacate the court’s September 24,
       2019 order. On June 9, 2022, the court entered the order
       disposing of (1) Plaintiff’s July 29, 2021 motion for sanctions; (2)
       [Appellants’] October 11, 2019 motion for sanctions; and ([3])
       [Appellants’] March 21, 2022 motion to vacate [the] September
       24, 2019 order.

Trial Ct. Op., 9/5/22, at 1-4 (footnotes omitted).

       Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on July 8, 2022.1 The trial

court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion reiterating the basis for its June 9,

2022 order.
____________________________________________

1 On September 30, 2022, this Court issued a rule to show cause order
because it was unclear whether the order was a final order pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). In a response filed October 10, 2022, Appellants argued,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A12017-23

       On appeal, Appellants raise the following claims:

       1. Did the trial court commit error when it ignored the plain
          meaning of “deferred compensation” as wages, set forth in the
          dictionary, when it found that the parties did not intend the
          deferred compensation payments in Section 1 of the
          Settlement Agreement Term Sheet to be paid as wages?

       2. Did the trial court commit error when it looked beyond the
          intent of the parties and rewrote the agreement by relying on
          (a) Printfly’s expert’s unsubstantiated, improper and
          inadmissible opinions, including her claims about how the
          Internal Revenue Service would view this transaction, and (b)
          arguments the parties did not know at the time of settlement
          might impact whether or not payments could properly be made
          as deferred compensation wages, including the fact that Jordan
          Nemeroff did not provide services to Printfly after he was
          terminated in 2017, and that Printfly did not have a deferred
          compensation plan?

       3. Did the trial court commit error by excluding the presentation
          of evidence of alleged wrongdoing by Printfly and Michael and
          Alexis Nemeroff that informed Jordan Nemeroff’s intent when
          structuring the deal as deferred compensation to minimize his
          legal and tax risk as a result of the alleged wrongdoing and the
          impact it could have on Printfly’s S Corporation status and
          shareholder tax basis?

       4. Did the trial court commit error by not vacating its September
          24, 2019 order enforcing the Settlement Agreement Term
          Sheet when it was presented with evidence that there was no
          meeting of the minds regarding the definition of “deferred
          compensation”, and both parties argued that forcing the other’s
          definition of deferred compensation on them would cause them
          to violate tax laws?

____________________________________________

inter alia, that the order constituted a final order because the order disposed
of the parties’ remaining disputes related to the September 24, 2019 order
that enforced a settlement agreement term sheet. Based on Appellants’
response, this Court subsequently discharged the rule to show cause order.
See Order, 10/14/22.

                                           -4-
J-A12017-23

      5. Did the trial court commit error by not awarding Jordan
         Nemeroff interest on the money that Printfly has held for three
         years and could have wired to him at any time?

Appellants’ Brief at 3-5.

                 Interpretation of Settlement Agreement

      Appellants’ first three claims relate to the trial court’s interpretation of

the settlement agreement.      First, Appellants assert that the “only proper

interpretation of the settlement agreement term sheet requires deferred

compensation payments to be made as wages.” Appellants’ Brief at 29. In

support, Appellants contend that Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.) defines

“deferred compensation” as wages. Id. at 30. Appellants also argue that

given the plain meaning of the terms listed on the settlement agreement term

sheet, “it is not plausible that ‘deferred compensation’ simply meant that the

payments would be made later” because if the parties “simply meant that a

certain amount would have been paid at a later date, they would have simply

written that.” Id. at 32. Appellants also claim that the parties’ statements

during the mediation and their conduct after the mediation indicate that the

payments were to be paid as wages, rather than stock redemptions. Id. at

33-39.

      Additionally, Appellants argue that the trial court erred by looking

beyond the intent of the parties and rewriting the agreement based on

“irrelevant arguments and inadmissible expert testimony about how the deal

should have been structured,” which did not relate to the parties’ intent. Id.

at 39. Specifically, Appellants refer to the report and testimony from Printfly’s

                                      -5-
J-A12017-23

expert regarding how the IRS would view the tax consequences of the

settlement agreement, the tax risks for Appellants individually, Printfly’s S

Corporation status, and the validity and accuracy of Jordan’s personal

purported tax basis. Id. at 40. Finally, Appellants argue that the trial court

erred in excluding “certain evidence about wrongdoing that Michael was

involved in or aware of that might jeopardize Printfly’s S Corporation status

and Jordan’s personal purported stock basis with the IRS.” Id. at 52-53.

      “The enforceability of settlement agreements is determined according

to principles of contract law. Because contract interpretation is a question of

law, this Court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation.” Step Plan

Servs., Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d 401, 408 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation

omitted).

      Our standard of review over questions of law is de novo and to
      the extent necessary, the scope of our review is plenary as [the
      appellate] court may review the entire record in making its
      decision. With respect to factual conclusions, we may reverse the
      trial court only if its findings of fact are predicated on an error of
      law or are unsupported by competent evidence in the record.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).

      The fundamental rule in contract interpretation is to ascertain the
      intent of the contracting parties. In cases of a written contract,
      the intent of the parties is the writing itself. When the terms of a
      contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties is to
      be ascertained from the document itself. When, however, an
      ambiguity exists, parol evidence is admissible to explain or clarify
      or resolve the ambiguity, irrespective of whether the ambiguity is
      patent, created by the language of the instrument, or latent,
      created by extrinsic or collateral circumstances. A contract is
      ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions
      and capable of being understood in more than one sense.

                                      -6-
J-A12017-23

Harley v. HealthSpark Found., 265 A.3d 674, 684 (Pa. Super. 2021)

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 277 A.3d 1105 (Pa. 2022).

      “Whether an ambiguity exists is a question of law subject to plenary

review. However, resolution of conflicting parol evidence relevant to what the

parties intended by an ambiguous provision is for the trier-of-fact.” PARC

Holdings, Inc. v. Killian, 785 A.2d 106, 112 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations

omitted).

      “There is a strong judicial policy in favor of voluntarily settling lawsuits.”

Felix v. Giuseppe Kitchens & Baths, Inc., 848 A.2d 943, 946 (Pa. Super.

2004) (citation omitted). “The primary reason that settlement is favored is

that it expedites the transfer of money into the hands of a complainant.

Further, settlement reduces the burden on and expense of maintaining

courts.” Id. (citations omitted).

      In a settlement agreement, “[t]here is an offer (the settlement figure),

acceptance, and consideration (in exchange for the plaintiff terminating his

lawsuit, the defendant will pay the plaintiff the agreed upon sum).” Step Plan

Servs., 12 A.3d at 409 (citation omitted). “As with any contract, it is essential

to the enforceability of a settlement agreement that the minds of the parties

should meet upon all the terms, as well as the subject-matter, of the

agreement.” Mazzella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531, 536 (Pa. 1999) (quotation

marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

      It is well settled that questions concerning the admissibility of evidence

lie within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the

                                       -7-
J-A12017-23

court’s decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.        Commonwealth Fin.

Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 15 A.3d 492, 496 (Pa. Super. 2011).              “An abuse of

discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have

reached a different conclusion, but requires a manifest unreasonableness, or

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly

erroneous.” Keystone Dedicated Logistics, LLC v. JGB Enters., Inc., 77

A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). In addition, “to constitute

reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also

harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.” Winschel v. Jain, 925 A.2d

782, 794 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation and brackets omitted).

       Finally, when judges serve as the finder of fact, the law presumes they

will   disregard   inadmissible   and/or   prejudicial   evidence.      See,   e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Fears, 836 A.2d 52, 71 n.19 (Pa. 2003) (holding that “a

judge, as fact finder, is presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence and

consider only competent evidence” (citation omitted)); In re J.H., 737 A.2d

275, 279 (Pa. Super. 1999) (noting that in a proceeding where the judge is

the fact finder, he or she is presumed to consider evidence for its proper

purpose and “is equipped, through training and experience, to assess the

competency and relevance of proffered evidence and to disregard that which

is prejudicial” (citation omitted)).

       Here, after the trial court imposed its September 24, 2019 order

directing the parties to cooperate in a commercially reasonable manner to

effectuate the settlement agreement, the parties made several attempts to

                                        -8-
J-A12017-23

resolve their disputes concerning the meaning of deferred compensation. This

included court-ordered mediation with Judge Dianne Welsh (Ret.), on July 30,

2020, which was unsuccessful, as well as the January 27 to 28, 2022 hearings

related to the enforcement of the settlement agreement. Despite these robust

efforts, the parties were unable to agree on a definition of “deferred

compensation.”

      Thereafter, further litigation ensued, including the filing of cross-

motions for contempt and sanctions. The trial court subsequently conducted

a hearing on March 21, 2022 to resolve these conflicts and effectuate the

settlement agreement. Ultimately, the trial court explained its interpretation

of the settlement agreement in its June 9, 2022 order, which disposed of all

pending motions including cross motions for contempt, sanction, and

Appellants’ motion to vacate the trial court’s September 24, 2019 order. See

Trial Ct. Order, 6/9/22.

      In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained:

      [T]he parties dispute whether the payments under paragraphs
      1(a) and 1(b) of the Settlement Agreement should be treated as
      deferred compensation payments or stock redemption payments
      for tax purposes. The Settlement Agreement [] provides in
      relevant part, as follows:

         1) In exchange for the consideration set forth herein Jordan
            will surrender all of his shares in Printfly Corporation to
            Printfly Corporation and Jordan will be paid as follows:

            a. Will be paid deferred compensation from Printfly in an
               amount that will allow him to receive a net of $6.5
               million after taxes, to be paid within 120 days of a
               fully executed settlement agreement;

                                     -9-
J-A12017-23

           b. Will be paid deferred compensation from Printfly in an
              amount that will allow him to receive a net of $1.5
              million after taxes, to be paid on or before February
              15, 2020;

     According to Printfly, the term “deferred compensation” under
     paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Settlement Agreement is
     undefined, and the “deferred compensation” meant making
     payment at a later time “in an amount that will allow him to
     receive a net of $6.5 million after taxes” based on the plain
     meaning of the term.         Therefore, the payments totaling
     $8,229,242 paid as stock redemption for tax purposes were, in
     fact, in an amount that would allow Jordan to receive a net of $8
     million under the Settlement Agreement.

     However, [Appellants] assert that the term “deferred
     compensation” should be interpreted under the IRS definition.
     Therefore, the net payment of $8,000,000 should be paid to him
     as “Deferred Compensation” for tax purposes.       Specifically,
     Printfly needs to pay him in the amount of $12,600,000, based
     upon a grossed-up value of the after-tax payments due in the
     amount of $8 million at a 45% tax rate.

     At the January 27-28, 2022 hearing, Printfly provided evidence to
     show that the term “deferred compensation” meant making
     payment at a later time. Specifically, there were no accountants
     in the room when the Settlement Agreement was reached and,
     according to Michael, “we wanted to give him a net number that
     he would receive after we figured out the best way to pay him, to
     make sure that he would get eight million in his pocket, after
     taxes” for his stock. Further, Michael testified that the payment
     being made as “wages” was never discussed, a deferred
     compensation plan did not exist at Printfly, Jordan was no longer
     employed by Printfly since 2017, and “the words that we said over
     and over . . . when we were talking about it was eight million after
     taxes and we’re going to figure out the most tax efficient way to
     pay, to which Jordan said, yeah, I don’t care how you pay me.”

     Joanne Yeung (“Yeung”), Printfly’s accountant, testified as
     Printfly’s expert that she reported the transaction as the
     redemption of stock by Printfly in 2019, and the IRS has not
     disputed the designation. According to Yeung, if Printfly makes a
     “grossed up wages” payment to Jordan and reports it as deferred
     compensation, the IRS would disallow it because Printfly has no
     deferred compensation plan, and the “grossed up wages” payment

                                    - 10 -
J-A12017-23

     will constitute an unreasonable compensation. Also, the IRS will
     recharacterize the payment as a stock redemption based on the
     economic substance of the transaction.

     Meanwhile, Jordan provides that he understood he would receive
     deferred compensation payments as wages. According to Jordan,
     before signing the Settlement Agreement, Michael told him Printfly
     could pay him a $15 million payment in the form of deferred
     compensation so that Printfly could benefit from a tax write-off.
     Also, Pressman testified that “the agreement was reached based
     on an understanding that it was being treated as wages, because
     Michael wanted Printfly to be able to take advantage of the wage
     deductions that Printfly was going to pay to offset its taxes.”

     Instantly, the court interprets the Settlement Agreement in a
     commercially reasonable manner in accordance with the
     September 24, 2019 order. As the term “deferred compensation”
     is not defined in the Settlement Agreement, the court looks at
     extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties. Upon
     examining the evidence, the court concluded that the parties
     intended that Section 1(a) and Section 1(b) of the Settlement
     Agreement meant that Jordan would be paid a net of $8 million.
     Michael testified that “when we were talking about it was eight
     million after taxes and we’re going to figure out the most tax
     efficient way to pay, to which Jordan said, yeah, I don’t care how
     you pay me.” Also, Jordan agreed that the net proceeds he was
     entitled to would be $8 million and “not a penny more.”

     When negotiating the Settlement Agreement, the parties have not
     discussed the IRS definition of “deferred compensation.”
     Specifically, Pressman testified that “we weren’t looking at it
     under IRS guidelines with regards to whether or not it was
     deferred compensation plan.” There were no accountants in the
     room when the Settlement Agreement was reached. Further, the
     term “wages” is not referenced in the Settlement Agreement.
     Moreover, Jordan did not provide services to Printfly after he was
     terminated in 2017, and Printfly did not have a deferred
     compensation plan in place at any time before or after entering
     into the Settlement Agreement. With respect to Jordan’s concerns
     that treating the payments as stock redemption would subject him
     to additional legal and tax risks, Yeung has performed research on
     Jordan’s concerns of disproportionate distributions and S-Corp

                                   - 11 -
J-A12017-23

       issues and testified that there is no tax risk associated with
       reporting the payment as a stock redemption.[2]

       Therefore, the court properly concluded in June 9, 2022 order that
       1) the parties intended that Section 1(a) and Section 1(b) of the
       Settlement Agreement reached on January 10, 2019 meant that
       Jordan would be paid a net of eight million dollars ($8,000,000)
       after taxes in exchange for his shares in Printfly, and 2) the parties
       did not intend that the payments in Section 1 be defined as
       “wages” or an IRS definition of “compensation.” Accordingly, the
       court’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement comports with
       the ordinary meaning of the term and in accordance with a
       commercially reasonable manner.

Trial Ct. Op. at 5-8 (footnotes omitted and some formatting altered).

       Following our review of the record, we agree with the trial court and

conclude that the term “deferred compensation” was ambiguous, as it was

subject to more than one reasonable interpretation when applied to the facts

of the instant case. See Harley, 265 A.3d at 684; PARC Holdings, Inc.,

785 A.2d at 112. As such, the trial court properly considered evidence outside

of the agreement to determine the parties’ intent. See Harley, 265 A.3d at

684.

       After considering the evidence and hearing argument from both parties,

the trial court made a factual determination that the parties had intended to

structure the settlement agreement so that Jordan would receive eight million

dollars after taxes. See Trial Ct. Op. at 8. In reaching that conclusion, the

trial court noted that Printfly did not have a deferred compensation plan,
____________________________________________

2 Further, the record reflects that Printfly offered to pay their accountant to

“handle Jordan’s tax returns for 2018, 2019, and 2020, to ensure he [had]
no additional tax liability, and to pay any liability (if any) that [would arise]
from the money he [was] receiving from Printfly.” R.R. at 1979a.

                                          - 12 -
J-A12017-23

Jordan had not been employed by Printfly since 2017, and there was no

indication that the parties had made any reference to “wages” when creating

the settlement agreement term sheet.           See id.   The trial court’s factual

findings are supported by the record and we will not disturb them on appeal.

See PARC Holdings, Inc., 785 A.2d at 112 (explaining that the “resolution

of conflicting parol evidence relevant to what the parties intended by an

ambiguous provision is for the trier-of-fact” (citation omitted)).

      Finally, there is no indication that the trial court relied on “inadmissible”

or “irrelevant” evidence when making its factual determinations in this case.

See Fears, 836 A.2d at 71 n.19 (stating that “a judge, as fact finder, is

presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence and consider only competent

evidence” (citation omitted)).    Therefore, because we discern no abuse of

discretion by the trial court, Appellants are not entitled to relief.         See

Commonwealth Fin. Sys., Inc., 15 A.3d at 496.

                               Motion to Vacate

      Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion

to vacate. Appellants’ Brief at 54. Specifically, Appellants argue that after

the trial court concluded that the payments could not be made as deferred

compensation wages, the court should have vacated its September 24, 2019

order and sent the parties back to litigation rather than rewriting the

settlement agreement. Id. at 56. In support, Appellants claim that there was

no meeting of the minds concerning the material terms of the settlement

agreement, and that “if the trial court believed that it could not force Printfly

                                      - 13 -
J-A12017-23

to pay Jordan wages because he provided no services post-termination, or

there was no deferred compensation plan, its remedy was not to rewrite the

[agreement], but to find it unenforceable and to send the parties back to

litigation.” Id.

      In ruling on Appellants’ motion to vacate, the trial court explained:

      [Appellants] also appeal this court’s June 9, 2022 order disposing
      of [Appellants’] Motion to Vacate. In the Motion to Vacate,
      [Appellants] seek to vacate the court’s September 24, 2019 order
      and claim that: (1) there was no meeting of the minds as to the
      material terms of the Settlement Agreement; and (2) the
      Settlement Agreement is void because enforcement of the
      Agreement requires Printfly to make deferred compensation
      payments to Jordan, which will cause Printfly to take a position
      that violates IRS regulations.

      Judicial policy favors the settlement of lawsuits and in the absence
      of fraud and mistake the courts will enforce an agreement to settle
      a legal dispute. Greentree Cinemas, Inc. v. Hakim, 432 A.2d
      1039 (Pa. Super. 1981).             The enforceability of settlement
      agreements is governed by principles of contract law. Mazzella,
      739 A.2d at 536. If all of the material terms of a bargain are
      agreed upon, the settlement agreement will be enforced. See id.
      at 537. If, however, there exist “ambiguities and undetermined
      matters which render a settlement agreement impossible to
      understand and enforce,” such an agreement must be set aside.
      Id. [(citation omitted).] If there is an ambiguity, “extrinsic or
      parol evidence may be considered to determine the intent of the
      parties . . . it is for the fact finder to resolve ambiguities and find
      the parties’ intent.” See Metzger v. Clifford Realty Corp., 476
      A.2d 1, 5 (Pa. Super. 1984) [(citations omitted)]. Also, “a true
      and actual meeting of the minds is not necessary to form a
      contract. In ascertaining the intent of the parties to a contract, it
      is their outward and objective manifestations of assent, as
      opposed to their undisclosed and subjective intentions[,] that
      matter.” Ingrassia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Walsh, 486 A.2d 478,
      482-83 (Pa. Super. 1984) [(citations omitted)].

      As discussed above, the parties intended that Section 1(a) and
      Section 1(b) of the Settlement Agreement meant that Jordan

                                      - 14 -
J-A12017-23

      would be paid a net of $8 million after taxes. Since the court has
      resolved any ambiguities in the Settlement Agreement upon
      examining the evidence, nothing renders the Settlement
      Agreement impossible to enforce and must be set aside.
      Therefore, there was a meeting of the minds regarding the
      material terms of the Settlement Agreement, and [Appellants’]
      argument has been properly denied.

                                 *     *      *

      Under Pennsylvania law, a “contract which violates a statute is
      illegal and will not be enforced.” Robinson Coal Co. v. Goodall,
      72 A.3d 685, 690 (Pa. Super. 2013) [(citation omitted)]. An
      agreement will be considered void for illegality where it “cannot
      be performed without violating a statute.” Rittenhouse v.
      Barclay White Inc., 625 A.2d 1208, 1211 (Pa. Super. 1993)
      [(citations omitted)].

      [Appellants] claim that if the court enforces the Settlement
      Agreement as written and requires Printfly to make deferred
      compensation payments to Jordan, it will cause Printfly to take a
      position that violates IRS regulations.

      As explained above, the court interprets that the parties did not
      intend that the payments in Section 1 be defined as “wages” or
      an IRS definition of “compensation.” Accordingly, the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement would be enforced without violating the
      IRS rules. Therefore, [Appellants’] argument that enforcing the
      Settlement Agreement would violate the law has been properly
      denied.

Trial Ct. Op. at 8-10 (some formatting altered).

      Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the trial

court’s opinion, we affirm based on the trial court’s analysis of this issue. See

id. Specifically, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that although there

was an ambiguity in the settlement agreement as to the meaning of deferred

compensation, it did not render the agreement unenforceable. See Step Plan

Servs., Inc., 12 A.3d at 408. As noted previously, the trial court, as fact

                                     - 15 -
J-A12017-23

finder, reviewed the parties’ evidence and determined the parties’ intent and

resolved the ambiguity with respect to the term “deferred compensation.”

See Trial Ct. Op. at 8-10. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying

Appellants’ motion to vacate.

                     Pre-Judgment Interest Award

     In their final claim, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in

declining to award Jordan pre-judgment interest.     Appellants’ Brief at 56.

Appellants claim that Printfly had Jordan’s wire instructions since 2019 and

“could have wired the money to him at any point.” Id. at 58. Appellants

assert that “[i]nstead of wiring the money to Jordan, Printfly concocted a

scheme of attempting to get him to deposit checks so that they could argue

that Jordan had accepted their characterization of the deal and gross up

calculations as a stock redemption.” Id. Therefore, Appellants conclude that

Jordan is entitled to interest on the funds dispersed in accordance with the

settlement agreement. Id. at 59.

     In Pennsylvania, a party is entitled to pre-judgment interest as a matter

of law in cases where:

     (1) a defendant commits a breach of a contract to pay a definite
     sum of money; or

     (2) a defendant commits a breach of contract to render a
     performance the value of which in money is stated in the contract;
     or

     (3) a defendant commits a breach of contract to render a
     performance the value of which is ascertainable by mathematical
     calculation from a standard fixed in the contract; or

                                   - 16 -
J-A12017-23

       (4) a defendant commits a breach of a contract to render a
       performance the value of which in money is ascertainable from
       established market prices of the subject matter[.]

Davis v. Borough of Montrose, 194 A.3d 597, 613 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(citation omitted). In all other cases, “pre-judgment interest is awarded at

the court’s discretion[.]” Id.

       In the instant case, there is no indication that Appellees breached the

parties’ settlement by failing to pay Jordan a definite sum of money. Indeed,

the parties were involved in litigation to determine whether the term “deferred

compensation” meant that Jordan was to be paid in wages or in exchange for

his stock redemption. Further, as noted by the trial court, Printfly attempted

to pay Jordan pursuant to paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c) of the settlement

agreement, but Jordan refused to accept payment.3 See Trial Ct. Op. at 4.

Under these circumstances, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court

in declining to award Jordan pre-judgment interest. See Davis, 194 A.3d at

613. Therefore, Appellants are not entitled to relief on this issue. Accordingly,

we affirm.

       Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

3  As noted previously, Printfly also offered to indemnify Jordan, and stated
that they would pay their accountant to “handle Jordan’s tax returns for 2018,
2019, and 2020, to ensure he [had] no additional tax liability, and to pay any
liability (if any) that [would arise] from the money he [was] receiving from
Printfly.” R.R. at 1979a.

                                          - 17 -
J-A12017-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/28/2023

                          - 18 -