Court Opinion

ID: 9767100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:09:40.605429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.617875
License: Public Domain

*314DEL SOLE, Judge,
concurring.
I join the Majority in its interpretation of the Supreme Court’s holding in Muhammad v. Strassburger, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346 (1991), and agree that this case should be remanded to the trial court.
This matter is before us on appeal of a Order sustaining preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs Complaint. Having reviewed that Complaint, I conclude that the Plaintiff has not plead a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.
The Plaintiffs claim is based on the fact he is paying alimony to his former wife as a result of a property settlement agreement, even though she has remarried. The basis of the claim, as contained in his Complaint, is as follows:
33. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. McMahon was aware of the fact that his wife might re-marry. However, it was not until after his wife remarried that defendants advised Mr. McMahon that his obligation to support his wife could be terminated.
34. Defendants failed to provide for court intervention concerning Mr. McMahon’s alimony agreement by failing to specifically provide for the same in the March 31, 1987 agreement as amended by the December 4, 1987 agreement and by not merging the agreement as worded with the final decree.
....
38. Defendants’ conduct in failing to merge Mr. McMahon’s alimony agreement with a final divorce decree was a breach of defendants’ duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence on Mr. McMahon’s behalf.
39. As a result of defendants’ negligent failure to merge Mr. McMahon’s alimony agreement with the final divorce decree, Mr. McMahon sustained injury and Loss....
Nowhere in the complaint does the Appellant allege that he received incorrect or insufficient legal advise upon which he relied before signing the agreement. He does not claim that he was misled about the agreement’s terms, or about the *315effects of remarriage on alimony. Rather, the language of the agreement provided that alimony would be paid for a defined period.
Normally, when an appellate court concludes a trial court decision is correct, but for a reason different than that advanced by the trial judge, the appellate court would affirm. However, in this case, while I conclude that the plaintiff has not stated a cause of action, because the trial court decided no cause of action could be averred, he was not given an opportunity to amend his complaint. I believe on remand the court should address paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections, and determine if the complaint is sufficient or if Plaintiff should be permitted to amend.