Court Opinion

ID: 9747535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:19:54.816608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:24.380030
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
The lower court found the separation agreement “so obviously a collusive agreement . . . that it is difficult to conceive of reasonable minds differing.” The majority of this court, however, in reversing, perceives “a clear distinction "between contracts which have provisions that directly facilitate divorce in the sense that they remove impediments to obtaining a decree and those contracts which provide for a bona fide adjustment of *317property rights but contain provisions which may be collaterally inducive to an earlier institution of divorce proceedings by a spouse having valid grounds.” Majority at 743.
The majority’s opinion is an admirable summary of the law. I suggest, however, that the summary itself belies the statement that there is a “clear distinction” between a valid separation agreement and an invalid one. By what follows I shall perhaps succeed in making the distinction clear only to myself; I hope, however, that some may find it a bit less unclear.
It is often observed that the State is an interested party to any action for divorce. It is often forgotten, however, that the State’s interest is quite limited. Thus, sometimes the State’s interest is referred to in a manner suggesting that the State is opposed to divorce. See, e. g., Middleton v. Middleton, 187 Pa. 612, 41 A. 291 (1898). This suggestion is quite mistaken. The State is only opposed to a divorce contrary to State law. For example, generally speaking, as regards the law of Pennsylvania the State is opposed to a divorce being granted where neither party to the marriage has wronged the other. Steinke v. Steinke, 238 Pa.Super. 74, 357 A.2d 674 (1976) (Concurring Opinion by Spaeth, J.). If, however, the divorce is consistent with State law, it cannot be said that the State is opposed to it. For example, and again generally speaking, suppose that one party to the marriage is innocent but that the other has committed adultery, or has subjected the innocent party to cruel and barbarous treatment. The innocent party may for personal reasons decide not to seek a divorce; the decision whether to seek a divorce is not a decision that can be made simply by reference to the law books; one must rather decide according to one’s deepest personal convictions of what is right. However, if the innocent party does decide to seek a divorce, it may be said that rather than opposing the divorce, the *318State approves of it, for the State has by its law declared that the innocent party is entitled to the divorce.
Once one has defined the State’s interest in an action for divorce, one may define the court’s responsibility. The responsibility, it turns out, is a dual one. As regards the parties, the court must ensure that their respective conflicting interests are adjudicated impartially and as required by the law. This will require the court to decide whether under the law of evidence a ground for divorce appears. As regards the State, the court must ensure that this appearance corresponds with reality. If it does, the State’s interest is served, since the State is only concerned that the party seeking the divorce be entitled to it.
From'these considerations it follows that in reviewing a separation agreement, the court must ask whether the parties are attempting by the agreement to create the appearance of a ground for divorce. In other words, are they attempting to induce the court to grant a divorce despite the fact that under State law there is in reality no ground for it? If they are, the agreement may properly be characterized as the result of “collusion,” and the court should declare it invalid. See, for example, Black’s Law Dictionary, 831 (Rev. 4th ed. 1968), which defines “collusion” as:
An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law. It implies the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means, or of lawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose.
The difficulty with the law — the reason it is unclear —is that this concept of “collusion” has been replaced by, or at least become confused with, the concept that a separation agreement is invalid if it “facilitates” a divorce.
*319All separation agreements “facilitate” divorce. To hold invalid any agreement that “facilitates” divorce would in practical terms often deny the ability to obtain a divorce. In a State without alimony, like Pennsylvania, a dependent spouse may well refrain from seeking a divorce, regardless of the adequacy of the grounds, without an agreement as to the division of property. There is nothing, however, about the State’s interest in divorce that requires such a result. A separation agreement does not in itself affect the existence or non-existence of grounds; it does not induce a divorce in the sense of being the source of the decision to end a marriage. The agreement does certainly make acceptable a divorce that otherwise would not be, but that is no reason to hold the agreement invalid. For the law to ignore these facts, and to pretend that separation agreements do not have the effect of “facilitating” divorce, is to deny reality; yet that is what the law does when it compels the courts to distinguish between those agreements that “directly facilitate divorce” and those that are “a bona fide adjustment of property rights but . ... may be collaterally conducive to divorce . . . [on] valid grounds.”
The idea that a separation agreement is invalid if it “facilitates” divorce seems to derive from some careless language in the cases. The law used to be clear enough that the agreement is invalid only if it is the result of “collusion.”
In 1895 our Supreme Court found no difficulty in upholding an agreement by a wife that she would not assign any other grounds for divorce than desertion. Irvin v. Irvin, 169 Pa. 529, 32 A. 445 (1895). The Court reasoned that all that could be inferred from this was that the husband, from “a sense of shame”, wished to exclude other known grounds from public disclosure. However, the Court found that another agreement (on the facts, only alleged), which provided that the wife would be paid if she sued for divorce, would be contrary to the State’s interest in divorce. Said the Court:
*320If the consideration for the payment of the $4,000 was, that plaintiff should obtain a divorce from her husband, the consideration was a violation of statute by both. The 2d section of the act of 1815 provides, that in her petition or libel she shall set out the cause for the divorce, and under oath or affirmation state that it is not made out of levity or collusion. If this was the consideration for the $4,000, it was in violation of statute, and was so vicious that the contract never had a legal existence: Kilborn v. Field, 78 Pa. 194. That the plaintiff and defendant stipulate for a falsehood to the court and contract that one of them shall commit perjury to bolster up the falsehood, clearly renders the contract void ab initio, if based on such iniquity.
Id. at 545, 32 A. at 448.
This statement of the law, I submit, accurately recognizes, and fully protects, the State’s interest in divorce. Before long, however, the Court departed from it. In Miller v. Miller, 284 Pa. 414, 131 A. 236 (1925), the Court remanded with instructions to the lower court to ascertain whether an agreement was based upon an illegal purpose. Under the agreement the husband was to pay support and transfer certain stocks on condition that the wife obtain a divorce within eight months. The Court concluded that if the agreement’s sole purpose was to obtain a divorce, it would be invalid, but that if the agreement was a bona fide adjustment of property rights, though in contemplation of divorce, it would be valid if not directly conducive to the procurement of a divorce. Id. at 418-19, 131 A. at 238. It is possible to read this conclusion as consistent with the Court’s decision in Irvin v. Irvin, supra. Thus, the Court specified when it thought an agreement manifested collusion: “as shown by a promise not to defend, nor to furnish evidence . . .” Id. at 418, 131 A. at 238. Also, the Court stated that where separation was induced by conduct, not collusion, and where just grounds *321exist, an agreement for the settlement of property and maintenance is not “repugnant to public policy.” Id. at 419, 131 A. 238. Unfortunately, however, the Court also said: “Likewise, an arrangement tending to facilitate the granting of a decree is invalid.” Id. at 418, 131 A. at 238.
It is this language about “facilitat [ing] ... a decree” that has been picked up and has led to the current confusion, a relatively recent illustration of which may be found, I submit with respect, in Stern v. Stern, 430 Pa. 605, 243 A.2d 319 (1968). In my opinion, we should disavow all references to “facilitation,” and never use that expression again. Such a course would clarify the law. It would also harmonize the cases; for when the cases are closely read, it will be seen that the concept that an agreement is invalid because it “facilitates” a divorce has always been something of an excrescence, or distraction; the steady concern of the courts has been whether the agreement is the result of “collusion”, whether, in other words, the party seeking the divorce had a good ground for it. Thus, an agreement was upheld where it did not require that a divorce “shall” be instituted, or that one party would not defend, for if the charges were justified a divorce would follow, Zlotziver v. Zlotziver, 355 Pa. 299, 49 A.2d 779 (1946); where the “ [r] elatrix had good grounds”, Commonwealth ex rel. Rossi v. Rossi, 161 Pa.Super. 86, 53 A.2d 887 (1947); and where the parties had provided that any cause should be alleged except adultery, Schmoker v. Schmoker, 359 Pa. 272, 59 A.2d 55 (1948). The concern that the agreement not stipulate that one party “shall” institute divorce proceedings was clarified by a quotation from American Jurisprudence providing that a separation agreement, though contingent on divorce, is valid where one believes one has cause. Dora v. Dora, 392 Pa. 433, 141 A.2d 587 (1958). However, an agreement has been held invalid where it provided that one party would not *322file exceptions nor take an appeal, Commonwealth v. Glennon, 92 Pa.Super. 94 (1927); or where one spouse agreed not to defend or to appear, Shannon’s Estate, 289 Pa. 280, 137 A. 251 (1927). Equálly unsuccessful were arrangements stipulating that one spouse “shall” institute proceedings, where no grounds existed for a divorce, Miller v. Miller, 176 Pa.Super. 64, 106 A.2d 627 (1954); or where the only purpose of a second supplemental agreement was to prevent a threatened contest, Gershan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 405 Pa. 585, 176 A.2d 435 (1962).
Once we forget about whether the separation agreement “facilitated” the divorce, and focus on preventing “collusion” — defined as the attempt to defraud the court by obtaining a. divorce where no ground for it exists— the disposition of the present case becomes relatively simple. As the majority observes, there is no evidence of collusion. Since there is not, there is no basis for holding the agreement invalid.
I therefore concur in the order reversing the order of the lower court.