Court Opinion

ID: 9644622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:00:55.174186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:16.027378
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to amendment of the Order entered by the Honorable Joseph Labrum in this case. My review of the caselaw and statutes, including the 1988 amendments to the Divorce Code of 1980, leads me to conclude that this exceptionally well drawn agreement is both unambiguous and precise to limiting enforcement of the agreement to the terms therein.
Judge Labrum’s Opinion clearly and succinctly states the law which governs agreements such as these and his findings should not be disturbed. With good reason the law, both statutory and caselaw, has come to favor such agreements and to honor these provisions. The amendments to the Divorce Code in 1988 contained in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, corrected and solidified the law as reinterpreted and modified by the legislature as a result of developments that occurred in cases decided since 1980. It was clear that the legislature intended a different approach as to the court’s resolution of agreements entered into between 1980 and 1988. Nothing in the amendments of 1988 permits retroactive application.
In addition, the provision on enforcement, section 3105(a), concludes: ... [the court] may utilize a remedy ... to the same extent as though the agreement had been an order of the court except as provided to the contrary in the agreement. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(a) (emphasis added). Even if this agree*87ment had been entered subsequent to 1988, the provision of the agreement denying enforcement through the court by means of the provisions available in the Divorce Code would be binding and prevent such enforcement. Because the amendment to the Divorce Code in the enforcement provision may not be given retroactive effect, the application for relief suggested by appellant is unavailable in all respects.
The terms of the agreement are specific as to how the agreement may be enforced in the event of default, and the absence of other possible remedies may not be used to extend court jurisdiction for enforcement beyond those contained in the agreement. It is beyond doubt or question that the agreement established exclusive remedies to cure default which are binding on the parties, and this Court may not modify the agreement to give a greater benefit to one of the parties.
I would affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinion.