CourtListener opinion 10746314

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

J-A11016-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 PATRICIA A. PROSPER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 : PENNSYLVANIA
 Appellee :
 :
 v. :
 :
 ORLANDO W. PROSPER :
 :
 Appellant : No. 562 WDA 2020

 Appeal from the Order Entered April 16, 2020
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
 Civil Division at No(s): No. 2016-1970 C.D.

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: August 17, 2021

 Appellant, Orlando W. Prosper ("Husband"), appeals from the order

entered in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas, which disposed of

the petition for special relief filed by Appellee, Patricia A. Prosper ("Wife"). We

affirm.

 The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

appeal as follows:

 The parties were married on October 16, 1999 and
 separated on or about May 1, 2016. Subsequently, Wife
 filed a divorce complaint on December 8, 2016. In order to
 resolve outstanding economic issues, a marriage settlement
 agreement (hereafter "MSA") dated July 25, 2019 was
 executed by the parties. Said MSA was filed on July 29,
 2019, and was incorporated in the divorce decree of the
 [trial court], which was filed the same date.

 The portion of the [MSA] at issue is Paragraph 12, which is
 J-A11016-21

 identified as "Retirement Plans."[1] Specifically, Paragraph
 12 of the MSA provides that, in order to effectuate the
 division of Husband's pension, a qualified domestic relations
 order (hereafter "QDRO") was to be completed. Jonathan
 Cramer, an actuarial consultant at Conrad Siegel, completed
 a proposed QDRO that was forwarded to the parties'
 attorneys for review. Upon receipt, Husband raised
 objections to specific language of the proposed QDRO. As a
 result of the ongoing disagreement over the language, Wife
 filed the petition for special relief that is the subject of the
 present opinion and order.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed April 16, 2020, at 1-2) (some internal capitalization

____________________________________________

1 The relevant portion of Paragraph 12 states:

 Husband's pension plan through the City of DuBois Police
 Retirement plan shall be divided between the parties on a
 50/50 basis as of May 1, 2016. Specifically, Wife shall
 receive 50% multiplied by the marital coverture fraction of
 the vested portion of Husband's final pension benefit. The
 vested pension benefit to be divided, and the coverture
 fraction, shall be computed as of Husband's date of
 retirement. … Wife shall receive a proportionate share of
 any post-retirement cost-of-living adjustments as well as a
 pro-rata share of any early retirement benefits payable to
 Husband in the event Husband retires prior to his normal
 retirement date under the Plan.

 Said division of the pension is to be completed within sixty
 (60) days of the date of this Agreement by [QDRO] or such
 other instrument as is directed by the Plan to accomplish
 the division of said retirement. Should there be options to
 be chosen by the plan regarding the manner of division,
 both parties shall participate and have input into choosing
 an option in order that each party receives their respective
 share of the marital potion of the pension benefit.

 * * *

(MSA, dated 7/25/19, at ¶12).

 -2-
 J-A11016-21

omitted).

 In her petition, Wife claimed that the language of the proposed QDRO

accurately reflected the parties' agreement regarding the division of

Husband's retirement benefits, despite Husband's objections to the contrary.

Wife requested that the court rule on the disputed provisions of the QDRO to

facilitate the order's completion. (See Wife's Petition for Special Relief, filed

12/26/19, at ¶¶7-9). The court conducted a hearing on the matter on

February 14, 2020. At that time, Mr. Cramer testified that the proposed QDRO

reflected the language contained in the MSA. (See N.T. Hearing, 2/14/20, at

21).

 Thereafter, Husband raised two specific objections to the proposed

QDRO: 1) it should not include language permitting Wife to receive a portion

of any lump sum payment that Husband would receive if he elected to

participate in a deferred retirement option program ("DROP");2 and 2) it

should exclude a portion of Husband's retirement benefits that would

represent monies not withheld from his pay as contributions to Social Security.

(See Trial Court Opinion at 4, 6; N.T. Hearing at 18-26). By opinion and order

filed April 16, 2020, the court determined that the terms of the MSA precluded

____________________________________________

2 At the February 14, 2020 hearing, Husband presented testimony from John

Suplizio, the city manager for the municipality where Husband worked as a
police officer. Mr. Suplizio testified that the city and police entered into a new
contract in July 2019, which provided DROP as a retirement benefit. (See
N.T. Hearing at 35).

 -3-
 J-A11016-21

Husband from participating in DROP. The court also dismissed Husband's

claim that the QDRO should include a Social Security set-off.

 Husband timely filed a notice of appeal on May 15, 2020. On May 18,

2020, the court ordered Husband to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement

of errors complained of on appeal. Husband timely filed his Rule 1925(b)

statement on June 8, 2020.

 Husband now raises two issues for our review:

 Whether the [trial] court committed an error of law in
 concluding that the language of [Paragraph] 12 of the [MSA]
 was not ambiguous and operated to give Wife as alternative
 payee a portion of Husband's civil service retirement benefit
 that was in lieu of a Social Security benefit?

 Whether the [trial] court committed an error of law in
 interpreting the language of [Paragraph] 12 of the [MSA] to
 prohibit Husband from entering into the [DROP] offered by
 the City of DuBois police retirement plan?

(Husband's Brief at 7).

 In his first issue, Husband asserts that the Divorce Code permits the

division of marital property only, and Social Security retirement benefits are

not marital property. Husband also acknowledges that he worked as a

member of the civil service system during the marriage and did not contribute

to Social Security, whereas Wife did contribute to Social Security through her

employment. Under these circumstances, Husband insists that a portion of

his retirement benefits, corresponding to a Social Security benefit, should be

exempt from consideration as marital property. Pursuant to Cornbleth v.

Cornbleth, 580 A.2d 369 (Pa.Super. 1990), appeal denied, 526 Pa. 648, 585

 -4-
 J-A11016-21

A.2d 468 (1991), Husband maintains that "an individual who does not

contribute to the Social Security system is entitled to a reduction in his or her

pension equal to the present amount of a Social Security benefit because that

portion must be treated the same as a Social Security benefit which is

excluded by federal law as part of the marital estate." (Id. at 30).

 Although Paragraph 12 of the MSA awards Wife a portion of Husband's

retirement benefits, Husband argues that the use of the words "marital

portion" in this paragraph clarified that "Wife is not entitled to receive any

portion of Husband's retirement benefit that is non-marital and that portion of

Husband's retirement that is in lieu of a Social Security benefit is non-marital."

(Id. at 35). Further, Husband avers there is no language in the MSA indicating

that he waived his right to keep the non-marital portion of his retirement

benefits. Husband concludes the trial court erred in dismissing his request for

a Social Security set-off. We disagree.

 "When interpreting a marital settlement agreement, the trial court is the

sole determiner of facts and absent an abuse of discretion, we will not usurp

the trial court's fact-finding function." Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d

333, 339 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251,

1257 (Pa.Super. 2005)). "On appeal from an order interpreting a marital

settlement agreement, we must decide whether the trial court committed an

error of law or abused its discretion." Id.

 "Marriage settlement agreements are governed by the law of contracts."

 -5-
 J-A11016-21

Sorace v. Sorace, 655 A.2d 125, 127 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 542

Pa. 673, 668 A.2d 1135 (1995). See also Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308

(Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining where property settlement agreement did not

merge into divorce decree, it stood as separate contract subject to law

governing contracts). "Because contract interpretation is a question of law,

this Court is not bound by the trial court's interpretation." Mazurek v.

Russell, 96 A.3d 372, 378 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Stamerro, supra at

1257).

 When analyzing contracts which involve clear and
 unambiguous terms, a court must look to the writing itself
 to give effect to the parties' understanding. The court must
 construe the contract only as written and may not rewrite
 the contract or give it a construction that conflicts with the
 plain, ordinary and accepted meaning of the words used.

Sorace, supra at 127 (internal citations omitted).

 Where the contract terms are ambiguous, however, the
 court is free to receive extrinsic evidence to resolve the
 ambiguity.

 A contract will be found to be ambiguous only if it is fairly
 susceptible of different constructions and capable of being
 understood in more than one sense. It is the function of the
 court to decide, as a matter of law, whether the contract
 terms are clear or ambiguous. The fact that the parties have
 different interpretations of a contract does not render the
 contract ambiguous.

Tuthill v. Tuthill, 763 A.2d 417, 420 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 565

Pa. 675, 775 A.2d 808 (2001) (internal citations omitted).

 "Importantly, Social Security benefits are not subject to equitable

distribution. A trial court may only distribute money and property that is part

 -6-
 J-A11016-21

of the marital estate." Powell v. Powell, 577 A.2d 576, 580 (Pa.Super.

1990) (internal citations omitted). Where a court is required to make

equitable distribution of martial assets, "to the extent part of [a state] pension

might figuratively be considered ‘in lieu of' a Social Security benefit[,] that

portion should be exempted from the marital estate." Cornbleth, supra at

371. Nevertheless, when parties have entered into a marriage settlement

agreement: "In the absence of a specific provision to the contrary appearing

in the agreement, a provision regarding the disposition of existing property

rights and interests between the parties … shall not be subject to modification

by the court." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(c).

 Instantly, the trial court evaluated Husband's request for a Social

Security set-off in the QDRO. In light of the basic principles of contract

interpretation, the court determined:

 [T]he [c]ourt finds Paragraph 12 of the MSA is clear and
 unambiguous. The language does not include a Social
 Security set-off, which could have been included if that had
 been the intent of the Parties. The [c]ourt agrees that a
 modification of the Proposed QDRO to include a Social
 Security set-off would be an impermissible modification to
 the plain language of the Parties' agreement.

(Trial Court Opinion at 6).

 Our review of the record supports the court's determination.

Significantly, Mr. Cramer's testimony confirmed that the MSA did not

specifically authorize a Social Security set-off:

 [Mr. Cramer]: [Wife] can file for Social Security
 benefits because the [Q]DRO doesn't deal with Social

 -7-
 J-A11016-21

 Security at all….

 [Husband's Counsel]: I understand that, but does your
 QDRO recognize that some of the benefits earned by
 [Husband] is not marital because it is excluded by case law
 in Pennsylvania due to the fact that it represents money that
 is not taken out of his pay for contribution to Social
 Security?

 [Mr. Cramer]: No, the [Q]DRO doesn't reflect
 that. It just reflects the language in the settlement
 agreement that says the award is 50 percent times the
 marital—

 [Husband's Counsel]: But you acknowledge, do you
 not, that the plan cannot pay to [Wife] money that—it's like
 a tier one and a tier two benefit; am I correct in that?

 [Mr. Cramer]: I mean if you're trying to fulfill a
 Social Security offset that has to be calculated in the
 domestic relations order. That wasn't in the settlement
 agreement, so we didn't make any calculations for
 that.

(N.T. Hearing at 20-21) (emphasis added).

 Contrary to Husband's position, the court could not rewrite the MSA to

add language requiring a Social Security set-off. See Sorace, supra.

Moreover, the court correctly recognized that the case law relied on by

Husband, including Cornbleth and its progeny, is distinguishable from the

instant case. (See Trial Court Opinion at 7) (recognizing that Husband relied

on cases involving equitable distribution orders rather than marriage

settlement agreements). Under these circumstances, the court did not

commit an error of law in concluding that Section 3105(c) precluded the need

for a Social Security set-off in the QDRO. See Mazurek, supra; Kraisinger,

 -8-
 J-A11016-21

supra.

 In his second issue, Husband argues that the QDRO should not preclude

him from enrolling in the DROP. Husband acknowledges that Paragraph 12 of

the MSA expressly governs the amount of his pension Wife is entitled to

receive. Nevertheless, Husband argues that the issue of whether his

participation in DROP impacts Wife's share of his pension benefit is not yet

ripe, and the trial court should have waited until Husband formally enrolls in

DROP before deciding whether such participation violates the MSA. Husband

claims that if his participation in DROP does affect the amount of his pension

that Wife is to receive, the court may alter the QDRO to reflect the parties'

original agreement. Husband concludes that the court should not have

prohibited him from participating in DROP. We disagree.

 Instantly, Paragraph 12 of the MSA sets forth both the amount of money

Wife is to receive from Husband's pension plan, as well as the method of

calculating that amount. (See MSA at ¶12). Although Paragraph 12 does not

specifically reference the DROP benefit, Mr. Cramer testified about the

potential impact of Husband enrolling in DROP:

 [Mr. Cramer]: A DROP program allows an officer to
 essentially tell the plan that he is going to retire within a
 specific period of time, typically one to four years. That time
 is called a DROP entry date. If he is in the DROP period—
 he is not—the monthly pension would have been frozen at
 the DROP entry date. In the event the officer retires within
 one to four years, the pension accumulated in that DROP
 account, which is basically a ledger account, the amount
 accumulated, which is the monthly pension for each month,
 that is paid out of a lump sum.

 -9-
 J-A11016-21

 * * *

 [Wife's Counsel]: Okay. So at the time you drafted the
 QDRO, did the city of DuBois have a DROP plan—or DROP
 program?

 [Mr. Cramer]: No, they did not based upon the
 ordinance which I had here.

 * * *

 [Wife's Counsel]: So once they've added this program, if
 [Husband] elects to join in the DROP program, will it affect
 [Wife's] marital portion?

 [Mr. Cramer]: Yes, because when he enters the
 DROP, the pension is effectively frozen and does not
 continue to increase while [Husband] continues to work
 while in the DROP. So the pension is frozen, that does
 obviously impact the amount that goes to [Wife].

(N.T. Hearing at 15-16).

 Based upon the foregoing, the court determined: "The record reflects

that, at the time the MSA was executed and filed, the City of DuBois did not

offer a DROP option. Therefore, under settled contract law, the [c]ourt cannot

infer that either Party considered the DROP option when the MSA was

negotiated or executed." (Trial Court Opinion at 4) (internal citation omitted).

The court also relied on Mr. Cramer's testimony to find that Husband's

participation in DROP would effectively prevent Wife from receiving the full

portion of Husband's pension that she bargained for in the MSA. (See id. at

5).

 In light of the relevant case law, the court did not err in interpreting

 - 10 -
 J-A11016-21

Paragraph 12 as prohibiting Husband from participating in DROP. The record

supports the court's conclusion that Husband's participation in DROP would

unilaterally change the denominator of the coverture fraction, which the

parties agreed upon in Paragraph 12. See Sorace, supra (reiterating that

court may not unilaterally modify terms of marriage settlement agreement

where agreement specifically states that it is to be incorporated into, but not

merged with, divorce decree). See also J.W.S. Delavau, Inc. v. Eastern

America Transport & Warehousing, Inc., 810 A.2d 672, 681 (Pa.Super.

2002), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 704, 827 A.2d 430 (2003) (stating, "once a

contract has been formed, its terms may be modified only if both parties agree

to the modification and the modification is founded upon valid consideration").

Consequently, we affirm the order disposing of Wife's petition for special relief.

 Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/17/2021

 - 11 -