Tinney, P. v. Tinney, J. ( 2018 )

J-A29032-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PATRICIA TINNEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
JOSEPH J. TINNEY JR. : No. 1489 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Family Division at No(s):
A06-02-61765-Y
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2018
Appellant Patricia Tinney appeals from the Order Entered in the Bucks
County Court of Common Pleas Family Court Division on June 19, 2018,1
____________________________________________
1 In their appellate briefs, the parties purport to appeal from the Support Order
dated April 24, 2018; however, upon Docketing Statement review, this Court
confirmed with the Bucks County Prothonotary’s Office that no order had been
entered on the trial court docket on that date. Instead, the trial court had
entered the domestic court sheet on the docket, in contravention of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and corresponding caselaw. In
light of this breakdown in the trial court, this Court entered a rule to show
cause Order on June 12, 2018, directing the trial court to enter an order in
this matter on or before June 18, 2018. See R.L.P. v. R.F.M., 110 A.3d 201
(Pa.Super. 2015) (stating the trial court must enter a written order of court
on the trial court docket) see also Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1) (providing “… no order
of a court shall be appealable until it has been entered upon the appropriate
docket in the lower court.”). In response to this Court’s June 12, 2018, Order,
the trial court filed its “Supplemental Order” on June 19, 2018, wherein it
indicated that it did not receive this Court’s Order until that day and denied
Appellant’s petition to enforce the alimony order. In light of the trial court’s
error in not entering its Order timely, we will treat the appeal filed on May 16,
2018, before the Order’s entry, as timely filed. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5)(“[a]
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A29032-18
denying her Petition to Enforce Alimony Order.2 Following a careful review,
we affirm.
The trial court set forth the factual and procedural background herein
as follows:
On May 28, 2002, [Appellant] filed a Divorce Complaint
against [Joseph J. Tinney, Jr., Appellee] which included a request
for alimony. On August 31, 2005, a Divorce Decree was entered.
Part of the Divorce Decree awarded alimony initially set at $2400
per month. By Order entered February 15, 2012[,] the Honorable
Wallace H. Bateman, Jr., issued an Order modifying the alimony
award. In his Order he stated the following:
AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2012, upon
consideration of the report of the Master in Family Court,
Memoranda of Law, and having heard oral argument on
the matter on December 15, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED
that the alimony order increase to $4,674 per month. It
is further ORDERED that Husband shall continue to pay,
as part of his alimony award, 11% of his gross bonus
annually. In addition, the request to include Husband's
unexercised stock options is hereby DENIED. This Order
of alimony is effective June 24, 2011.
The subject matter of this appeal revolves around another
Petition filed by [Appellant].
The current issue[s] appealed to the Superior Court ha[ve]
been informally argued for a number of years by the parties who
have requested hearings repeatedly and who have continued the
____________________________________________
notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before
the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and
on the day thereof.”).
2 While in her appellate brief Appellant states that the trial court improperly
identified this petition as a Petition for Contempt, See Appellant’s Brief at 11,
Appellant herself characterized the petition as a contempt petition on the
record, See N.T. Hearing, 4/24/18, at 11, and in both her Statement Pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and the Statement of Questions Involved portion of her
appellate brief. We will discuss the relevance of this designation in more
detail, infra.
-2-
J-A29032-18
hearings repeatedly. When Judge Bateman issued his Order of
February 2012 he regularly sat in Family Court. Currently, he is
the Administrative Judge of Criminal Court, and never sits in
Family Court and this matter was reassigned to the undersigned.
The parties met with the undersigned and it was agreed that the
dispute arose over the interpretation of Judge Bateman's Order
and therefore the undersigned personally requested Judge
Bateman to accept reassignment of this case for purposes of a
hearing, notwithstanding the fact that he was no longer handling
Family Court matters. He graciously agreed to do so and
scheduled a hearing which was continued by the parties, much to
the frustration of Judge Bateman, and as a result he referred the
matter back to the scheduling office of Family Court matters, and
as a result the matter came back before the undersigned.
Upon review of the pleadings the undersigned conferenced
the case again, at which time the parties discussed various legal
principles which were applicable and it was agreed that the parties
would present memorand[a] of law and do their best to stipulate
to the record. The parties and the [c]ourt concluded during the
conference that the matter might resolve as a matter of law based
on stipulated facts. Thereafter, it was agreed that the parties
would present their legal argument on April 24, 2018, before the
undersigned. A hearing was held, at which time the parties
confirmed their stipulations of fact and it was acknowledged that
their memorand[a] of law were effectively judicial admissions as
to facts relevant to the Court's ultimate determination. The parties
and their attorneys stated on the record that the facts set forth in
the memorand[a] of law presented to the [c]ourt were correct and
the [c]ourt could rely on same (N.T. 4/24/2018 pg. 3). [Appellant]
argued that she should be entitled to a portion of her ex-husband's
stock options. She was not awarded stock options as part of an
equitable distribution award, in fact, the stock options were
acquired post -separation. (N.T. 4/24/2018 pg. 4). Both of the
parties cited a portion of a transcript from a hearing that was held
before Judge Bateman on the Appellant's previous petition to
modify the alimony award. At the previous hearing before Judge
Bateman counsel apparently argued that the alimony award
should be set by a formula. There was argument made to Judge
Bateman that the Bucks County Courts generally calculate
alimony by 40% of the difference in the net monthly income. (N.T.
4/24/2018 pgs. 6-7).
There is no record of Judge Bateman issuing Findings of
Fact. Judge Bateman's Order was not appealed and it was a Final
Order when the parties appeared before the undersigned.
-3-
J-A29032-18
Trial Court Opinion, 7/18/18, at 1-3.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 16, 2018, along with her
“Statement Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).” Appellant’s filing of the concise
statement predated the trial court’s Order directing her to do so which was
not filed until May 21, 2018.
In her appellate brief, Appellant presents the following Statement of
the Questions Involved:
1. Whether the [c]ourt made an error of law in failing to consider
the issue raised in the Petition for Contempt regarding the
inclusion of the exercised stock options in the payment of the
eleven (11%) percent bonus to Appellant in the Alimony award
of February 15, 2012.
2. The [c]ourt failed to apply the principle of the “Rule of the Case”
as defined by Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa.
1995) and the related coordinated justice rule in its
interpretation of the Order of February 15, 2012.
3. The [c]ourt made an error of law in interpreting the Order of
February 15, 2012[,] as excluding from the alimony award all
stock options, whether exercised or not by Appellee.
Brief for Appellant at 5.
Initially, we note that Appellant’s brief fails to conform to Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a), which requires that the argument portion
of an appellate brief is to be divided into as many parts as there are questions
to be argued. While Appellant’s first issue presented concerns whether the
trial court erred in failing to consider a claim regarding exercised stock options
in the “Petition for Contempt,” her argument on this point is comprised of just
-4-
J-A29032-18
two paragraphs wherein she asserts the matter, in fact, is not a petition for
contempt but rather a “Petition to Enforce Alimony Award” seeking payment
of eleven percent of Appellee’s exercised stock options because they constitute
a bonus under the terms of the February 15, 2012, Order. Brief for Appellant
at 11-12. As Appellant has incorporated this argument in her remaining two
claims, we proceed to consider them, and in doing so we are guided by our
well-settled standard of review regarding questions pertaining to an alimony
award:
is whether the trial court abused its discretion. We previously have
explained that the purpose of alimony is not to reward one party
and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable
needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself
through appropriate employment, are met. Alimony is based upon
reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of
living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as
the payor's ability to pay. Moreover, alimony following a divorce
is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic
justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved
by way of an equitable distribution award and development of an
appropriate employable skill.
Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa.Super. 2004) (internal
citations, quotations, and brackets omitted; emphasis in original).
As stated previously, Appellant has characterized the instant petition as
both a petition to enforce alimony award and as a petition for contempt. With
regard to the latter designation, we are guided by the following:
In proceedings for civil contempt of court, the general rule
is that the burden of proof rests with the complaining party to
demonstrate that the defendant is in noncompliance with a court
order.” MacDougall v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890, 892
(Pa.Super. 2012). “To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the
-5-
J-A29032-18
complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that: (1) the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree
which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) the act constituting the
contemnor's violation was volitional; and (3) the contemnor acted
with wrongful intent.” Id. Nevertheless, “a mere showing of
noncompliance with a court order, or even misconduct, is never
sufficient alone to prove civil contempt.” Habjan [v. Habjan, 73
A.3d 630, 637 (Pa.Super. 2013)].
Thomas v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 220, 226 (Pa.Super. 2018), reargument
dismissed (Sept. 10, 2018).
Appellant’s second question presented alleges the trial court erred as a
matter of law in failing to apply the “rule of the case” and the related
coordinated justice rule when interpreting the February 15, 2012 Order. The
original Alimony Order was included as a provision of the Divorce Decree
entered on August 31, 2005. Titled “Alimony” that paragraph reads as
follows:
4. [Appellee] shall pay to [Appellant] through the Domestic
Relations Sections alimony in the amount of $2,400 per month.
The duration of the alimony award is indefinite. The alimony shall
be terminable earlier on the death of either party or the
remarriage of cohabitation of wife. The alimony shall be
modifiable in the amount upon proof of a substantial and
continuing change of circumstance. The alimony pendente lite
order shall terminate when the alimony order goes into effect and
any arrears on the account shall be paid forthwith.
See Divorce Decree, 8/31/05, at ¶ 4. In the years following the entry of the
Divorce Decree, the amount of the alimony due to Appellant was modified to
reflect Appellee’s increased income. Following a hearing held on December
15, 2011, the trial court entered the aforesaid February 15, 2012, Order which
provided, inter alia, that “. . . Husband shall continue to pay, as part of his
-6-
J-A29032-18
alimony award, 11% of his gross bonus annually. In addition, the request to
include [Appellee’s] unexercised stock options is hereby DENIED. . . .”
In her Petition to Enforce Alimony Order/Petition for Contempt filed on
September 21, 2015, Appellant alleged, in relevant part, the following:
5. The Alimony Order was most recently modified on February 15,
2012, and included an award of eleven (11%) percent of
[Appellee’s] annual bonus [a]s alimony from [Appellee] to
[Appellant]. . . .
6. Until last year, [Appellee] was employed with Aramark of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7. As part of [Appellee’s] employment with Aramark, [he]
received stock options periodically as part of his bonus
remuneration. The stock options were not liquid until
[Appellee] elected to exercise the stock options or terminated
his employment with Aramark.
8. As part of the Modification Procedure in 2012, [t]he [c]ourt
then denied [Appellant’s] request to include [Appellee’s]
“unexercised” stock options through his employer in the
Alimony award.
9. In 2014, [Appellee] left his employment with Aramark and as
a result, liquidated his stock options earned as part of his
employment with Aramark.
10. The total gross amount of the liquidated stock options as
reflected on [Appellee’s] Federal Income Tax Return for year
2014 is four million, four hundred and fifty two thousand eight
hundred and fifty ($4,452,850.00) dollars.
11. As the stock options were received as a bonus from
Aramark to Respondent, under the Alimony Order of February
15, 2012, [Appellant] is entitled to eleven (11%) percent of
such now liquidated stock options.
Petition to Enforce Alimony Order, 9/21/15, at ¶¶ 6-11.
-7-
J-A29032-18
Appellant admits that “Appellee has paid the eleven (11%) of the
annual gross bonus to Appellant since the Order of February 15, 2012.”
Appellant’s Brief at 7; 31-32. Notwithstanding, the crux of Appellant’s
argument centers around the interpretation of the term “unexercised stock
options” in the February 15, 2012, Order. Appellant posits that Appellee’s
exercise of stock options after the trial court’s entry of its February 15, 2012,
Order resulted in an annual bonus which is subject to the eleven percent award
referenced therein. Brief of Appellant at 11-12. In support of this position,
Appellant relies upon the following, on-the-record discussions between the
trial court and the parties’ counsel at the December 15, 2011, hearing
concerning unexercised stock options:
THE COURT: Can I just interject something? My understanding is
-- maybe I can save a little time. You have stock options. And then
when you exercise them, you'll exercise the option and
presumably sell the stock, and you'll have some gain, I would
expect.
APPELLEE: That would be –
THE COURT: Otherwise, you wouldn't exercise it.
APPELLEE: Correct.
THE COURT: That gain would go on your tax return as income.
APPELLEE: Correct.
THE COURT: And that tax return would be turned over to
[Appellant], I assume, if requested in any further modification.
That would constitute income at the time he exercised it, wouldn't
it? That's my question.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: Agreed.
-8-
J-A29032-18
THE COURT: All right. So if he gets them, they're only good when
he exercises them. And I can save you time by requiring, going
forward - I don't think [Counsel for Appellee] would object to it -
that you be notified if and when he exercises the option. And you
can do with that information what you wish.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: What I was asking the Court - and
you can shut down this line of questioning right now –-
THE COURT: No. No.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: -- if you already resolved this issue.
THE COURT: I thought what you were getting at is you wanted to
know what he gets in options, when he exercises them, how much
he makes. And that's a fair area of inquiry.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: I'm trying to skip a step.
THE COURT: Okay.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: That is to say, I'm trying to say, if
you get a stock option --if you were granted options in 2011,
2012, some period of time while you're paying her alimony,
whenever you exercise those options –-
THE COURT: Right.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: -- I want it to be treated just the
same way we're going to treat his bonus.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE]: Well –-
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: Which is, you give us a percentage
of the net after-tax proceeds from that exercise when it happens.
I don't want to have to find out if he got it, demand it in discovery,
get a -- file a petition to modify, and cross that same bridge –- I
want to treat it just the same way we treat bonuses.
THE COURT: You may be entitled to an increase in alimony based
upon that. Whether you get it as a percentage or whether it has
to be calculated as his annual income at the time it's exercised is,
I suppose, an issue I'll have to resolve. Because while you're
-9-
J-A29032-18
saying you want to treat it that way, [Counsel for Appellee] is
shaking her head no.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: I'm trying to avoid the extra step of
having to file a petition to modify.
THE COURT: I understand.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: That's all. I want to treat it like a
bonus.
THE COURT: And I appreciate you being polite, because the court
reporter can't take down both of you. So, that's the issue I
suppose, that I'll have to decide on the stock options. But I don't
know if that helps you or not.
***
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE] : And they don't come in every year
based on what happened to [Appellee]. We come in based on what
[Appellant’s] needs are.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: There's a different problem here.
And this is why I asked that you do it the way I'm suggesting.
He gets stock options tomorrow, for example. He doesn't
exercise them until 2015. My client remarries in 2013. If I follow
your logic, which is file a petition to modify in 2015, nobody's
modifying my alimony because my alimony order doesn't' exist
anymore.
THE COURT: Let me just make the argument to the contrary.
Suppose the stock options aren't worth -- the stock isn't worth
anything in 2013 or 2014. She remarries. And then all of a sudden
his company has a great year, and he exercises them. So that
income isn't the benefit of anything other than him holding onto
them and exercising them at the right time.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: The stock options are issued
because of him being a valued employee right now or at the time
they're being issued.
THE COURT: Okay.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT]: The fact that the company may take
off in 2004 are factors beyond the control of everybody in this
- 10 -
J-A29032-18
room and had nothing to do with his efforts. Or may have
minuscule to do with his efforts.
THE COURT: We're all speculating.
[COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE]: Right.
***
THE COURT: All right. I'm not sure how much more you have for
[Appellee], but I think I understand the stock option issue. I'm
not cutting you off. I'm just telling you I think I understand it. I'm
not sure what more we can develop, but I'm happy to hear from
you.
***
Brief for Appellant at 15-18 (citing N.T. Hearing, 12/15/11, at 66-69; 70-71).
Appellant reasons the aforesaid discussions reveal that
if the [c]ourt was intending to remove the stock option issue
completely from the alimony calculation, it would have denied any
claim to stock option. Not just the ‘unexercised stock options’.. .
. . So, pursuant to the consolidated jurisdiction rule, it is clear that
the [c]ourt made a determination as to the nature of the
unexercised stock options not being part of the eleven (11%)
percent bonus. However, that does not mean that the
[c]ourt made a determination as to the exercised stock
options.
Brief for Appellant at 19-20 (emphasis added).
Despite Appellant’s admission that the trial court did not make a
determination as to the exercised stock options in its February 15, 2012 Order,
Appellant concludes by stating that the trial court’s failure presently to
recognize that the term bonus included “the now exercised stock options in
the alimony award is a clear abuse of discretion in that it ignores the proceeds
- 11 -
J-A29032-18
of the exercised stock options as income to Appellee despite the definition of
the Pennsylvania Divorce Code at 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4301.” Id. at 32.
At the hearing held on April 24, 2018, pertaining to Appellant’s Petition
to Enforce Alimony Order/Petition for Contempt, Appellant clarified that the
petition, in fact, “is not a petition to modify. This is a petition for contempt
for failure to pay 11% on the bonus.” N.T. Hearing, 4/24/18, at 11. Appellant
argued that the stock options Appellee received in 2014 are part of his “bonus”
“[b]y the very definition of the word.” Id. at 12. When the trial court asked
Appellant to point to something in the record to support her position, Appellant
responded that “[t]here is nothing in the record right now previously
discussing the exercise of the stock option, except what became [sic] before
Judge Bateman in December of 2011 as it was raised by [Appellant’s prior
counsel] .” Id.
Notwithstanding, Appellant argued the trial court was bound by “the
law of the case” resulting in her being entitled to receive eleven percent of the
“bonus” (i.e. the stock options). Id. at 13-14. Appellant further posited that
the trial court’s “decision [was] whether the stock options are part of
[Appellee’s] annual gross bonus. That is the issue.” Id. at 19. In response,
the trial court held:
THE COURT: I’m saying as far as alimony is concerned, alimony
was granted. Alimony in this order of Judge Bateman is the one
that you’re appealing, and your suggestion that the alimony
should be increased based on Judge Bateman’s order, I don’t see
anything in Judge Bateman’s order that orders that.
- 12 -
J-A29032-18
***
I don’t find that Judge Bateman’s order of February 15,
2012, orders that 11 percent of the stock option is part of the
alimony. I don’t see that this order rules that way and orders
that.
***
I understand what you’re saying. That is your argument.
But I’m being very precise. If you’re asking me to apply Judge
Bateman’s order of February 15, 2012. I do not find that Judge
Bateman’s order of February 15, 2012[,] ordered [Appellee] to,
upon the execution of that stock option, give 11 percent of it to
his wife. This order does not do that, I don’t believe.
***
My position of the [c]ourt -- my position is that I’m
applying the law of alimony. The alimony order that has been
presented to me is Judge Bateman’s order of February 15, 2012.
It is my position that Judge Bateman’s order of February 15, 2012,
does not require husband to pay to wife 11 percent of the stock
option that he had that he owned or possessed prior to the
marriage. I don’t conclude that Judge Bateman’s order requires
him to do that.
I think if it did he should have said that more specifically,
but he does not. That is my ruling.
Id. at 19-20.
Following our review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in holding Appellee’s exercised stock options did not constitute a
bonus payable to Appellant in the amount of eleven percent pursuant to the
February 15, 2012, Order. Indeed, nowhere in her brief does Appellant cite
to an instance of the trial court’s abuse of discretion. To the contrary,
Appellant admits the court did not make a determination concerning exercised
stock options in its February 15, 2012, Order and reiterates points clearly
considered and rejected previously by the trial court with regard to the
- 13 -
J-A29032-18
treatment of Appellee’s bonus payments and unexercised stock options. As
the trial court stated:
Judge Bateman’s Order does in fact include a formula for
regulating a portion of the alimony as it relates to bonus payments
[Appellee] received from time to time. However, that same Order
also considered Appellant’s previous request to the [c]ourt to
receive alimony income connected to [Appellee’s] unexercised
stock options. That request was specifically denied by Judge
Bateman. There is no existing alimony Order directing [Appellee]
to supplement alimony with income from stock options. An order
that forms the basis for a contempt process in civil proceedings
must be definitely and strictly construed. [“]Any ambiguity or
omission in the order forming the basis for the civil contempt
proceeding must be construed in favor of the defendant. Where
the order is contradictory or the specific terms of the order have
not been violated, there is not contempt.” Wood v. Geisenhemer-
Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1207-08 (Pa.Super. 2003). To be
punished for contempt, a party must not only have violated a clear
order, but that order must have been definite, clear and specific-
leaving no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the contemnor of
the prohibited conduct. Because the order forming the basis for
civil contempt must be strictly construed, any ambiguities or
omissions in the order must be construed in favor of the
defendant. Sutch v. Roxborough Mem’l Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, []67
(Pa.Super. 2016).
Trial Court Opinion, 7/18/18, at 6.
Simply put, Appellee’s being required to exercise his previously
unexercised stock options when he left employment with Aramark simply
cannot be read as synonymous with a receipt of a bonus payment under the
plain language of the February 15, 2012, Order. The Order provides that
eleven percent of Appellee’s gross bonus was to be paid to Appellant annually
and specifically denies Appellant’s request to include Husband's unexercised
stock options in the alimony award. As such, the unexercised stock options
- 14 -
J-A29032-18
were not annual payments, for as the parties and trial court agreed, the time
and amount of their payment was speculative; at the time the Order was
entered, all of Appellee’s stock options were “unexercised.” Importantly, no
appeal was taken from the February 15, 2012, Order.
In light of the foregoing, contrary to Appellant’s reasoning, the “rule of
the case” as it is defined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564, 664 A.2d 1326 (1995) does not
mandate a favorable result for Appellant. Rather, the opposite is true. In
Starr, the Supreme Court explained it:
has long recognized that judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting
in the same case should not overrule each others' decisions. See,
e.g., Okkerse v. Howe, 521 Pa. 509, 516–517, 556 A.2d 827,
831 (1989). This rule, known as the “coordinate jurisdiction rule,”
is a rule of sound jurisprudence based on a policy of fostering the
finality of pre-trial applications in an effort to maintain judicial
economy and efficiency. Id. See also Golden v. Dion &
Rosenau, 410 Pa.Super. 506, 510, 600 A.2d 568, 570 (1991)
(once a matter has been decided by a trial judge the decision
should remain undisturbed, unless the order is appealable and an
appeal therefrom is successfully prosecuted).
In our view, this coordinate jurisdiction rule falls squarely
within the ambit of a generalized expression of the “law of the
case” doctrine. This doctrine refers to a family of rules which
embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a
litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another
judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases
of the matter. See 21 C.J.S. Courts § 149a; 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal
and Error § 744. Among the related but distinct rules which make
up the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand for
further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a
legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the
matter; (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not
alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the
same appellate court; and (3) upon transfer of a matter between
trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court
- 15 -
J-A29032-18
may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided
by the transferor trial court. See Joan Steinman, Law of the Case:
A Judicial Puzzle in Consolidated and Transferred Cases and in
Multidistrict Litigation, 135 U.Pa.L.Rev. 595, 602 (1987) (citing A.
Vestal, Law of the Case: Single–Suit Preclusion, 12 Utah L.Rev. 1,
1–4 (1967)) (hereinafter “Judicial Puzzle ”).
The various rules which make up the law of the case doctrine
serve not only to promote the goal of judicial economy (as does
the coordinate jurisdiction rule) but also operate (1) to protect the
settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of
decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a
single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined
administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end. 21
C.J.S. Courts § 149a; Judicial Puzzle at 604–605.
Id., at, 573–74, 664 A.2d at 1331.
Appellant framed the issue before the trial court at the April 18, 2018,
hearing as whether the stock options are a bonus and, therefore, payable to
Appellant in the amount of eleven percent under the terms of the February
15, 2012, Order. In that Order, the trial court squarely addressed this issue
in ordering Appellee to continue to pay, as part of his Alimony Award, eleven
percent of his gross bonus annually and in denying Appellant’s request to
include Appellee's unexercised stock options as income which also may be
awarded. The trial court clearly made a distinction between annual bonuses
and unexercised stock options, specifically excluded the latter, and included
no additional income sources in the Order.
Moreover, Appellant’s arguments on this point pertaining to the
definition of income as it is defined in Divorce Code are misplaced, for the
instant matter concerns whether Appellee is in contempt of and obligated to
remit payment under, the February 15, 2012, Order, not the definition of
- 16 -
J-A29032-18
income. In filing the instant petition, Appellant attempted to relitigate before
the trial court an issue a previous trial court considered and rejected, and in
doing so asked that court to ignore the “rule of the case” which she herself
urges before this Court must be applied. Thus, this claim lacks merit.
Finally, Appellant asserts the trial court erred as a matter of law when it
interpreted the February 15, 2012, Order to exclude from the alimony award
all stock options, whether exercised or not by Appellee. Appellant begins her
argument on this point with a dictionary definition of the term “bonus,” and
repeats earlier arguments pertaining to the “coordinated justice rule” and the
“law of the case rule.” Brief for Appellant at 28-30.
First, the dictionary definition of the term bonus is inapposite, for the plain
meaning of the February 15, 2012, Order designates annual bonuses and
unexercised stock options as separate entities, the latter of which is clearly
excluded from the alimony calculation. The trial court’s separate designation
of bonus payments as payments to be made annually from unexercised stock
options, which are not to be included in the alimony calculation, and its total
failure to reference exercised stock options, evinces an intent to prevent the
inclusion of all stock from the alimony calculation. As the trial court found:
The parties’ reference to statements made in [c]ourt prior
to the Court Order ignores legal principles which control the
process of interpreting a document.
When it comes to interpreting court orders, the case law
dictates that the plain meaning of the language will control unless
there is a patent ambiguity on the face of the order. See Pare v.
Wyeth, Inc., 870 A.2d 378, 381 (Pa.Super. 2005).
- 17 -
J-A29032-18
In the case before the [c]ourt, Judge Bateman’s Order
was clear on its face. It granted [Appellant] 11% of [Appellee’s]
annual gross bonus and specifically stated that the request to
include as part of the alimony award [Appellee’s] unexercised
stock options was DENIED.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/18/18, at 8.
In light of all of the foregoing, we find Appellant’s allegations are
without merit and affirm the trial court’s June 19, 2018, Order.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/28/18
- 18 -