- 9 -
applicable to contract construction. D’Huy v. D’Huy, 568 A.2d
1289, 1293 (Pa. Super Ct. 1990) (citing Trumpp v. Trumpp, 505
A.2d 601 (Pa. Super Ct. 1985)). These rules require that
contractual terms that are otherwise clear and unambiguous be
given effect without reference to or reliance upon matters that
may have occurred outside of the contract. Id. Equally true, of
course, is that where the terms of a contract are ambiguous,
parol (i.e., oral) evidence may be received for the limited
purpose of resolving these ambiguities. Id. (citing In re Estate
of Breyer, 379 A.2d 1305, 1309-1310 (Pa. 1977)). Accordingly,
the question remaining is not petitioner’s intent as to the
purported oral agreement but rather whether the terms “alimony
pendente lite” and “alimony” as used in the order and the
agreement are ambiguous.
The terms of the order and the agreement are otherwise clear
and unambiguous. In the order, the parties expressly agreed that
Mr. Gutzler would pay petitioner monthly alimony pendente lite of
$1,400 based upon the disparity in their respective incomes.
Petitioner may not argue that these payments are excludable from
her gross income simply because she earmarked them for other
obligations; namely, her own attorney’s fees and payment on a
vehicle which, at trial, she testified had been in her possession
since February 2002. The notation on the order that petitioner
was to remain responsible for payments on the Jeep vehicle in her
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011