- 11 -
assigns; we see no reason to hold that this provision is without
force. Colleen relinquished a valuable property interest in the
Pineville property and in return took back an interest in a
stream of payments secured by a mortgage. The contract provides
for this new interest to inure to the benefit of Colleen's heirs.
As we have already stated, there is no ambiguity in the
agreement or addendum as to the payments in dispute, and
therefore there is no need to look to extrinsic evidence in
interpreting the contract.5 Even if there was an ambiguity in
the agreement or addendum, the extrinsic evidence that is in the
record before this Court would favor a finding that the parties
intended a property settlement that would require payments to
continue beyond Colleen's death.
Based upon our analysis of Pennsylvania law and the relevant
provisions of the agreement and addendum, we conclude that the
payments at issue would not have terminated at Colleen's death.
Instead, we find that, had Colleen died prior to the end of the
payment stream, her estate would have had a valid claim for the
remainder of the payments. Accordingly, we find that
thesepayments in the nature of a property settlement are not
alimony, and therefore are not deductible.6
5 See Kohn v. Kohn, 364 A.2d 350, 353 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)
("parol evidence is admissible to resolve the ambiguity, but not
to alter the terms of the contract.").
6 Respondent also argues that petitioner's execution of a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011