Pamela L. Light - Page 10

                                        - 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