{
  "contract_version": "1.0.0-draft.1",
  "data_as_of": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z",
  "record": {
    "authority_type": "opinion",
    "body": "Judicial opinion",
    "canonical_key": {
      "content_hash": "b1035ac846a91965",
      "source": "courtlistener"
    },
    "citation_aliases": [
      {
        "confidence": 0.7,
        "display_value": "Long, M. v. Long, C.",
        "normalized_value": "long-m-v-long-c-fd32aa46",
        "scheme": "case-name",
        "source_id": "src:v1:us:opinion:courtlistener"
      }
    ],
    "court": null,
    "created_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z",
    "heading": "Long, M. v. Long, C.",
    "identity_state": "complete",
    "jurisdiction": "us-federal",
    "kind": "authority_record",
    "record_id": "rec:v1:4c5a9ebb-5d3b-738d-8dce-dce84d48a190",
    "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1",
    "slug": "long-m-v-long-c-fd32aa46",
    "title": "Long, M. v. Long, C."
  },
  "verification": {
    "active_defect_ids": [],
    "as_of": "2026-08-05",
    "computed_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z",
    "currentness": "2022-08-02",
    "grade": "B",
    "input_sha256": "b1035ac846a91965b887570769457ebed63a4f86c695035749938e6fc26f01b6",
    "kind": "verification",
    "limitations": [
      "Text was ingested from CourtListener public full text.",
      "Not yet matched byte-for-byte to an official court/reporter PDF or HTML edition.",
      "Treat as researchable public law text with an open official-verification task."
    ],
    "official_receipts": [],
    "policy_version": "grade-policy-v1-bulk-courtlistener",
    "reason": "CourtListener public full text captured with content hash; not yet matched to an official court or reporter edition.",
    "reason_code": "courtlistener_public_full_text_unverified_against_official_reporter",
    "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1",
    "source_classes": [
      "independent_structured_corpus"
    ],
    "verified_at": null,
    "version_id": "ver:v1:d74b8dcf-0f53-75d9-86f3-fe897a3cb185"
  },
  "version": {
    "current_through": "2022-08-02",
    "decision_date": "2022-08-02",
    "effective_date": null,
    "finality_status": "public_full_text_unverified",
    "kind": "authority_version",
    "normalization_warnings": [
      "Bulk CourtListener import; official reporter comparison pending."
    ],
    "normalized_text_sha256": "b1035ac846a91965b887570769457ebed63a4f86c695035749938e6fc26f01b6",
    "observed_at": "2026-08-06T02:50:22Z",
    "parser_id": "bulk-courtlistener-v1",
    "parser_version": "1",
    "primary_text": "J-A10020-22\n\n 2022 PA Super 129\n\n MONICA L. LONG : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n : PENNSYLVANIA\n :\n v. :\n :\n :\n CHRISTOPHER A. LONG :\n :\n Appellant : No. 538 MDA 2021\n\n Appeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2021,\n in the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County,\n Civil Division at No(s): 2018 CV 528.\n\nBEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.\n\nOPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 02, 2022\n\n Appellant Christopher Long (Husband) appeals the order denying his\n\npetition to modify the $1,800 monthly support obligation owed to Appellee\n\nMonica Long (Wife), per their Marriage Settlement Agreement. The\n\nAgreement treated the obligation as child support, but provided that if\n\nHusband requested a modification, the difference between any downward\n\nmodification and the $1,800 payment would be converted to alimony. The\n\nissue is whether Wife is entitled to alimony after she remarried. The Columbia\n\nCounty Court of Common Pleas denied Husband's modification petition and\n\nconcluded that the payments should not be treated as alimony at all, but as\n\n\"equitable reimbursement\" payments. After careful review, we affirm in part\n\nand reverse in part, and we remand for further proceedings.\n J-A10020-22\n\n The parties entered into a Marriage Settlement Agreement on June 2,\n\n2018, and the trial court issued the divorce decree two months later.1 When\n\nthe parties entered into the Agreement, both of their children were minors\n\n(born in 2000 and in 2006). The Marriage Settlement Agreement reflects the\n\nparties' effort to preserve the marital home for Wife, so that the children could\n\nreside there until both graduated high school.\n\n Husband agreed to transfer his interest in the martial residence to Wife.\n\nSee Marriage Settlement Agreement, 6/2/18 at ¶ 27. In exchange, Wife\n\nagreed to refinance the residence and remove Husband's name from the\n\nmortgage; but the parties stipulated that if Wife could not refinance, or\n\notherwise sold the house before the youngest child graduated high school,\n\nthen the parties would split the proceeds of the sale. See id.\n\n To ensure Wife could afford to stay in the marital residence until both\n\nchildren graduated, the Agreement provided that Husband would pay support\n\nas follows:\n\n SUPPORT\n\n 28. Except as provided below, the parties agree that neither\n party shall be entitled to any spousal support, alimony\n pendente lite or alimony as a result of this marriage.\n\n CHILD SUPPORT:\n\n____________________________________________\n1 The Marriage Settlement Agreement indicates that Husband was\nunrepresented by counsel when he entered into the Agreement but that the\nlegal effect of the Agreement was explained to him by Wife's counsel. See\nMarriage Settlement Agreement, 6/2/18 at ¶ 6.\n\n -2-\n J-A10020-22\n\n I. \"Husband\" agrees to pay child support for the\n minor children in the amount of Eighteen\n Hundred Dollars ($1,800.00) per month. It\n is the parties['] intention to maintain a\n consistent payment throughout the\n period until the last child graduates\n from high school in June of 2024.\n Therefore, if \"Husband\" requests a\n modification of the child support during this\n period of time, then the difference between\n the child support and the $1,800.00 figure\n shall be determined to be alimony. In either\n case, the child support and alimony shall\n cease after June of 2024.\n\nId. at ¶ 28 (emphasis added).\n\n Wife refinanced the mortgage, and the parties operated under the\n\nAgreement without issue. Husband continued paying the full amount of\n\nsupport ($1,800) even after the parties' older child reached the age of\n\nmajority in July 2018 and was removed from the Pennsylvania Automated\n\nChild Support Enforcement System (PACSES).\n\n The two events triggering the instant litigation occurred in the Fall of\n\n2020. First, in September 2020, Husband obtained shared physical custody\n\nof the parties' remaining minor child; typically, a shared custody arrangement\n\nreduces the amount of an obligor's child support. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4\n\n(Support Guidelines. Calculation of Support Obligation, Formula). Second,\n\nWife remarried, although it is unclear when.\n\n In October 2020, Husband sought a child support modification before a\n\nsupport officer, but the support officer dismissed the action without prejudice,\n\nconcluding that Husband first needed to file a motion with the trial court to\n\n -3-\n J-A10020-22\n\nmodify the alimony provision. See Order of Court, 11/16/21. On January 15,\n\n2021, Husband filed a \"Petition to Modify and Interpret Marriage Settlement\n\nAgreement to Allow Modification of Child Support.\" The court set the matter\n\nfor a predisposition conference, which was held in February 2021.\n\n Husband's argument was threefold: 1) He was entitled to request a child\n\nsupport modification; 2) Wife was barred from receiving alimony due to her\n\nremarriage; and 3) because Wife was not entitled to alimony, his child support\n\nobligation should be modified downward. Wife argued that her remarriage\n\nwas not a bar to alimony, relying on Zullo v. Zullo, 613 A.2d 544 (Pa. 1992)\n\n(holding that the wife's remarriage did not terminate the husband's monthly\n\npayments, because the payments should be treated as equitable\n\nreimbursement rather than alimony). The trial court ultimately denied\n\nHusband's petition, and Husband timely-filed this appeal.2\n\n Husband presents the following two issues for our review:\n\n 1. Did the lower court misapply the precedent of\n Zullo v. Zullo, 613 A.2d 544 (Pa. 1992), as the\n Marriage Settlement Agreement did not explicitly\n state that the alimony was intended for the\n maintenance of the Children's home?\n\n____________________________________________\n2 The court initially denied Husband's petition on March 10, 2021. Husband\nfiled motion for reconsideration, which the court granted on March 26, 2021.\nThe court set the matter for a hearing on April 1, 2021. After reconsidering\nthe parties' positions and addressing whether additional testimony was\nnecessary, the court concluded that its original decision was correct. The court\nthen issued an order, also dated April 1, 2021, which \"affirmed\" its prior March\n10, 2021 order. Because the trial court expressly granted reconsideration,\nHusband's appeal from the April 1, 2021 order is timely. See Pa.R.A.P.\n1701(b)(3).\n\n -4-\n J-A10020-22\n\n 2. Did the lower court err in failing to take into\n consideration that the minor children now split\n their time evenly between the homes of their\n parents, which is a significant change in\n circumstances?\n\nHusband's Brief at 4.\n\n We address these issues contemporaneously. We begin our discussion\n\nby recognizing that the principles governing contractual agreements are\n\ndifferent from those governing court-ordered awards. Because the instant\n\nsupport obligation arose from an agreement, rather than a court-ordered\n\naward, this matter is governed by contract law. See Little v. Little, 657 A.2d\n\n12, 15 (Pa. Super. 1995); see also Rosiecki v. Rosiecki, 231 A.3d 928,\n\n932-33 (Pa. Super. 2020). It is well-settled that under contract law, the court\n\nmust ascertain the intent of the parties when interpreting an agreement:\n\n In cases of a written contract, the intent of the parties is the\n writing itself. If left undefined, the words of a contract are\n to be given their ordinary meaning. When the terms of a\n contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the\n parties is to be ascertained from the document itself. When,\n however, an ambiguity exists, parol evidence is admissible\n to explain or clarify or resolve the ambiguity, irrespective of\n whether the ambiguity is patent, created by the language of\n the instrument, or latent, created by extrinsic or collateral\n circumstances. A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably\n susceptible of different constructions and capable of being\n understood in more than one sense.\n\nKripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159, 1163 (Pa. 2004) (citations omitted).\n\n In determining whether the trial court properly applied contract\n\nprinciples, the reviewing Court must decide whether the trial court committed\n\nan error of law or an abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Lewis, 234 A.3d 706, 711\n\n -5-\n J-A10020-22\n\n(Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). We have explained the dichotomy as\n\nfollows:\n\n When interpreting a marital settlement agreement, the trial\n court is the sole determiner of facts and absent an abuse of\n discretion, we will not usurp the trial court's fact-finding\n function. On appeal from an order interpreting a marital\n settlement agreement, we must decide whether the trial\n court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.\n\n Because contract interpretation is a question of law, this\n Court is not bound by the trial court's interpretation. Our\n standard of review over questions of law is de novo and to\n the extent necessary, the scope of our review is plenary as\n the appellate court may review the entire record in making\n its decision. However, we are bound by the trial court's\n credibility determinations.\n\nRosiecki, 231 A.3d at 933 (citation omitted).\n\n Moreover, we are not limited by a trial court's rationale, as we may\n\naffirm its decision on any basis. Id.\n\n At the outset, we observe that child support obligations are modifiable\n\nby the court upon a showing of a changed circumstance, even when that\n\nobligation arose from a marriage settlement agreement. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §\n\n3105(b); see also Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2011)\n\n(citing Nicholson v. Combs, 703 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1997)).\n\n In this matter, the trial court operated under the mistaken view that\n\nunlike a court-ordered child support award, an agreement for child support\n\ncould not be modified downward, because parties may not bargain away the\n\nchild's right to support. See, e.g., Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503, 505 (Pa.\n\n1991). Put another way, the trial court seemingly believed that, if a contract\n\n -6-\n J-A10020-22\n\nprovides for child support above and beyond what a parent would owe under\n\nthe Statutory Guidelines,3 then the parent may not seek a downward\n\nmodification. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/27/21 (T.C.O.) at 5. This is not\n\nentirely accurate.4\n\n However, the principal reason why the trial court denied Husband's\n\nmodification request, was because the request was, in the court's view,\n\n\"academic.\" Id. The court explained that, under Paragraph 28, whatever\n\ndownward child support modification Husband obtained would be irrelevant,\n\nbecause alimony would then make up the difference.\n\n The trial court's rationale overlooks Wife's remarriage and any pre-2019\n\ntax consequences. Under the Divorce Code, an alimony obligation terminates\n\nupon the payee's remarriage or cohabitation. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(e),\n\n3706. Relying on the Code, Husband reasoned that without alimony, he was\n\nentitled to an actual reduction of his monthly support obligation.\n____________________________________________\n3 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4322 (Statutory guideline); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-\n\n3 (\"Support Guidelines. Basic Child Support Schedule.\").\n\n4 In Nicholson v. Combs, our Supreme Court explained that courts must be\n\nable to reduce the amount if the payor establishes an inability to pay, because\nthe failure to comply with a child support order can lead to incarceration.\nNicholson, 703 A.2d at 416-17. When there is a separate support order\nbased on a support agreement, the support order may be increased in the\nbest interests of the children, or modified downward upon a showing of\nchanged circumstances, which demonstrate the inability to pay. \"The trial\ncourt's power to modify the support order downward is not affected by the\nexistence of the agreement upon which the support order is based. The court\nis modifying its own order, and not the parties' agreement.\" Id. at 417.\n\"However, the support agreement remains a viable contract not subject to\ndownward modification, and the payee may seek relief in law or in equity.\"\nId.\n\n -7-\n J-A10020-22\n\n Regarding Wife's eligibility to receive alimony, despite her remarriage,\n\nthe trial court agreed with Wife's reliance on Zullo, supra. See T.C.O. at 3-\n\n4. The court concluded that Wife's remarriage did not bar her from receiving\n\nthe payments, because payments were \"an amalgam of child support and\n\nequitable alimony designated for the benefit of the child.\" Id. at 6 (emphasis\n\nadded).\n\n On appeal, Husband argues that the trial court's reliance on Zullo was\n\nmisplaced. In Zullo, the trial court adopted the master's recommended\n\napproach to eliminating the marital debt. Specifically, the master\n\nrecommended that husband render to the wife monthly payments \"to assist\n\nher in extinguishing the marital debt.\" Zullo, 613 A.2d at 545. While the\n\nhusband was making these payments, the wife remarried. The husband then\n\nsought to terminate his monthly alimony payments under the Divorce Code,\n\nwhich mandated that alimony terminates upon the recipient's remarriage.5\n\nThe trial court granted his request. This Court reversed the trial court, and\n\nour Supreme Court affirmed our decision.\n\n The High Court explained that the traditional purpose of alimony was to\n\nprovide one spouse with \"sufficient income to obtain the necessities of life.\"\n\nId. (citation omitted). However, the Court explained that \"the wife was not\n\nreceiving alimony in the traditional sense, but as a way to compensate her for\n\nthe lack of property needed to satisfy joint obligations.\" Id. at 546. The wife\n\n____________________________________________\n5 The husband in Zullo relied on the former Section 501(e), which is the\nfunctional equivalent of the current Section 3701.\n\n -8-\n J-A10020-22\n\nwas not in need of income to \"obtain the necessities of life,\" because she had\n\nsufficient income to support herself. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that\n\nalthough the monthly payments were designated as \"alimony,\" the payments\n\nwere not intended to be alimony; therefore, the designation was not binding.\n\nId. at 545.\n\n A review of Supreme Court precedent illustrates how monthly payments,\n\nissued by a court to facilitate its equitable distribution scheme, have been\n\ncalled various names: \"equitable reimbursements\" or \"reimbursement\n\nalimony,\" or \"monthly payments in lieu of property settlement;\" but despite\n\ntheir nomenclature, these monthly payments were not treated as alimony,\n\nbecause they were not designed to support a former spouse. See id. at 546\n\n(citing Bold v. Bold, 574 A.2d 552, 557 (Pa. 1992) (holding that the\n\nhusband's monthly payments to the wife were not alimony, but \"equitable\n\nreimbursement\" for contributions the wife made while husband sought his\n\nchiropractic degree); see also Wagoner v. Wagoner, 648 A.2d 299, 301-\n\n02 (Pa. 1994) (holding that the monthly payments were not alimony, but a\n\nsubstitute for granting the payee-wife a share of the payor-husband's\n\npension)).\n\n In the case at bar, the trial court likened Husband's payments to those\n\nin Zullo, Bold, or Wagoner – nominally alimony, but really something else\n\nentirely.\n\n The primary purpose of alimony in this case was not to\n provide [Wife] with sufficient income to obtain the\n necessities of life. Rather, the purpose was to maintain the\n\n -9-\n J-A10020-22\n\n childhood home for the children until the youngest child\n finished high school. That purpose still exists. The $1,800\n per month payment is equitable reimbursement.\n\nT.C.O. at 4.\n\n Husband argues Zullo is inapplicable, because it arose from an award,\n\nas opposed to a contract. We agree with Husband's position. To be clear, the\n\nlearned trial court understood that it was bound by the law of contracts; it just\n\nfound Zullo to be factually analogous to the instant case. However, Zullo\n\nand its progeny are too attenuated from the law of contracts to be of much\n\nuse here.\n\n In Zullo, the courts were free to construe the monthly payments as\n\nsomething other than alimony, because the payments were a product of a\n\ncourt-ordered equitable distribution award. Here, by contrast, the trial court\n\ncould only look to the terms of the Marriage Settlement Agreement – terms\n\ncreated by the parties, which unambiguously referred to the payments as\n\nalimony. Thus, the parties' alimony demands to be treated as alimony – not\n\nas equitable reimbursement or anything else. Husband's first appellate issue\n\nhas merit, but only insofar as Zullo was inapposite.\n\n As we may affirm on any valid basis, we consider de novo whether the\n\nparties' Marriage Settlement Agreement prohibited Wife from receiving\n\nalimony in light of her remarriage.\n\n Husband argues that because the alimony agreement constitutes an\n\norder of court under the Divorce Code, the Divorce Code's bar to alimony\n\napplies. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 3706.\n\n - 10 -\n J-A10020-22\n\n Section 3701 provides in relevant part:\n\n (f) Status of agreement to pay alimony.—Whenever the\n court approves an agreement for the payment of alimony\n voluntarily entered into between the parties, the\n agreement shall constitute the order of the court and\n may be enforced as provided in Section 3703 (relating to\n enforcement of arreages).\n\n23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(f) (emphasis added).\n\n Husband reasons further, that because an agreement shall constitute an\n\norder for alimony, Section 3701(e) also governs. Section 3701(e) provides:\n\n (e) Modification and termination.--An order entered\n pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the\n court upon changed circumstances of either party of a\n substantial and continuing nature whereupon the order may\n be modified, suspended, terminated or reinstituted or a new\n order made. Any further order shall apply only to payments\n accruing subsequent to the petition for the requested\n relief. Remarriage of the party receiving alimony shall\n terminate the award of alimony.\n\n23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(e) (emphasis added).\n\n Finally, to drive the point home, Husband also relies on Section 3706:\n\n No petitioner is entitled to receive an award of alimony\n where the petitioner, subsequent to the divorce pursuant to\n which alimony is being sought, has entered into\n cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex who is\n not a member of the family of the petitioner within the\n degrees of consanguinity.\n\n23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3706\n\n Husband's reliance is misplaced, because his argument fails to\n\nappreciate the interplay between alimony awards and alimony agreements.\n\n - 11 -\n J-A10020-22\n\n Section 3701(f) provides that an alimony agreement may be treated as\n\na court order, but only for enforcement purposes. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(f);\n\nsee also Woodings v. Woodings, 601 A.2d 854, 859 (Pa. Super. 1992) (\"It\n\nis to be noted that the treatment of orders approving agreements is treated\n\nseparately from orders directly entered by the court and the jurisdiction of the\n\ncourt is limited to enforcement only unless the agreement provides\n\notherwise.\") (emphasis original).\n\n Put another way, Section 3701(f) unlocks the statutory remedies listed\n\nin Section 3703 (\"Enforcement of arrearages\") whenever a payor is in arrears,\n\nregardless of whether the payments were born of a marriage settlement\n\ncontract or a court award. See also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(a) (\"Effect of\n\nagreement between parties\") (\"A party to an agreement…may utilize a remedy\n\nor sanction set forth in this part to enforce the agreement to the same extent\n\nas though the agreement had been an order of the court except as provided\n\nto the contrary in the agreement.\") (emphasis added).\n\n Yet, these provisions do not grant courts carte blanche to treat alimony\n\nagreements as if they were alimony awards. For instance, Section 3105(c)\n\nprovides that an alimony agreement shall not be subject to modification (in\n\nthe absence of a specific contract provision to the contrary. See 23 Pa.C.S.A.\n\n§ 3105(c). Likewise, Section 3701(e) (\"Remarriage of the party receiving\n\nalimony shall terminate the award of alimony\") and Section 3706 (\"Bar to\n\nalimony\") only apply to awards, in the absence of a contrary provision in the\n\nagreement. See Woodings 601 A.2d at 859.\n\n - 12 -\n J-A10020-22\n\n Parties to an alimony agreement often incorporate statutory language\n\nto govern their rights and responsibilities. See, e.g., Hawk v. Hawk, -- A.3d\n\n--, 2019 WL 2602186 (Pa. Super. 2019) (non-precedential decision)\n\n(observing that the parties' alimony agreement provided, in part: \"This\n\nalimony shall be modifiable in accordance with the provisions of 23 Pa.C.S.A.\n\n§ 3701, et. seq.\"). Generally speaking, however, courts may not turn to the\n\nstatutory law of alimony to interpret an agreement unless they are invited to\n\ndo so. See Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159, 1165 (Pa. 2004) (infra).\n\n Instantly, the parties' Marriage Settlement Agreement is entirely silent\n\non the issue of alimony modification and termination, except to say that\n\nalimony will terminate after June 2024. The parties could have inserted\n\nlanguage into their Agreement barring alimony upon Wife's remarriage, but\n\nthey did not to do so. Thus, the question becomes, what effect does Wife's\n\nremarriage have upon her ability to receive alimony, when the Agreement is\n\nsilent on that issue; and does this silence render the Agreement ambiguous.\n\n We find Woodings v. Woodings, 601 A.2d 854, 855 (Pa. Super. 1992)\n\nto be on point. There, the husband agreed to pay alimony for approximately\n\nthree and a half years. The agreement provided that \"the payments shall be\n\nnon-modifiable and shall terminate on the death of the wife.\" Woodings, 601\n\nA.2d at 855. Meanwhile, the wife began cohabitating with a person of the\n\nopposite sex, which would typically bar alimony under the Divorce Code. Id.\n\nat n.1 (noting that former Section 507 (\"Bar to Alimony\") is substantially the\n\nsame as the current Section 3706 (\"Bar to Alimony\")). The husband sought\n\n - 13 -\n J-A10020-22\n\nto terminate his alimony obligation. The trial court concluded that if the\n\nparties had intended for the payments to cease upon cohabitation, they could\n\nhave so provided. Id. at 857. On appeal, we affirmed.\n\n We explained that the wife's \"right to payments is not based on an award\n\nbut is instead based on the signature of [the] husband to a contract.\" Id. The\n\nstatutory bar to alimony did not come into play.\n\n The intent of the inclusion of alimony agreements only in\n the enforcement process of the Divorce Code did not extend\n application of other Code provisions relating to alimony to\n agreements. Alimony awards are governed by statute and\n provisions such as the bars relating to cohabitation and\n termination upon remarriage take effect by operation of law\n because the award is governed by the statute.\n\n […]\n\n When an agreement is entered for a specific amount for a\n stated period of time, without conditions for modifications\n or termination, it cannot be presumed that the parties\n intended the statutory bar or termination sections to apply.\n\n […]\n\n To incorporate extraneous statutory provisions to modify or\n terminate the agreement when not provided in the\n agreement may seriously impair the rights of the\n contracting parties.\n\nId. at 859 (citations omitted) (emphasis original).\n\n Here, while the parties' Agreement may be treated as an order under\n\nthe Divorce Code for enforcement purposes, other aspects of the Divorce Code\n\n– i.e., the bar to alimony – do not extend to the Agreement without a provision\n\nsaying so. Id. Moreover, when – as here – an agreement is entered for a\n\nspecific amount, for a stated period of time, without conditions for modification\n\n - 14 -\n J-A10020-22\n\nor termination, we may not presume that the parties intended to include the\n\nstatutory bar to apply. Woodings, 601 A.2d at 859.\n\n For these reasons, we do not find that the Agreement's silence on the\n\nbar to alimony renders the Agreement to be ambiguous. See id. But even if\n\nwe did, we recognize that it is improper to consult the alimony statutes to\n\nresolve an ambiguity in an alimony agreement. See Kripp, 849 A.2d at 1165\n\n(\"There is nothing in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3706 [(\"Bar to Alimony\")] or in the Divorce\n\nCode to show that the General Assembly intended that the definition of\n\ncohabitation set forth in the statute be incorporated into or control private\n\nagreements or that the courts are foreclosed from applying the law of\n\ncontracts to determine the parties' intent on such a matter. Nor is there a\n\nprinciple of law that would compel any one of these results.\").\n\n Thus, we agree with the trial court that the Agreement obligates\n\nHusband to pay the full $1,800 amount. However, with due respect to the\n\ntrial court, a formal allocation of child support and alimony is not necessarily\n\nacademic. Indeed, there could be potential tax consequences to the parties.\n\n Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 – and given that the parties'\n\nAgreement was executed before January 1, 2019 – Husband might be able to\n\ndeduct the alimony portion of his support obligation from his taxable income.\n\nSee Clarification: Changes to Deduction for Certain Alimony Payments\n\nEffective in 2019, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.,\n\nhttps://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/clarification-changes-to-deduction-for-\n\ncertain-alimony-payments-effective-in-2019 (last visited June 28, 2022). In\n\n - 15 -\n J-A10020-22\n\nany event, Paragraph 28 enables Husband to pursue a formal allocation of his\n\nchild support and alimony obligations, retroactive to January 15, 2021 – the\n\ndate of Husband's original filing with the trial court.\n\n To conclude: the trial court's reliance on Zullo was misplaced;\n\nnevertheless, the court ultimately did not err when it denied Husband's\n\nrequest to terminate his obligation to pay alimony upon a child support\n\nreduction. In our de novo review of the Marriage Settlement Agreement, we\n\nconclude that the Agreement was not ambiguous, and that in the absence of\n\na provision to the contrary, Wife was not barred from receiving alimony upon\n\nremarriage. However, we conclude the court erred when it denied Husband's\n\npetition. We clarify that Husband is still entitled to seek support modification\n\nunder Paragraph 28 of the parties' Agreement, even though the difference\n\nbetween the reduction in child support and the $1,800 figure shall be\n\nconverted to alimony.\n\n Order vacated insofar as it prohibited Husband from seeking a formal\n\nallocation of his child support and alimony obligations, totaling $1,800 per\n\nmonth. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.\n\nJurisdiction relinquished.\n\nJudgment Entered.\n\nJoseph D. Seletyn, Esq.\nProthonotary\n\nDate: 8/2/2022\n\n - 16 -",
    "publication_date": "2022-08-02",
    "publication_status": "public",
    "record_id": "rec:v1:4c5a9ebb-5d3b-738d-8dce-dce84d48a190",
    "schema_version": "1.0.0-draft.1",
    "source_locators": [
      {
        "artifact_id": "art:v1:2d36bbe4-f3f4-7bd1-8a07-d6b4e13e4fe9",
        "locator": "full-text",
        "quote_sha256": "b1035ac846a91965b887570769457ebed63a4f86c695035749938e6fc26f01b6"
      }
    ],
    "status": "current",
    "structure_sha256": "b1035ac846a91965b887570769457ebed63a4f86c695035749938e6fc26f01b6",
    "text_scope": {
      "excludes": [
        "footer",
        "navigation",
        "annotations",
        "headnotes",
        "summaries",
        "editorial_content"
      ],
      "includes": [
        "opinion_body"
      ]
    },
    "version_id": "ver:v1:d74b8dcf-0f53-75d9-86f3-fe897a3cb185"
  }
}