Uveges v. Uveges

• Decision Date: 05 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 259 WDA 2014,259 WDA 2014
• Citation: 103 A.3d 825,2014 PA Super 251
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Parties: Betty UVEGES, Appellee v. Samuel L. UVEGES, Appellant.

103 A.3d 825

2014 PA Super 251

Betty UVEGES, Appellee

v.Samuel L. UVEGES, Appellant.

No. 259 WDA 2014

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 21, 2014.

Filed Nov. 5, 2014.

Stephen P. Moschetta, Washington, for appellant.

Adam J. Belletti, Waynesburg, for appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,^* JJ.

Opinion

OPINION BYALLEN, J.:

In this appeal, we decide whether Betty Uveges(“Wife”) may attach the disability benefits of Samuel L. Uveges(“Husband”), pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act(“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq.We affirm the trial court's determination that Husband's disability benefits may be attached to pay Husband's alimony obligation.

The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history as follows:

[The parties] were married on June 3, 1972, in Greene County, Pennsylvania.A divorce complaint was filed December 10, 2009.On January 21, 2010, [the parties] entered into an Agreement that expressed the “desire and intention of the parties ... to amicably adjust, compromise and settle all property rights, and all rights in and to or against the property or estate of the other ... and to settle all disputes existing between them.”According to Paragraph 6 of the Agreement, Husband would pay to Wife the sum [of] $2,500.00 per month for permanent alimony, modifiable only by remarriage, cohabitation, or the receipt by Wife of social security disability payments.The divorce became final on August 1, 2011.

On February 15, 2012, Wife filed a petition to enforce the agreement alleging Husband's failure to make any of the required alimony payments after January 1, 2012.Following a hearing, we entered an order on April 10, 2012, which among other things provided for the attachment of Husband's monthly benefits under the [LHWCA].We also found Husband in contempt and issued a bench warrant.

On May 4, 2012, a petition for special relief was filed by Consolidated Coal Company[(“Consol”)], Husband's previous employer, which claimed that benefits payable to beneficiaries under the [LHWCA] are exempt from attachment.On October 26, 2012, we entered another order providing for other means of enforcement, such as attachment of Husband's UMWA pension benefits and social security benefits.We also entered an award for counsel fees.Part of the order vacated the portion of the April 10, 2012 order that called for attachment of Husband's [LHWCA] benefits.On May 10, 2013, we entered yet another enforcement order authorizing the transfer to Wife of certain real property awarded to Husband by the Agreement.

On September 27, 2013, represented by new counsel, Wife filed another motion for contempt, again asking for attachment of Husband's [LHWCA] benefits.We scheduled a hearing for December 2, 2013, after which we requested briefs.After review of those briefs and after consideration of the applicable law, we concluded on January 15, 2014 that the law permits an ex-spouse in Wife's position to attach the [LHWCA] retirement or disability benefits of an ex-husband who has been found to be in contempt.Husband appealed and filed a [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) ] Statement complaining of our ruling that his [LHWCA] benefits were subject to attachment.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 1–3.

On January 21, 2014, the trial court entered a second order which provided:

1.The Court finds that [Husband] owes an arrearage of $56,912.80 for back Alimony payments due as of the date of this Order.

2.The Court further awards [Wife] $15,000.00 in total attorney's fees due as of the date of this Order.

3.An attachment of [Husband's] income is hereby issued such that the sum of $2,000.00 per month shall be deducted and withheld from [Husband's] monthly [benefits] awarded to [Husband] pursuant to the [LHWCA].This amount shall increase by 50% of any future increases in [Husband's] award.This represents $2,500.00 [sic] a month for ongoing alimony and the remainder to be paid towards arrearages and [Wife's] attorney's fees.

4.The attachments of [Husband's] UMWA Benefits and Social Security Benefits are to continue in the amounts of $471.75 and $517.80 respectively towards [Husband's] arrearages and [Wife's] attorney's fees.

Order, 1/21/14, at 1.This timely appeal followed.¹Both Husband and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.²

Husband raises the following issues:

[I.] WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN ORDERING THAT ANY OR ALL OF [HUSBAND'S] MONTHLY INDEMNITY BENEFITS PAYABLE UNDER AND PURSUANT TO THE DICTATES OF THE [LHWCA] IS

SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT, WHEN SAME IS SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDED PURSUANT TO 33 U.S.C. § 916 ?

[II.] WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN ORDERING THAT IT WOULD ENTER A MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR ATTACHMENT OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE TO [HUSBAND] PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE [LHWCA]?

Husband's Briefat 3.Because both of these issues challenge the trial court's conclusion that Husband's LHWCA benefits may be attached to pay alimony, we address them together.

Husband argues that there is no exception to the LHWCA's anti-alienation clause that would permit Wife to attach his benefits in order to recover alimony.Citing Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux,454 So.2d 813(La.1984), Husband argues that Wife cannot attach his LHWCA benefits “since it was Congress' intent that the benefits should go to the disabled worker directly, without any attachment, as per Section 16.”Husband's Briefat 8.According to Husband, “[a]pplying the supremacy clause, the [Louisiana Supreme Court in Thibodeaux ] reasoned that to allow a wife to garnish these benefits would have required carving out a jurisprudential exception to Congress' anti-attachment clause, which the strong language of the [LHWCA] does not permit.”Id.

“The LHWCA was enacted by Congress to provide workers' compensation benefits to persons injured in the course of maritime employment.”Thibodeaux,454 So.2d at 813.“Maritime employers are liable for and must ensure the payments as compensation for disability are made to the employee periodically, promptly and directly, and employers that are not qualified self-insurers must secure these payments by insurance with a carrier approved by the Secretary of Labor.”Id.(footnotes omitted).The payments are protected by the anti-attachment clause of the LHWCA, which reads as follows:

§ 916.Assignment and exemption from claims of creditors

No assignment, release, or commutation of compensation or benefits due or payable under this Act, except as provided by this Act, shall be valid, and such compensation and benefits shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from levy, execution, and attachment or other remedy for recovery or collection of a debt, which exemption may not be waived.

33 U.S.C. § 916.The applicability of this clause of the LHWCA is one of first impression in Pennsylvania.

In concluding that Husband's LHWCA benefits could be attached, the trial court“decline[d] to accept the rationale of [Thibodeaux, supra ].”Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/14, at 4.Instead, the trial court cited this Court's decision in Parker v. Parker,335 Pa.Super. 348, 484 A.2d 168(1984).In Parker,we concluded that a similarly worded anti-attachment clause in the statute governing the husband's service-connected disability Veterans' Administration benefits did not preclude the trial court from considering those monthly payments as a source of income for alimony pendente lite purposes.This Court noted that the purpose of the anti-attachment clause was “to protect the recipient of the benefits from claims of creditors, and to afford some degree of security to the recipient's family and dependants.”Parker,484 A.2d at 169(citations omitted).Given this purpose, we concluded that the anti-attachment clause did not apply “since a wife seeking to recover alimony pendente lite is not a ‘creditor’ of her husband, the claim not being based on a debt.”Id.

The trial court then cited with approval the federal Ninth Circuit decision in Moyle v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,147 F.3d 1116(9th Cir.1998), certiorari denied,526 U.S. 1064, 119 S.Ct. 1454, 143 L.Ed.2d 541(1999), in support of its conclusion that Husband's LHWCA benefits may be attached for the collection of alimony.In Moyle, the recipient of benefits under the LHWCA appealed from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) which concluded that the disability benefits could be garnished to satisfy the recipient's delinquent spousal support obligation.In affirming the ALJ's decision, the Circuit Court agreed with the ALJ's determination that the later-enacted Social Security Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 659(“SSA Garnishment provision”), impliedly repealed section 916 of the LHWCA, and permitted garnishment.

Enacted in 1975,³ the relevant part of the SSA Garnishment provision reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States or the District of Columbia(including any agency, subdivision, or instrumentality thereof) to any individual, including members of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States or the District of Columbia were a private person, ... to any ... legal process brought, by a State agency administering a program under a State plan approved under this part or by an individual obligee, to enforce the legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or alimony.

Moyle,147 F.3d at 1119(quoting42 U.S.C. § 659(a) ).The Moyle court further noted the ALJ's acknowledgement that “the Office of Personnel Management promulgated a regulation that expressly provides that LHWCA benefits are subject to garnishment pursuant to the SSA Garnishment provision.”Id.(citing5 C.F.R. § 581.103(c)(5) ).

Here, the trial court, accepting the above rationale, concluded, “Husband's benefits under [the...