J-S18017-23 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 INGEBORG F. SMITH F/K/A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INGEBORG F. FOREHLICH : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : DAVID H. SMITH : : No. 2366 EDA 2022 Appellant : Appeal from the Order Entered August 19, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): PACSES: 484116754 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 David H. Smith (“Husband”) appeals from the August 19, 2022 order that denied his Appeal and Notice of Demand for a Hearing De Novo, thereby reaffirming the hearing officer’s decision to dismiss Husband’s petitions to modify support and alimony and, further, awarded Appellee, Ingeborg F. Forehlich (“Wife”), attorney’s fees in the amount of $38,876. Husband challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. Upon review, we affirm. The relevant procedural and factual history is as follows. Husband and Wife divorced in 2018 after approximately 20 years of marriage. During the marriage, Husband was employed at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker and earned between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 annually during the last eight years of the marriage. Wife is originally from Germany and cared for ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S18017-23 the couple’s four children during the entirety of the marriage. Wife did not have any independent assets or earn any income during the marriage. On November 20, 2018, a hearing officer ordered Husband to pay $6,000 per month in child support. On December 31, 2018, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement (the “Agreement”) which, inter alia, divided the parties’ property and provided that Husband would pay Wife $7,500 per month in alimony for six years.1 The Agreement allows for modification in certain circumstances and specifically provides: “The alimony payments provided for in this agreement shall be modifiable only in the event of a changed circumstances of either party of a substantial and continuing nature, including but not limited to, Husband’s job loss or serious health condition which directly affects his ability to work.” Agreement, 12/31/18, at 40. On June 13, 2019, the court terminated support for one child who turned 18 years old and ordered Father to continue to pay $6,000 per month for the remaining two children who were under the age of 18. In Summer 2020, Husband resigned from employment at Goldman Sachs and began employment at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (“Morgan Stanley”) where Husband received a $2,900,000 “loan” as a signing bonus. In July 2020, Husband sent Wife an email advising Wife that he could use the Morgan Stanley loan to pay for college for the parties’ children. In ____________________________________________ 1 The Agreement was incorporated, but not merged, into the parties’ divorce decree. -2- J-S18017-23 April 2021, Husband sent Wife another email advising that he could not afford to pay for college tuition for the parties’ children as well as his support payments. In the email, Husband asked Wife to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals