# McFadden v. McFadden

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 2, 1989 · 386 Pa. Super. 506

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710839

## Case

- **Full name:** David George McFADDEN, Appellant, v. Marjorie Marotte McFADDEN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 2, 1989
- **Citations:** 386 Pa. Super. 506; 563 A.2d 180; 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2385
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McEWEN
- **Judges:** McEwen, Olszewski, Popovich
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710839

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that trial court abused its discretion by not considering party’s changed financial circumstances brought about by voluntary retirement

## Opinion text

McEWEN, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I am of one mind with my distinguished colleagues of the majority that the alimony/equitable distribution agreement executed by the parties in October of 1981 and incorporated into the final decree of divorce, is modifiable upon a showing of a material change in circumstances, and also agree that pension monies received by appellant must be considered by the court in fashioning an alimony award. I must respectfully disagree, however, with the conclusion of the majority that appellant’s voluntary retirement at age sixty-five, within five years of execution of the agreement, constitutes such a material change of circumstances as would warrant modification of the alimony provisions of the parties’ agreement.
Had the parties intended appellant’s voluntary retirement at the customary age of sixty-five to constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to allow reduction of the agreed amount of lifetime alimony payable to appellee, that intent should have been expressed in the stipulation and agreement since the event was but five years ahead and thereby clearly contemplated by both parties at the time of the execution of the agreement which provided for appellee to receive $300 per month alimony until her death.
*515 Moreover, appellant’s retirement at age sixty-five has caused a minimal change in his economic circumstances. Appellant testified that he receives $300 per month in pension benefits ($3,600 per year), as well as $728 per month in Social Security benefits ($8,736 per year), and that his current wife, a bank teller, contributes approximately $12,000 per year to the household. Additionally, while appellant testified that he and his present wife anticipated interest income of $4,000 in 1987, they reported interest income, on their 1985 jointly filed 1040 form, in the amount of $10,084. Appellant’s estimate as to his 1987 interest income is further questionable since he testified that while he has not liquidated any of his certificates of deposit since that time, his estimate of decreased interest income for 1987 was based solely upon lower available interest rates. Thus, the testimony of appellant indicated that his household income for 1987 was an amount somewhere between $28,-336 and $34,336.
Since I believe the trial court properly found that appellant had not established a material change of circumstances, I would affirm the order of the learned trial judge.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710839. Public record. Not legal advice.