Appeal from the Order entered on January 30, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Domestic Relations Division, No. 00-0920-00; 99-10921
BEFORE: SHOGAN, ALLEN and MUSMANNO, JJ.
G.S.C. ("Father") appeals from the trial court's Order directing Father to pay $7, 506.50 to C.M.C. ("Mother") for his share of their daughters' extracurricular activities. We reverse and remand.
Father and Mother divorced in March 2000. Father and Mother have two daughters, A.C.C. (d/o/b 3/10/93) and A.M.C. (d/o/b 6/18/96) (collectively "the children"). As part of their Divorce Decree, the trial court incorporated a Post-Nuptial Agreement ("Agreement"), dated and signed on January 20, 2000. The Agreement included a provision that Father pay 50% of the children's extracurricular activities.
On April 4, 2004, Mother filed a Petition to Modify the Support Order. The Master recommended that Father's support obligation be reduced due to a reduction in Father's income and an increase in Mother's income. The trial court entered an Order on March 11, 2005, stating, in part, that Father should pay 45% of the children's extracurricular activities that are deemed reasonable. The trial court stated that the children's soccer, girl scouts, and music lessons were reasonable activities. The trial court further stated that if a child wanted to start a new extracurricular activity, Mother and Father must discuss the advisability of the child's participation.
A.C.C. reached the age of eighteen on March 10, 2011. On March 28, 2011, the trial court entered a new support Order reflecting the emancipated status of A.C.C. The March 28, 2011 Order was silent as to support related to extracurricular activities for A.M.C.
In the interim, on March 9, 2011, Mother filed a Petition for Civil Contempt for Disobedience of a Court Order under Civil Action No. 99-10921. Mother asked the trial court to hold Father in contempt for failing to pay his share of the children's extracurricular activities. Father filed an Answer and a Counterclaim for contempt. On May 3, 2011, the trial court dismissed Mother's Petition and Father's Counterclaim due to the new support obligations set forth in the March 11, 2005 Order. The trial court indicated that Mother should not have filed her Petition solely at Civil Action No. 99-10921. On March 29, 2012, Mother filed another Petition for Civil Contempt for Disobedience of a Court Order under Civil Action No. 99-10921. Father again filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The trial court dismissed Mother's Petition and Father's Counterclaim for the same reasons as the May 3, 2011 Order.
On July 17, 2012, Mother filed a Contempt Petition to Enforce the Agreement and the March 11, 2005 Order, asking the trial court to order Father to pay his share of the children's extracurricular activities. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an Order enforcing the Agreement and the subsequent Orders, and directed Father to reimburse Mother for expenses she had incurred for the children's extracurricular activities. Specifically, the trial court determined that Father's obligation to contribute to the children's extracurricular activities was governed by three documents: (1) the Agreement, which controls the time period between January 20, 2000, and March 11, 2005; (2) the March 11, 2005 Order, which governs the time period between March 11, 2005, and March 28, 2011; and (3) the March 28, 2011 Order, which governs the time period between March 28, 2011, and the date of the hearing, August 29, 2012. The trial court calculated Father's liability for the extracurricular activities to be $7, 506.50.
Father filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The trial court ordered Father to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise statement. Father filed a timely Concise Statement and the trial court issued an Opinion.
On appeal, Father raises the following questions for our review:
A. Whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the statute of limitations in ordering [Father to] reimburse [Mother] for extracurricular activity charges allegedly incurred more than four (4) years prior to [Mother's] Petition?
B. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the limitations for reimbursement previously ordered by Order dated March 11, 2005, which modified the support provision of the parties' [Agreement], and the modification by the parties on March 28, 2011, ...