Chen v. Chen
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
893 A.2d 87 (2006)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
As part of the divorce decree between Wheamei Chen (plaintiff) and Richard Chen (defendant), the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) which required Richard to pay child support in the amount of $25 per week to Wheamei on behalf of their daughter, Theresa (plaintiff). The child support amount was never increased even though the Agreement allowed for such an increase if Richard’s income increased. As Theresa got older, Richard often received promotions and increases in pay, yet continued to pay only $25 per week in child support. When Theresa turned 18 years old, Wheamei was notified that the child support was ending. Wheamei filed a petition against Richard seeking child support arrearage owed. Thereafter, Theresa filed a petition to intervene as a party to her mother’s action and argued that she had a “legally enforceable interest” as a third-party intended beneficiary under the Agreement. The trial court allowed Theresa to intervene and allowed Wheamei to withdraw as plaintiff. The trial court concluded that because the Agreement had not been merged with the divorce decree it should be treated as a separate contract rather than a court order. As a result, the trial court found that Richard had breached the Agreement and calculated child support arrearage to be $59,000. The appellate court affirmed and Richard appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baer, J.)
Concurrence (Cappy, J.)
Concurrence (Saylor, J.)
Concurrence (Castille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.