Kripp v. Kripp, 578 Pa. 82

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a property settlement agreement's alimony provision was ambiguous as to whether alimony terminated when the recipient cohabited with a same-sex partner. The court ruled that parol evidence was admissible to determine the parties' intended meaning and reversed the Superior Court, reinstating the trial court's order.

Holdings

1. The property settlement agreement's provision stating that alimony would end if the wife cohabitated was ambiguous because it was reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations, including cohabitation with a man, a woman, or either.
2. Because the agreement was ambiguous, the trial court properly admitted parol evidence concerning the parties' intended meaning of cohabitate.
3. The statutory definition of cohabitation in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3706 does not automatically control or become incorporated into a private marital settlement agreement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the cohabitation provision in the parties' property settlement agreement was ambiguous.
2. Whether parol evidence was admissible to determine the parties' intended meaning of the cohabitation provision.
3. Whether the statutory definition of cohabitation in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3706 controlled the interpretation of the parties' private settlement agreement.

Disposition

reversed