OPINION
MONTEMURO, Justice.
Appellant has sought our review of the denial of his request to modify an alimony award under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701, 428 Pa.Super. 648, 627 A.2d 210.1 The order under examination was entered in March of 1991, in conjunction with a final decree in equitable distribution pursuant to the parties’ divorce. The decree divided the parties’ property, and directed appellant to pay appellee $1000 per month for a period of six years. At the time the payments were ordered, appellant was employed by Pan American Airlines as a ground flight engineer earning approximately $5,000 per month. Appellee, by contrast, was earning approximately $700 per month. No appeal was taken by either party.
In December of 1991, appellant’s employment terminated with the bankruptcy of his employer. His income then consisted of employment compensation in the amount of $300 per week which would expire in July of 1992 unless extended by thirteen weeks, and eligibility to receive approximately $750 in pension funds from Pan American. However, appellant was uncertain as to when these payments would begin. In addition, appellant who was 57 years old at the time of hearing, April 15, 1992, suffers from degenerative arthritis in his right knee and progressive arthritis in his left knee, which physical limitations have prevented renewal of his license as a flight engineer. His application for a position as a ticket agent at another airline was rejected, as his other job inquiries have been.
[268]*268Appellee, 60 years old at the time of the hearing, had training and licensure as an elementary school teacher at the time of the parties’ marriage, but became a full time homemaker after the birth of the parties’ first child in 1964. When the parties divorced, she made no inquiry as to the requirements for obtaining teaching certification. The trial court found that given her age, any effort to procure the certification would be more laborious than productive.
At the time of the hearing on the petition to modify, appellant owed $6,400 in arrearages on the alimony award, which would be reduced by $4,800, the amount of an intercepted income tax refund. The trial court refused to reduce appellant’s alimony obligation. It reasoned that the award of alimony was integral to the distribution of marital assets, which had been allocated in such a manner as to permit appellee to provide for her reasonable needs, and that any alteration would undermine the whole schema. The court noted that it would, however, entertain a petition under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e),2 should the parties wish to lodge one. The [269]*269Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, and we granted allocatur to determine the extent to which section 3701(e) applies where marital property has been distributed.
Our standard of review in cases such as this is to determine whether the trial court has, in deciding the case, abused its discretion; that is, committed not merely an error of judgment, but has overridden or misapplied the law, or has exercised judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will as demonstrated by the evidence of record. Zullo v. Zullo, 531 Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992). We reverse and remand.
We begin with the unassailable premise that a major objective of the Divorce Code is to
Effectuate economic justice between the parties who are divorced or separated and grant or withhold alimony according to the actual need and ability to pay of the parties and insure a fair and just determination and settlement of their property rights.
23 Pa.C.S. § 3102(a)(6).
The real question here is not whether relief in the form of a reduction of the alimony award should have been granted under section 3701(e); the trial court’s decision to deny relief was a manifestly unreasonable disregard of the reality of appellant’s situation, and thus an abuse of discretion. Not only does appellant’s financial position compel such a result theoretically, but as a practical matter the current award will not be paid, as it has not been, because appellant has not the means to pay it.
Rather, if equity is indeed the ultimate goal and appellee’s reasonable needs are to be met, more is required than relieving appellant of the obligation to pay appellee an amount he cannot afford. Thus the real question becomes whether the Court should or may act now to encompass a more general solution to the problem of doing equity, and if so, on what basis; or whether we should decline to act now and wait until [270]*270appellee implements some enforcement mechanism such as has already been used to obtain the tax refund money. For reasons both specific to the Divorce Code, and more generally applicable to equity, we find the former course not only preferable but necessary under the facts of this case.
We first note that the lower courts’ treatment of the issue here has been subverted by a problem of nomenclature. The assumption has been that because the payments made to appellee have consistently been called alimony, that is what they were. Alimony is defined as “An order for support granted by this Commonwealth or any other state to a spouse or former spouse in conjunction with a decree granting a divorce or annulment.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3103. Its purpose is to provide the receiving spouse with sufficient income to obtain the necessities of life. Zullo at 380, 613 A.2d at 545. The payments awarded here do not fit this description either in form or in intention. Rather, the award was made in lieu of granting appellee her share of appellant’s pension, and was fashioned to pay out oyer time appellee’s interest in an asset which would otherwise remain undistributed until appellant’s retirement, some years later than that of appellee. The payments were calculated to approximate the share of the pension which appellee would receive but in a form which would allow her, prior to distribution of the actual pension, to establish a retirement fund for herself. Thus to treat these payments as subject to the same restrictions as alimony is to skew the whole process of reviewing appellant’s petition.
We premise this decision in the first instance on the philosophy expressed in Zullo, supra, and Bold v. Bold, 524 Pa. 487, 574 A.2d 552 (1990). Both of these cases, albeit arising in circumstances dissimilar to the one at bar and posing a different legal question, nevertheless espouse the notion that the equitable purposes underlying the Divorce Code allow for liberal interpretation of its provisions.
Zullo and Bold concern the principle of equitable reimbursement, not at issue here, but which, in its evolution is consistent with the legislative intent of section 3102(a)(6) of [271]*271the Code. In both of these cases, the wife’s contributions to the marriage had permitted the husband to acquire education which would significantly improve his earning power. These contributions were found to reach a point far in excess of the bare minimum of legally obligated support.
At dissolution, each marriage possessed insufficient assets to repay this sacrifice which had added so significantly to the husband’s future financial status.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
MONTEMURO, Justice.
Appellant has sought our review of the denial of his request to modify an alimony award under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701, 428 Pa.Super. 648, 627 A.2d 210.1 The order under examination was entered in March of 1991, in conjunction with a final decree in equitable distribution pursuant to the parties’ divorce. The decree divided the parties’ property, and directed appellant to pay appellee $1000 per month for a period of six years. At the time the payments were ordered, appellant was employed by Pan American Airlines as a ground flight engineer earning approximately $5,000 per month. Appellee, by contrast, was earning approximately $700 per month. No appeal was taken by either party.
In December of 1991, appellant’s employment terminated with the bankruptcy of his employer. His income then consisted of employment compensation in the amount of $300 per week which would expire in July of 1992 unless extended by thirteen weeks, and eligibility to receive approximately $750 in pension funds from Pan American. However, appellant was uncertain as to when these payments would begin. In addition, appellant who was 57 years old at the time of hearing, April 15, 1992, suffers from degenerative arthritis in his right knee and progressive arthritis in his left knee, which physical limitations have prevented renewal of his license as a flight engineer. His application for a position as a ticket agent at another airline was rejected, as his other job inquiries have been.
[268]*268Appellee, 60 years old at the time of the hearing, had training and licensure as an elementary school teacher at the time of the parties’ marriage, but became a full time homemaker after the birth of the parties’ first child in 1964. When the parties divorced, she made no inquiry as to the requirements for obtaining teaching certification. The trial court found that given her age, any effort to procure the certification would be more laborious than productive.
At the time of the hearing on the petition to modify, appellant owed $6,400 in arrearages on the alimony award, which would be reduced by $4,800, the amount of an intercepted income tax refund. The trial court refused to reduce appellant’s alimony obligation. It reasoned that the award of alimony was integral to the distribution of marital assets, which had been allocated in such a manner as to permit appellee to provide for her reasonable needs, and that any alteration would undermine the whole schema. The court noted that it would, however, entertain a petition under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e),2 should the parties wish to lodge one. The [269]*269Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, and we granted allocatur to determine the extent to which section 3701(e) applies where marital property has been distributed.
Our standard of review in cases such as this is to determine whether the trial court has, in deciding the case, abused its discretion; that is, committed not merely an error of judgment, but has overridden or misapplied the law, or has exercised judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will as demonstrated by the evidence of record. Zullo v. Zullo, 531 Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992). We reverse and remand.
We begin with the unassailable premise that a major objective of the Divorce Code is to
Effectuate economic justice between the parties who are divorced or separated and grant or withhold alimony according to the actual need and ability to pay of the parties and insure a fair and just determination and settlement of their property rights.
23 Pa.C.S. § 3102(a)(6).
The real question here is not whether relief in the form of a reduction of the alimony award should have been granted under section 3701(e); the trial court’s decision to deny relief was a manifestly unreasonable disregard of the reality of appellant’s situation, and thus an abuse of discretion. Not only does appellant’s financial position compel such a result theoretically, but as a practical matter the current award will not be paid, as it has not been, because appellant has not the means to pay it.
Rather, if equity is indeed the ultimate goal and appellee’s reasonable needs are to be met, more is required than relieving appellant of the obligation to pay appellee an amount he cannot afford. Thus the real question becomes whether the Court should or may act now to encompass a more general solution to the problem of doing equity, and if so, on what basis; or whether we should decline to act now and wait until [270]*270appellee implements some enforcement mechanism such as has already been used to obtain the tax refund money. For reasons both specific to the Divorce Code, and more generally applicable to equity, we find the former course not only preferable but necessary under the facts of this case.
We first note that the lower courts’ treatment of the issue here has been subverted by a problem of nomenclature. The assumption has been that because the payments made to appellee have consistently been called alimony, that is what they were. Alimony is defined as “An order for support granted by this Commonwealth or any other state to a spouse or former spouse in conjunction with a decree granting a divorce or annulment.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3103. Its purpose is to provide the receiving spouse with sufficient income to obtain the necessities of life. Zullo at 380, 613 A.2d at 545. The payments awarded here do not fit this description either in form or in intention. Rather, the award was made in lieu of granting appellee her share of appellant’s pension, and was fashioned to pay out oyer time appellee’s interest in an asset which would otherwise remain undistributed until appellant’s retirement, some years later than that of appellee. The payments were calculated to approximate the share of the pension which appellee would receive but in a form which would allow her, prior to distribution of the actual pension, to establish a retirement fund for herself. Thus to treat these payments as subject to the same restrictions as alimony is to skew the whole process of reviewing appellant’s petition.
We premise this decision in the first instance on the philosophy expressed in Zullo, supra, and Bold v. Bold, 524 Pa. 487, 574 A.2d 552 (1990). Both of these cases, albeit arising in circumstances dissimilar to the one at bar and posing a different legal question, nevertheless espouse the notion that the equitable purposes underlying the Divorce Code allow for liberal interpretation of its provisions.
Zullo and Bold concern the principle of equitable reimbursement, not at issue here, but which, in its evolution is consistent with the legislative intent of section 3102(a)(6) of [271]*271the Code. In both of these cases, the wife’s contributions to the marriage had permitted the husband to acquire education which would significantly improve his earning power. These contributions were found to reach a point far in excess of the bare minimum of legally obligated support.
At dissolution, each marriage possessed insufficient assets to repay this sacrifice which had added so significantly to the husband’s future financial status. Thus, in addition to equitable distribution, the wife in each case, for her efforts, was awarded payments, termed equitable reimbursement, in order to equalize the result.
In Zullo, despite the appellation alimony, these payments were found not to be alimony insofar as they would be affected by the remarriage of the wife. Rather, they were determined to be recompense for expenditures made by the wife to cover joint obligations. The governing principle was fairness. Both parties had incurred the debts, but only the wife had satisfied them. The husband, therefore, was ordered to reimburse the wife for the outlay made on his behalf even though the marriage had ended, and wife had remarried, an action which would normally terminate payments characterized as alimony.
In the case before us the facts are different but the question still depends for its answer on application of the fairness principle. Here the trial judge determined that the award of ‘alimony’ was, in fact, a substitute for granting appellee a share of appellant’s pension. Absent the availability of such payments, the planned equitable distribution lost the flavor of equity, leaving the court no alternative but reexamination of the original distribution. Rather than deny appellee the benefit of the equitable distribution scheme, the court determined to maintain the status quo, denying equity to appellant who was held to a responsibility beyond his resources. However, under the principle enunciated in Zullo and Bold that scheme, because its directions were still not finalized, may be molded to overcome the threat to its original intention. Both the limited time between entry of the decree and the change in circumstances, nine months, and the fact [272]*272that a major asset remained undistributed at the hearing militate in favor of this solution.3
The Superior Court in Romeo v. Romeo, 417 Pa.Super. 180, 611 A.2d 1325 (1992), reached a similar conclusion. There too the equitable distribution decree went unchallenged by both parties. Some eight months after entry of the decree, the wife requested modification of sales listing agreements on certain parcels of real property which were to be sold as part of the distribution plan. The list prices of the properties had become unrealistic, they were not selling, and wife could no longer afford, by herself, the mortgage, insurance, taxes and other payments due. She therefore asked that husband be ordered to share the financial obligations for the property, and to sign new listing agreements, which he had hitherto refused to do.4
The Superior Court, in reaching its decision, found that decrees in equitable distribution are non-modifiable. However, it cited 23 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a)(1) for the proposition that courts may retain continuing jurisdiction over ‘the determination and disposition of property rights and interests between spouses____’ Pursuant to this equity jurisdiction, the court may grant the special relief referred to in Rule 1920.43(a)5. The Superior Court concluded that wife’s motion for modification was properly entertained as a prayer for special relief despite the absence of this term on the document itself because husband’s actions in refusing to sign new listing [273]*273agreements for the properties had denied her the benefit of the trial court’s plan for equitable distribution of marital property.
Equity provides that the court treat as done that which should have been done. Appellant’s petition, like the wife’s in Romeo, should have been regarded not as a prayer for modification of alimony, but as a prayer for special relief pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43. No new petition need have been filed. The stock holdings which had not yet been distributed could have been examined, along with the payment order, to determine the viability of applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4), or some other section of the statute which would achieve the equity sought after by the court. This notion was in fact presented to the court at the hearing, but was rejected because no appeal had been taken from the equitable distribution decree. At that time appellee’s counsel orally requested that the court examine the possibility of reformulating the allotment of this as yet undistributed asset.
Therefore, as a matter of judicial economy, and basic fairness to both parties, we reverse the order of the Superior Court and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NIX, C.J., files a dissenting opinion.
MONTEMURO, J., is sitting by designation as Senior Justice pursuant to Judicial Assignment Docket No. 94 R1801, due to the unavailability of LARSEN, J., see No. 127 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1, filed October 28, 1993.