## Facts

- Amy Huss and James P. Weaver were in a romantic relationship; Weaver was a practicing attorney, and Huss alleged he had provided her legal representation in other matters.
- In October 2008, the parties signed a written agreement addressing custody and visitation if they had a child and later separated.
- The agreement provided that, if a child was born, Huss would have primary physical custody and Weaver would have defined visitation rights.
- The agreement further required Weaver to pay Huss $10,000 each time he sought court modification of the custody/visitation terms.
- The parties’ son was born in November 2010.
- In December 2010, Weaver filed a custody complaint without paying Huss $10,000.
- Huss sued for breach of contract and later added negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims based on Weaver’s alleged role in drafting and advising her regarding the agreement.
- The trial court sustained Weaver’s preliminary objections and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, holding the $10,000 provision unenforceable as against public policy.

## Issues

1. Whether a clause requiring a parent to pay $10,000 for each attempt to seek judicial modification of custody/visitation terms is unenforceable as against Pennsylvania public policy.
2. Whether Huss’s negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine (and whether a duty independent of the contract was sufficiently pleaded).

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing the action with prejudice.
- The court held the $10,000-per-modification-attempt clause was not unenforceable as a matter of public policy on the pleadings.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania courts invalidate contracts on public policy grounds only where a “dominant public policy” is clearly expressed in law or an obvious requirement of justice and morals; courts do not strike provisions merely because they appear unwise.
- Custody and visitation agreements are distinguishable from child-support obligations because custody terms remain subject to judicial modification in the child’s best interests; a private agreement cannot limit the court’s authority to act for the child.
- A monetary term tied to seeking custody modification is not per se void; on preliminary objections, enforceability turns on whether a clearly defined public policy forbids it and whether the term plausibly operates as an improper barrier to court access.
- On demurrer, the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party; absent record support that the clause actually chilled litigation, dismissal on public policy grounds was improper.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court reinstated Huss’s claims by holding that Pennsylvania law did not clearly prohibit a custody-agreement clause requiring a $10,000 payment for each modification attempt and that, at the pleading stage, the clause could not be treated as an unlawful restraint on access to custody adjudication or the court’s best-interests authority.


Huss v. Weaver, 134 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016)