## Facts

- During divorce-related proceedings, substantial gifts (about $466,000) were made to the parties’ minor children under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA).
- The father served as custodian for UGMA property given by his parents; the father’s business associate served as custodian for UGMA property the father gifted to the children.
- In a Cumberland County support action, the court entered an interim support order of $400 per week and later a final order of $600 per week against the father.
- The father and the co-custodian made distributions from the minors’ UGMA accounts to pay up to 75% of the interim support obligation, effectively using the children’s property to satisfy the father’s court-ordered duty.
- The mother filed a separate action seeking removal and surcharge of the custodians for misuse of the UGMA funds.
- While appeals were pending, the trial court modified the support order to allow the father credit for UGMA distributions.
- The cases proceeded through the Superior Court and were consolidated for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify support orders already on appeal to allow the father credit for distributions from the minors’ UGMA accounts.
2. Whether a court may consider a minor’s UGMA property in setting a parent’s child-support obligation when the parent has sufficient means.
3. Whether UGMA custodial funds may be used to satisfy, or be credited against, a parent’s legal support obligation, particularly when the parent is also the custodian.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the support orders on appeal where the modification addressed the same issue pending on appeal (credit for UGMA distributions).
- The Court held a parent’s obligation to support minor children is independent of the children’s assets, and UGMA funds may not be used to fulfill the parent’s support obligation where the parent has sufficient means.
- The Court held that once the court finds the parent can reasonably support the child without undue hardship, the child’s UGMA funds should not be considered in setting the support amount.
- The Court recognized a custodian may, in appropriate circumstances, distribute UGMA funds for a minor’s benefit in addition to parental support, but a parent-custodian may not credit such distributions against the parent’s own support obligation.
- The Court indicated that a parent-custodian who attempts to use UGMA property to reduce support may be removed in the court’s discretion and may be subject to surcharge for improper distributions.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court is divested of jurisdiction over matters involved in a pending appeal and may not modify an order on appeal to alter rights tied to the issue under appellate review.
- A parent’s duty to support minor children is a primary obligation that does not depend on whether the child has separate assets.
- Where a parent has sufficient means to meet support obligations without undue hardship, the child’s UGMA assets should not reduce the parent’s support obligation and should not be considered in setting the support amount.
- UGMA custodianship is fiduciary; custodial property is held for the minor’s use and benefit, and custodial spending authority may not be exercised to subsidize an able parent’s personal support duty.
- When the parent is also the UGMA custodian, distributions that function to satisfy or offset the parent’s support obligation create a conflict with the custodian’s fiduciary duty and may justify removal and surcharge.

## Conclusion

The court held that the trial court could not modify a support order on appeal to grant credit for UGMA distributions and that an able parent cannot use or offset court-ordered child support with the child’s UGMA assets; a parent-custodian who does so risks removal and surcharge for breach of fiduciary duties.


Sutliff v. Sutliff, 515 Pa. 393, 528 A.2d 1318 (Pa. 1987)