Blog

In Suzanne D. v. Stephen W., 2013 Pa.Super. 93 (April 22, 2013), the Superior Court contemplated how to characterize $350,000 in money transfers that father received from his father, in the context of a post-divorce child support proceeding. Father testified that the transfers were loans, evidenced by a promissory note, which would be deducted from his inheritance if not repaid before his father’s death. Mother, on the other hand, claimed […]

Marriage and divorce are not cold business transactions. Couples who are about to marry or divorce have emotions and intimate relationships that may compromise their ability to negotiate at arm’s length like business people. For this reason, the law of Pennsylvania prior to 1990 imposed two special requirements upon family law agreements, such as prenups and divorce settlement agreements.  Pennsylvania law prior to 1990 required (i) full and fair disclosure […]

One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution is due process, the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in court. Laws that impair due process are narrowly construed, but they do exist, such as the law that authorizes temporary protection from abuse (PFA) restraining orders. Under Pennsylvania law, the defendants are not entitled to receive notice or an opportunity to be heard before a temporary PFA […]

A recurring issue in divorce litigation is the treatment of marital assets that generate income, such as pensions, rental real estate and businesses. Pennsylvania case law establishes clearly that these assets can be divided as property in equitable distribution or counted as income for alimony, but not both. A recent decision published by Adams County Judge Robert G. Bigham applies this law and logic to IRA distributions, in Sealander v. […]

The Pennsylvania custody law, promulgated in 2011, lists 16 factors that a trial court must consider when determining which parent shall have custody of minor children. Already, in the brief time since the law’s passage, the Superior Court has emphasized repeatedly that the courts must consider and articulate all of the relevant factors in its decisions. See M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950, 956 (Pa.Super.2012). Several of those factors touch […]

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced its decision last year in K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa.2012), it changed the face of child support paternity law, applying a “best interests of the child” standard in cases involving paternity by estoppel. An age-old concept, “paternity by estoppel,” means that a man who acts as though he is the father of the child may be held legally and financially responsible, even […]