The Law Office of Brian E. Sipe

   Equitable distribution is the legal term for dividing marital property upon divorce.  The term refers to any increase in value of property that occurs during the marriage.  Often, most of  the property that a married couple owns is marital, but not always.

   The source and time of purchase of a piece of property determines whether it is marital property or not.  The hard work of the parties is the most common source of property.  The benefits of hard work are split between the parties on the assumption that each party helped the other.

   But other property is not.  Inheritances are the most common example.  Gifts are also not marital property.  Disability payments are usually not included in marital property. 

   Note that this rule does not apply if the parties mix the inheritance into communal funds.  The issue that comes up in divorces is how much mixing is necessary.  If the funds can be clearly traced or have survived in an account in the name of one party alone, those funds will not be marital property.  If the parties to the divorce mixed separate funds together, for instance, to come up with a down payment for a house, then the funds are marital property.

   In an important case for Pennsylvania on this issue, the Superior Court stated:

Pennsylvania, not being a community property state, retains the separate property concepts derived from common law. We, in addition, have rejected ...theories which permit no change in the character of property separately acquired, regardless of contribution by the other party (inception of title -- source of funds) or transforms ownership of separate property into community property if there is the slightest commingling of property (transmutation). Anthony v. Anthony, 355 Pa.Super. 589, 514 A.2d 91 (1986).  (Quoted in Winters v. Winters, 355 Pa. Super. 64; 512 A.2d 1211.)

   Plenty of room for arguing exists here.  In this future, I will give some examples of issues that have come up in this area, so if you are interested, tune in and leave comments.

Posted by blogsipe at 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Getting a divorce is common in this day and age.  Also common are books, self-help groups, and many other resources for getting a person through a divorce.  Our society has moved from laws that restricted divorce to certain causes of action such as adultery to no-fault divorce laws.  Part of the reason for this change in the law was the fact that many people were more than happy to lie in court about adultery to get a divorce, oftentimes with the consent of their spouse.

So we should be pretty good about divorce as a society, shouldn't we?  But we are not.

In some cases, part of the reason is found in the attorney-client relationship.  The psychological stress of divorce makes the client angry and vulnerable.  The client looks to an attorney for answers.  At such a time, the legal advisor becomes the biggest influence in that person's life.

Some attorneys, however, have had divorces themselves or have been through bad relationships and, because of this, identify with the client's situation more closely than a neutral counsellor should identify with the person that he or she is supposed advise.

 The anger of the client turns into an overly aggressive legal strategy that offers no possibility of compromise.  The parties end up in a divorce trial.  The legal bills add up to around $10,000 or more.

Anger adds up to more anger.  In the end, many people turn their anger towards the lawyer who led them on the path of anger.  Others simply become bitter about life.

Here is the answer:  find the right lawyer.  Your lawyer should describe a legal strategy that is filled with anger or hatred.  For example, the lawyer's language should not use phrases such as we can get him/her this way or that way.  You should be given a description of your legal rights that is neutral.

For example, if your spouse cheated on you or mistreated you in other ways, you can demand alimony.  This is a legal right, not a way of lashing out or paying the person back.

Getting away from the anger is an important part of keeping your sanity and beginning to plan for your future. 

Posted by blogsipe at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

§3103. Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this part shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

"Alimony." 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.

"Alimony pendente lite." An order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce or annulment proceeding.

"Divorce." Divorce from the bonds of matrimony.

"Grounds for divorce." The grounds enumerated in section 3301 (relating to grounds for divorce).

"Irretrievable breakdown." Estrangement due to marital difficulties with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

"Qualified professionals." Includes marriage counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, ministers, priests, rabbis or other persons who, by virtue of their training and experience, are able to provide counseling.

"Separate and apart." Cessation of cohabitation, whether living in the same residence or not. In the event a complaint in divorce is filed and served, it shall be presumed that the parties commenced to live separate and apart not later than the date that the complaint was served. The 2004 amendment to the definition of "separate and apart" establishes a rebuttable presumption designed to address the difficulty of proving a separation date, especially when the parties have not established different residences.

"Spousal support." Care, maintenance and financial assistance.

§ 3301. Grounds for divorce.

(a) Fault. The court may grant a divorce to the innocent and injured spouse whenever it is judged that the other spouse has: (1) Committed willful and malicious desertion, and absence from the habitation of the injured and innocent spouse, without a reasonable cause, for the period of one or more years; (2) Committed adultery; (3) By cruel and barbarous treatment, endangered the life or health of the injured and innocent spouse; (4) Knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage while a former marriage is still subsisting; (5) Been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two or more years upon conviction of having committed a crime; (6) Offered such indignities to the innocent and injured spouse as to render that spouse's condition intolerable and life burdensome.

(b) Institutionalization. The court may grant a divorce from a spouse upon the ground that insanity or serious mental disorder has resulted in confinement in a mental institution for at least 18 months immediately before the commencement of an action under this part and where there is no reasonable prospect that the spouse will be discharged from inpatient care during the 18 months subsequent to the commencement of the action. A presumption that no prospect of discharge exists shall be established by a certificate of the superintendent of the institution to that effect and which includes a supporting statement of a treating physician.

(c) Mutual consent. The court may grant a divorce where it is alleged that the marriage is irretrievably broken and 90 days have elapsed from the date of commencement of an action under this part and an affidavit has been filed by each of the parties evidencing that each of the parties consents to the divorce.

(d) Irretrievable breakdown. (1) The court may grant a divorce where a complaint has been filed alleging that the marriage is irretrievably broken and an affidavit has been filed alleging that the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years and that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the defendant either: (i) Does not deny the allegations set forth in the affidavit. (ii) Denies one or more of the allegations set forth in the affidavit but, after notice and hearing, the court determines that the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years and that the marriage is irretrievably broken. (2) If a hearing has been held pursuant to paragraph (1)(ii) and the court determines that there is a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, then the court shall continue the matter for a period not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days unless the parties agree to a period in excess of 120 days. During this period, the court shall require counseling as provided in section 3302 (relating to counseling). If the parties have not reconciled at the expiration of the time period and one party states under oath that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall determine whether the marriage is irretrievably broken. If the court determines that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall grant the divorce. Otherwise, the court shall deny the divorce.

(e) No hearing required in certain cases. If grounds for divorce alleged in the complaint or counterclaim are established under subsection (c) or (d), the court shall grant a divorce without requiring a hearing on any other grounds.

§3304. Grounds for annulment of void marriages.

(a) General rule. Where there has been no confirmation by cohabitation following the removal of an impediment, the supposed or alleged marriage of a person shall be deemed void in the following cases: (1) Where either party at the time of such marriage had an existing spouse and the former marriage had not been annulled nor had there been a divorce except where that party had obtained a decree of presumed death of the former spouse; (2) Where the parties to such marriage are related within the degrees of consanguinity prohibited by section 1304(e) (relating to restrictions on issuance of license); (3) Where either party to such marriage was incapable of consenting by reason of insanity or serious mental disorder or otherwise lacked capacity to consent or did not intend to consent to the marriage; (4) Where either party to a purported common-law marriage was under 18 years of age. (b) Procedures.--In all cases of marriages which are void, the marriage may be annulled as set forth in section 3303 (relating to annulment of void and voidable marriages) or its invalidity may be declared in any collateral proceeding.

§ 3305. Grounds for annulment of voidable marriages.

(a) General rule. The marriage of a person shall be deemed voidable and subject to annulment in the following cases: (1) Where either party to the marriage was under 16 years of age unless the marriage was expressly authorized by the court; (2) Where either party was 16 or 17 years of age and lacked the consent of parent or guardian or express authorization of the court and has not subsequently ratified the marriage upon reaching 18 years of age and an action for annulment is commenced within 60 days after the marriage ceremony; (3) Where either party to the marriage was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and an action for annulment is commenced within 60 days after the marriage ceremony; (4) Where either party to the marriage was at the time of the marriage and still is naturally and incurably impotent unless the condition was known to the other party prior to the marriage; (5) Where one party was induced to enter into the marriage due to fraud, duress, coercion or force attributable to the other party and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of the fraud or release from the effects of fraud, duress, coercion or force.

(b) Status of voidable marriage. In all cases of marriages which are voidable, either party to the marriage may seek and obtain an annulment of the marriage but, until a decree of annulment is obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction, the marriage shall be valid. The validity of a voidable marriage shall not be subject to attack or question by any person if it is subsequently confirmed by the parties to the marriage or if either party has died.

Posted by blogsipe at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When you write a will, the first paragraph usually revokes all prior wills.  The typical language says something like "revoking all prior wills."  Along with the date, this acts as a revocation of all prior wills.

Now what if a person scribbles down his or her last wishes in a hurry and leaves out this sort of language? 

Pennsylvania allows for revocation by implication, which means that when two wills clash, the later will is held to revoke the earlier one.  This basically means that if a will has a later date than another will does, the newer will revokes the older will.

Under the Uniform Probate Code, such a presumption of revocation is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence. If the subsequent will "makes a complete disposition" of the estate, the inconsistencies are revocations and replace the prior will terms. If the subsequent will "does not make a complete disposition" of the estate, the inconsistencies are merely supersession and supplement to the prior will's terms. The continuing life of the prior will depends on whether inconsistencies are effective. U.P.C. §2-507(b)-(d).

Posted by blogsipe at 06:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pennsylvania is very liberal in finding wills. A will is a statement of testamentary intent that is either in the Testator's handwriting or is signed at the bottom by some form of signature, including initials and personal marks. A small difference, a legality really, is the difference between a will and a codicil. The difference is that a will usually replaces all prior wills. A codicil is simply an addendum, i.e., something that you forgot and are now adding to the will. For example, a handwritten note found amongst the valuables and papers of a Decedent was held to be a codicil and amended the will. In re Hengen's Estate, 55 Montg. 327 (1939).

Under this view, a group of testamentary wishes that you jotted down may be put together to form your will. The only problem would be if you contradicted yourself from one page to the next. Therefore, even if you create what appears to be a will, if the writing seems to be simply an addition to a former will, the Courts of the Commonwealth may hold that it is a codicil and that the former will is not revoked. In re Bingaman's Estate, 127 A. 73, 281 Pa. 497, Sup.1924. Wills 476.

An interesting side note here is the Pennsylvania case law that allows a codicil to adopt a revoked will. Let's say that you executed a will. Then you change your mind and execute a new will which revokes the first will. Will number two is now in effect. But if you now write a simple testamentary wish down that refers to the first will, that first will and the codicil are now in effect. The second will has now been revoked. The lesson is to make sure that you keep your dates and wills straight when you jot down your wishes. Remember, even a napkin with coffee stains on it can act as a codicil if you put down the required testamentary intent. Neff's Appeal, 48 Pa. 501, 1865, affirming 5 Phila. 281, 21 L.I. 236; Bradish v. McClellan, 100 Pa. 607, 1882; Lee's Estate, 16 Pa.Super. 627, 1901, affirming 15 Montg. 70, 1900; DeHaven's Estate, (No. 2,) 56 A. 404, 207 Pa. 152, 1903.

Posted by blogsipe at 06:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)