Exclusive Possession of Marital Residence

Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 3502(c), the court has the express authority to award exclusive possession of the marital residence to one or both parties during the pendency of the divorce. This provision was added to the law in 1990. Prior to that, the court had determined it had the authority to grant exclusive possession of the marital residence under the “full equity power and jurisdiction of the court” found at 23 Pa. C.S. §3323(f). This provision gives the court the authority to issue injunctions or other orders necessary to protect the interests of the parties. Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, decided in 1985, was the first case to hold that the court could award exclusive possession of the martial residence during a divorce. 344 Pa. Super. 154 (Pa. Super. 1985). In Laczkowski, the home was to be given to the spouse having physical custody of any minor children.

Other cases have clarified and expanded the instances under which exclusive possession may be ordered. In Uhler v. Uhler, the court indicated exclusive possession should only be awarded sparingly. 428 Pa. Super. 630 (Pa. Super. 1993). Uhler also pointed to the emotional welfare of children as the most important consideration. In Vuocolo v. Vuocolo, the court held an award should be based not only on the needs of minor children, but also the age and health of the parties and their financial needs and resources. 42 Pa. D. & C. 398 (1987). In Merola v. Merola, the court granted exclusive possession in an instance where there were no minor children but the wife was vulnerable and confined to a wheelchair. 19 Pa. D. & C. 4th 538 (1993). In contrast, in Duzgon v. Duzgon, the court did not grant exclusive possession based on wife’s allegations of tension in the home because of husband’s phone calls to his girlfriend. 76 Pa. D. & C. 4th 538 (2005). The court’s rationale was that there was no abuse between the parties and hence no clear need for husband to be excluded from the home. In sum, an award of exclusive possession is a harsh remedy that will not be awarded without clear need and is more likely to be awarded where minor children are involved.

Click here to read more on division of marital property.

by

Mandatory Waiting Period for Divorce

Many states require some waiting period between when a divorce complaint is filed and when a divorce will be granted. In Pennsylvania, a no-fault divorce may be granted after a waiting period of 90 days provided both parties consent to the divorce at the conclusion of the waiting period. This waiting period is often referred to as a cooling-off period. It is arguably utilized in many states to give the parties an opportunity to reflect on the severity of the decision to get a divorce and/or seek marital counseling to see if the relationship can be saved. At this point, almost half of the states have some waiting period between when you file and when you can be divorced.

It is unclear if there is any correlation between longer waiting periods and fewer divorces. New Jersey has one of the longer waiting periods for a no-fault divorce at 18 months and also has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. On the other hand, Arkansas also imposes an 18-month waiting period and has one of the highest divorce rates. Perhaps the key to determining the impact of the waiting periods would be a study into how many couples do end up reconciling during the waiting period if reconciliation is the ultimate goal behind the divorce laws. Pennsylvania does specifically indicate its policy is to “encourage and effect reconciliation and settlement of differences between spouses” as the “protection and preservation of the family is of paramount concern.” 23 Pa. C.S. 3102.

Click here to read more on PA divorce.

by

Reconciliation Pending Divorce

Potential reconciliation between parties going through a divorce can have an impact on the course of the divorce. Specifically, if a party is pursuing a divorce on the grounds of two-year separation, a reconciliation may result in a new date of separation date and hence a new two-year waiting period. Case law has distinguished what actions/behavior will be considered a successful reconciliation, hence tolling a new period of separation, versus those actions/behavior that will not change the initial separation date. Separation for the purposes of divorce is defined as the “complete cessation of any and all cohabitation.” Cohabitation, though not specifically defined in the divorce code, is generally understood to be living and dwelling together as husband and wife with the mutual assumption of all marital rights, duties and obligations. It requires more than just remaining in the same house overnight or for the weekend or taking a week long trip together. This is still true even if the parties engage in sexual relations. Instances of sexual relations during a separation will not alone establish a reconciliation. The public policy of the Commonwealth is to encourage a reconciliation where possible and so it is reluctant to punish parties for unsuccessful reconciliations by causing the period of separation to have to start again because of a failed attempt.

In Thomas v. Thomas, 335 Pa. Super. 41 (1984), the Court expressed its agreement with neighboring states who treat the issue of reconciliation similarly. For example, in a New Jersey case the court held that a four week trial reconciliation period did not defeat the previously established separation date (Brittner v. Brittner, 124 N.J. Super. 259 (1973)). In Delaware, the law provides that any reconciliation attempts that occur prior to the 30 days immediately preceding the hearing on divorce will not affect the initial date of separation. Accordingly, attempts at reconciliation may not necessarily change the date of separation for the purposes of the divorce. The court would examine the facts of the reconciliation to determine if it was a full-blown resumption of the marital relationship which would potentially result in a different date of separation or alternatively, treat the failed attempt as further evidence that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the divorce should proceed on the initial separation date. In Britton v. Britton, 400 Pa. Super. 43 (1990) a reconciliation did defeat the period of separation when the reconciliation lasted three months, the parties resumed living together, ceased to maintain separate residences, jointly purchased a townhome, shared the same bedroom, engaged in sexual relations, shared a joint bank account and had a social life as husband and wife.

Click here to read more on divorce.

by

No Fault Divorce

The divorce rate reached an all time high in the 1970’s due to the introduction of no-fault divorce. A no-fault divorce meant that the parties could get a divorce without having to prove any wrong-doing in court. Essentially, all the parties have to do for a no-fault divorce is indicate the marriage is over. Prior to the influx of no-fault divorce, parties had to prove that the requirements for a fault divorce were met. Fault grounds for divorce in Pennsylvania include desertion, adultery, cruel and barbarous treatment, bigamy, imprisonment, and indignities. The majority of divorces will go through on the basis of no-fault since it is easier to litigate and often times there is no benefit in the outcome of the divorce to pursuing a fault ground for a divorce.

To move forward with a no-fault divorce in Pennsylvania, the parties need only allege an “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” and either consent to the divorce after a 90-day period or establish 2-year separation. A no-fault divorce can also be obtained if one of the spouses is institutionalized for a period of 18 months provided they will likely still be institutionalized 18 months following the commencement of the divorce. No-fault divorce became available in Pennsylvania in 1980 when the Divorce Code was revised. Originally, a separation period of three years was required but that has since been reduced to the two year separation period currently required.

Click here to read more on Divorce.

by

Jurisdiction/Venue in Divorce

,

Under Pennsylvania law, one of the parties to the divorce action must have been a bona fide resident of Pennsylvania for at least six months prior to the commencement of the divorce. Bona fide residence is defined as actual residence with domiciliary intent. Domicile denotes the place where a person has his or her true, fixed, permanent home with the intention of returning after any absence. In other words, where an individual sleeps, takes her meals, receives mail, and stores personal possession.

Generally, an action may only be brought in the county where one of the party resides. There are two exceptions allowing a divorce action to proceed in a different county including by mutual agreement of the parties in writing or by participating in the action started in a different county. If two divorce actions are commenced within 90 days of each other, the county where a party resides or where the last marital residence was located gets to determine which county should handle the matter. If neither county is the location of the last marital residence and no party resides in either county, the county that received a complaint in divorce first can make the determination as far as which county will proceed.

Parties should be careful about agreeing to, or participating in, divorce actions outside of their home counties if property distribution and/or other issues such as custody and support may be raised during the divorce. A divorce action may need to be transferred to the county where the bulk of the property is located or where the children reside for custody or where one of the parties reside for support. This will likely result in the expense of having to file a new complaint in the appropriate county as well as the expense and delay of petitioning to have the matter transferred. On the other hand, parties with no issues relating to the divorce may benefit from a cheaper filing fee by choosing a county other than their own for the divorce action.

Click here to read more on Divorce.

by

Pre-Nuptial Agreements

Given the statistics on the likelihood of divorce, many couples are opting to enter into pre-nuptial agreements to protect their rights in the event of a divorce. A pre-nuptial agreement is a private contract between the parties entered into prior to their marriage that outlines how assets and debts will be handled if the parties subsequently divorce. A basic and straight-forward pre-nuptial agreement would provide that each party retains anything they acquire in their own name and that anything marital or acquired jointly will be divided based on the divorce laws. A pre-nuptial agreement may also provide for an increasing amount of support to a spouse based on the number of years married or number of children produced. Alternatively, one spouse may be required to pay support as a punishment if they commit adultery during the marriage.

Since a pre-nuptial agreement is a contract is must meet several requirements to be held valid. One, there must be a full and fair disclosure of the financial resources/existing assets by both parties. If there is not such a disclosure, there must be a provision in the agreement providing that the parties voluntarily and expressly waived the right to disclosure. Two, it must be clear that both parties voluntarily entered the agreement. For these reason, the agreement should be signed well before the wedding to avoid any challenge to the agreement that a party was forced to sign because the wedding date was fast approaching. Finally, steps should be taken to make sure the agreement is not invalidated on the basis of fraud, duress and/or misrepresentation. Any challenge under the above listed causes of action will require a fact-based analysis with the standard being a preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. Overall, it is difficult to overturn a pre-nuptial agreement once entered into, however, it can provide some peace of mind if the parties do not end up living happily ever after.

Learn more on Prenuptial Agreements

 

by

Social Security Benefits in Divorce

A party in divorce may be entitled to collect social security benefits based on the earnings history of their spouse. Your spouse must already be at least 62 years old and receiving their social security benefits. Several conditions must be met before a party is entitled to their spouse’s benefits. First, you must have been married for at least ten years. Second, you must presently be at least 62 years old. There is an exception to the age requirement if your spouse is deceased in which case you can start collecting at 60 years old or 50 years old if disabled. Third, your social security benefits based on your earnings history must be less than your spouse’s benefits. You can only receive one social security benefit and should opt for whichever is higher. Finally, you cannot be presently married. There are exceptions to this rule as well. Specifically, remarriage is permissible if it occurs after age 60 or age 50 if disabled.

Be advised that even if you elect to receive benefits based on your spouse’s social security rather than your own, it will not in any way reduce your spouse’s benefits. You spouse will continue to receive the full amount of his or her benefit. In addition, you would be entitled to receive 50% of the benefit your spouse is receiving. If, however, your spouse pre-deceases you, you are then entitled to receive 100% of your spouse’s benefits. Further, any children under 18 at the time of your spouse’s death would be entitled to benefits based on your spouse’s benefits as well.

Divorcing After 50

by