Tag Archive for: appeal

Finality in Divorce

Sections 3331-3333 of the Divorce Code discuss the potential to review a divorce after a decree has been issued. The general policy is in favor of finality to avoid endless litigation, however certain circumstances will warrant reconsideration. First, parties should act as timely as possible. Section 3331 limits attacks on decrees. An appeal is the only option where one of the parties has died. There is a two year limit to take action specifically where the party questioning the decree had knowledge of the circumstances supporting the attack and failed to timely take action. Section 3332 outlines when a decree may be opened or vacated. In general, there is a thirty day time limit to request review of an Order pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 5505.

Section 3332 also draws a distinction between intrinsic fraud and extrinsic fraud. Intrinsic fraud must be alleged within the thirty day time limit whereas extrinsic fraud has a time limit of five years. Intrinsic fraud refers to an issue that was adjudicated. Extrinsic fraud refers to a situation where a party was precluded from having their fair chance at adjudication altogether. Examples of extrinsic fraud include where a party was kept unaware of the proceedings or by promise of a false compromise. There is no extrinsic fraud where the party had ample opportunity to object earlier in the proceedings and simply failed to do so.

Click here to read more on divorce.

by

Common Law Marriage

Common law marriage could be established in Pennsylvania up until January 1, 2005. All common law marriages established before that date are recognized as valid marriages. In order to establish a common law marriage, the parties must have exchanged words of intent to be married and held themselves out to their community as being married. Often, the parties also lived together for some length of time. While this is not a requirement in and of itself, it plays into the couple having held themselves out as married. Once a common law marriage is established, it can only be resolved by divorce just as with any regular marriage. Pennsylvania is presently in a transition stage in that while no new common law marriages can be created, there are still inquiries into whether they were previously created and accordingly, how the ancillary issues should be handled, i.e. divorce versus civil suit.

Moser v. Renninger, 2012 PA Super 59 (2011) discusses the procedure and timing for establishing or denying common law marriage.

In Moser v. Renninger, Wife filed a divorce complaint on November 19, 2010 stating that her and Husband had entered into a valid common law marriage in 1985. Husband subsequently filed an Action for Declaratory Relief asking the court to declare that no common law marriage existed. After an evidentiary hearing on the matter the court held a common law marriage was in fact established on June 8, 1985. Husband immediately sought to appeal the court’s finding that common law marriage existed. Husband’s appeal was denied on the basis that it was premature. Because the issue of whether there was a common law marriage was raised in the context of the divorce, the court found that Husband could not file an appeal until the divorce matter is final. If, however, the issue of common law marriage had been addressed separately, an appeal following the decision would be appropriate as the entire matter would be concluded.

This method may be considered favorable in that it allows the entirety of the divorce to be resolved without the delay and disruption of an appeal. On the other hand, it may be a waste of the court’s time to resolve the divorce and all related issues if their ruling that the parties were in fact common law married is later overturned.

by