index to the pennsylvania family lawyer volumes 1-32 compiled by ...

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTEquitable Reimbursement Camouflaged as Alimony.[Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa. Super. 113, 576 A.2d 1000(1990)]. 11:156-57.Equitable Reimbursement When Marital Assets Just arenot Enough. [Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d. 882 (Pa. Super.2005)]. Sarinia A. Michaelson. 28:15-16.Expectancies are Relevant Factors to be Considered inEquitable Distribution. [Moritz v. Moritz, Allegh. Co.,FD 82-07811 (1984)]. 5:630-32.Expectancies not Relevant in Equitable DistributionCases. [Hutnik v. Hutnik, 369 Pa. Super. 263, 535 A.2d151 (1987)]. 9:2-3.Failure to Value a Marital Asset. [Ratarsky v. Ratarsky,383 Pa. Super. 445, 557 A.2d 83 (1989)]. 10:90-91.Husband’s Proceeds from a Workers’ CompensationCompromise and Release Agreement Approved PostSeparation (for a Pre-Separation Injury) were notMarital Property Subject to Equitable Distribution.[Pudlish v. Pudlish, 796 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2002)].Julia Swain. 24:36-38.Increase in Value of Separate Property Attributable toMarital Contributions is Marital Property. [Birkel v.Birkel, 3 A.C.D.D. 230 (1982)]. 4:436-38.Increased Earnings Capacity is Neither Real NorPersonal Property. [Hodge v. Hodge, 327 Pa. Super.151, 486 A.2d 401 (1984)]. 6:668-73.Is 50/50 an Appropriate Starting Point? Wife AwardedShare of Husband's Pension. [Martin B. v. Jane B., 1A.C.D.D. 199 (1981)]. 3:269-70.Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, at Least for UntimelyFiled Equitable Distribution Request. [Justice v. Justice,417 Pa. Super. 581, 612 A.2d 1354 (1992)]. 13(5):7-8.Lottery Ticket Proceeds and Equitable Distribution.[Nufher v. Nufher, 410 Pa. Super. 380, 599 A.2d 1348(1991)]. 13(1):3.Meretricious Relationship and Equitable Distribution.[Robertson v. Davis, 397 Pa. Super. 292, 580 A.2d 39(1990)]. 11:201.No 50-50 Starting Point Presumption Exists Under theDivorce Code. [Frantangelo v. Frantangelo, 360 Pa.Super. 487, 520 A.2d 1195 (1987)]. 8:952-56.Order in Aid of Execution on Behalf of Creditor TakesPrecedence Over Subsequent Equitable DistributionOrder in Favor of Wife. [Livingston v. Unis, 659 A.2d606 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)]. 17(4):4-5.Potential Tax Liability: Equitable Distribution Award.[Hovis v. Hovis, 518 Pa. 137, 541 A.2d 13478 (1988)].9:20-21.Present Value Required in Valuing Marital Assets.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534 (1988)].9:32.[A Recent Equitable Distribution Decision]. Hughes v.Hughes, 108 Montgomery Co. L. R. 360 (1981)].2:155-57.Review by Pennsylvania Supreme Court of EquitableDistribution Order. [Cooper v. Cooper, 8 W.D. 1992(March 11, 1994)]. 15(2):2-3.Settlement Proceeds: Equitable Distribution. [Kozich v.Kozich, 397 Pa. Super. 463, 580 A.2d 390 (1990)].11:200.Superior Court Declares Trial Court did not ViolateDue Process Clause by not Considering MaritalMisconduct in Equitable Distribution Issues. [Witcherv. Witcher, 433 Pa. Super. 14, 639 A.2d 1187 (1994)].15(3):2-4.Trial Court's Inadvertent Delayed Filing ofReconsidered Equitable Distribution Order CausesAppeal to Fail. [Weinzetl v. Weinzetl, 452 Pa. Super.271, 681 A.2d 813 (1996)]. Linda C. Liechty. 19:5-6.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION-BUSINESSThe Application of the Doctrine of In Custodia Legis toProtect Marital Property fromTax Sale During thePendency of Equitable Distribution. [City of Easton v.Marra, 862 A.2d 170 (Pa. Commw. 2004)]. ChristinaM. DeMatteo. 27:8-9.Business Valuation–Increase in Value of NonmaritalAsset–Are We Comparing Apples to Oranges?83