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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT[(Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860 A.2d 1056 (2004)].Loreen M. Burkett. 27:11-12.Buy/Sell Provisions of Shareholders' Agreement notBinding on Valuation in Terms of Agreement do notActually Reflect Current Value. [Butler v. Butler, 541Pa. 364, 663 A.2d 148 (1995)]. David L. Ladov.18(1):7, 18-20.Buy-Out is Only Ordered Where Distribution of Assetsis Economically Unwise. [Barletta v. Barletta, 506 Pa.404, 485 A.2d 752 (1984)]. 6:704-5.Distribution Order Giving Wife the Mining Equipmentand "The Shaft" Must be Revised. [Beener v. Beener,422 Pa. Super. 351, 619 A.2d 713 (1992)]. 14(2):13-15.Equitable Distribution Applies to Small Law Practice,Superior Court Declares. [Naddeo v. Naddeo, 426 Pa.Super. 131, 626 A.2d 608 (1993)]. 14(4):3-4.Even "Worthless" Stock Still Subject to "Buy-out"Valuation for Equitable Distribution. [Harasym v.Harasym, 418 Pa. Super. 486, 614 A.2d 742 (1992)].13(6):3-4.Husband's Payments for Purchase of Solely OwnedBusiness Held not Deductible from Income in SpousalSupport Case. [Lehman v. Lehman, 431 Pa. Super. 450,636 A.2d 1172 (1994)]. 15(2):9-10.Interpretation of the Barletta Decision. [Ryan v. Ryan,528 Pa. 186, 596 A.2d 140 (1990)]. 12(6):3-4.Law Partnership Agreement Binding on Court inDivorce Case. [McCabe v. McCabe, 525 Pa. 25, 575A.2d 85 (1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:142-43.Professionals' Business Interests and EquitableDistribution. [Buckl v. Buckl, 373 Pa. Super. 521, 542A.2d 65 (1988)]. 8:1006-8.Separation Date Value Used in Valuing ProfessionalPractice. [Oppenheim v. Oppenheim, Lehigh Co., 81-c-3083 (June 21, 1989)]. 10:89.Spouse-Owned Business More Likely to be Valued asof Date of Separation, not Equitable Distribution.[Benson v. Benson, 357 Pa. Super. 166, 515 A.2d 917(1993)]. 14(4):7-8.Superior Court Rules That Relevant Valuation Date forClosely-Held Business Interest Controlled Exclusivelyby One Party Post-Separation is Date of Distribution.[Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. AnnM. Funge. 28:96-97.Valuation of Closely Held Corporation. [Bowen v.Bowen, 96 N.j. 36, 473 A.2d 73 (N.J. 1984)]. 5:615-19.Value of Interest in Law Firm Controlled by PartnershipAgreement. [McCabe v. McCabe, Nos. 1353 & 1354Phil. 1986 (April 10, 1987)]. 8:995-97.Wife’s Business Interest Intended to be Her Asset/Husband’s Business Valuation not Based Upon Intentof Partnership Agreement. [Brody v. Brody, 758 A.2d1274 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Julie Auerbach. 23:7-8.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–GOODWILLCourt Holds Law Practice does not Have Goodwill.[Beasley v. Beasley, 115 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 99(1984)]. 5:612-14.Factors to be Considered in Determining If GoodwillExists. [Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa. Super. 483, 516A.2d 363 (1986)]. 7:908-12.Going Concern Value as Distinguished from Goodwillof Professional Practice is Marital Property. [Gaydos v.Gaydos, 143 P.L.J. 224 (Ally. Cy. (1995)]. Steven B.Schwartz. 18(2):9-11.Good Will has No Present Value for EquitableDistribution Purposes. [Demasi v. Demasi, 366 Pa.Super. 19, 530 A.2d 871 (1987)]. 8:988-95.Goodwill in a Closely Held Corporation. [Ullom v.Ullom, 384 Pa. Super. 514, 559 A.2d 555(1989)].10:90.Goodwill not Marital Property Subject to EquitableDistribution. [Beasley v. Beasley, 348 Pa. Super. 124,501 A.2d 679 (1985)]. 6:760-63.Goodwill of Accounting Practice Subject to EquitableDistribution, Superior Court Rules. [Butler v. Butler,423 Pa. Super. 530, 621 A.2d 659 (1993)]. 14(3):4-6.84