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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTEquitable Distribution of Police Pension. [Endy v.Endy, 412 Pa. Super. 398, 603 A.2d 641 (1992)].13(2):2-3.ERISA Preempts Pennsylvania Law When It Comes toEmployer Sponsored Plans Designating Ex-Spouses asBeneficiaries. [In Re Estate of Paul J. Sauers, 971 A.2d1265 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Carla Marino. 30:148-50.ERISA Trumps State Law. [Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532U.S. 141, 149 L.Ed.2d 264, 121 S. Ct. 1322 (2001)].David I. Grunfeld. 23:37-38.Forfeiture of Marital Interest in Pension Too Harsh aRemedy for Failure to Satisfy Court’s QDRORequirements. [Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super.2007)]. Maris J. Weiner. 29:133-34.Future Social Security Earnings can Offset the Value ofCivil Service Pensions. [Rimel v. Rimel, 913 A.2d 289(Pa. Super. 2006)]. Julia Swain. 29:17-18.Husband's Pension Valuation is No Sweeter the SecondTime Around, the Superior Court Judges Declare.[Miller v. Miller, 421 Pa. Super. 23, 617 A.2d 375(1992)]. 14(2):4-5.Husband's Police Pension is Subject to Attachment.[Young v. Young, 507 Pa. 40, 488 A.2d 264 (1985)].6:700-1.Marital Property: CSRS Pension. [Cornbleth v.Cornbleth, 397 Pa. Super. 421, 580 A.2d 369 (1990)].11:182-83.McFadden v. McFadden: A Double Dip at the PensionWell. Patricia G. Miller. [McFadden v. McFadden, 386Pa. Super. 506, 563 A.2d 180 (1989)]. 10(4):110-11.Military Pensions Revisited with Respect to PersonalJurisdiction. [Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448, 768A.2d1112 (2001)]. Howard M. Spizer. 23:34-37.No "Dueling Experts" Needed to Ascertain PlainMeaning of Annuity Provision. [Krizovensky v.Krizovensky, 425 Pa. Super. 204, 624 A.2d 638(1993)]. 14(4):11-13.An Old Name from the Past-the Gordon Case. [Gordonv. Gordon, 436 Pa. Super. 126, 647 A.2d 530 (1994)].16(4):13.Pennsylvania’s Beneficiary Re-DesignationStatute–Does ERISA Preempt? [In Re Estate of Paul J.Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. SariniaM. Feinman. 31:91-92.Pension Benefits as Marital Property. [Miller v. Miller,395 Pa. Super. 255, 577 A.2d 205 (1990)]. 11:179-80.Pension Distribution: Credits Earned After Separation.[Holland v. Holland, 403 Pa. Super. 116, 588 A.2d 58(1991)]. 12(3):6-7.Pension Distribution Follows Berrington Analysis.[Katzenberger v. Katzenberger, 534 Pa. Super. 419,633 A.2d 602 (1993)]. 15(1):5.Pension Plans Acquired During Marriage are MaritalProperty. [King v. King, 22 Erie Co. L. J. 46 (1982)].4:422-26.Pension Valuation Case. [King v. King, 332 Pa. Super.526, 481 A.2d 913 (1984)]. 5:643-45.Pension Valuation: Equitable Distribution. [Zollars v.Zollars, 397 Pa. Super. 204, 579 A.2d 1328 (1990)].11:194-95.Pensions, Vested or Non-Vested, Matured orUnmatured, are Marital Property. [Braderman v.Braderman, 339 Pa. Super. 185, 488 A.2d 613 (1985)].6:716-19.Police Department Pension is not Subject to AttachmentPursuant to Equitable Distribution Order. [Young v.Young, 320 Pa. Super. 269, 467 A.2d 33 (1983)].4:481-83.Post-Divorce Increase in Pension Subject to Division.[Smith v. Boulding, 938 A.2d 276 (Pa. 2007)].Catherine McFadden. 30:76-79.Post-Separation Act 9 Enhancements to Marital StateEmployee Retirement System Benefits Found not toConstitute Marital Property Under new Section3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code. [Smith v. Smith, 881A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Darren J. Holst. 28:3-5.Property Settlement Agreement Interpreted to Grant86