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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTWife Share of Pension Rights Accruing After Divorce.[Matlock v. Matlock, 444 Pa. Super. 507, 664 A.2d 551(1995)]. 17(5):5.PSA Prevents Reduction of Wife’s Share of MilitaryPension. [Adams v. Adams, 725 A.2d 824 (Pa. Super.1999)]. Catherine M. McFadden. 21:71-73.Significance of Retirement Date in Pension Valuation.[DeMarco v. DeMarco, 787 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Super.2001)]. Julie A. Auerbach and William E. Ehrich. 24:8-9.State Employees Pension Contributions in Lieu ofSocial Security are not Marital Property Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Schneeman v. Schneeman, 420Pa. Super. 65, 615 A.2d 1369 (1992)]. 14(2):2-3.Superior Court Compares and Contrasts DefinedBenefit Plans and Defined Contributions Plans.[Paulone v. Paulone, 473 Pa. Super. 130, 649 A.2d 691(1994)]. 16(5):8-10.Supreme Court's Change in Pension Valuation forEquitable Distribution Causes Dates for Valuation tobe"Carved in Sand". [Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa.393, 633 A.2d 589 (1993)]. 15(1):2-4.Swain, Julia. Future Social Security Earnings can Offsetthe Value of Civil Service Pensions. [Rimel v. Rimel,913 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:17-18.Terms of Settlement Agreement Override Case LawRegarding Pension Valuation Date. [Bianchi v. Bianchi,859 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Mindi J. Hodge andRandi J. Silverman. 26:108-9.Valuing a Pension–New Jersey Court Uses "TotalOffset Method". [Dipietro v. Dipietro, 183 N. J. Super.69, 443 A.2d 244 (1981)]. 3:324-27.Vested and Non-Vested Pensions are Marital Property.[Kalinoski v. Kalinoski, Butler Co. (1982)]. 4:394-99.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–STOCKOPTIONSRuling fromPA Superior Court Determines When StockOptions Constitute Marital Property. [MacAleer v.MacAleer, 725 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. David J.Draganosky. 21:38-40.Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Treatment of UnvestedStock Options. [Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 769 A.2d1165 (2001)]. Sophie P. Paul and Gerald L. Shoemaker.23:32-34.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–WAGEATTACHMENTSAttachment of Wages: an Analysis. [Wilcox v. Wilcox,394 Pa. Super. 119, 575 A.2d 127 (1990)]. 11:159-60.Enforcement of Equitable Distribution: No WageAttachment. [Laughlin v. Laughlin, 372 Pa. Super. 24,538 A.2d 927 (1988)]. 9:21.Wage Attachment or Equitable Distribution Orders.[Laughlin v. Laughlin, 525 Pa. 141, 578 A.2d 922(1990)]. 11:183-84.EVIDENCEChange in Domicile Must be Proven by Clear andConvincing Evidence. [Bell v. Bell, 326 Pa. Super. 237,473 A.2d 1069 (1984)]5:555-59.Child Victim Exception in the Hearsay Rule. [In theInterest of Tina K. v. Montgomery County Office ofChildren and Youth, 390 Pa. Super. 94, 568 A.2d 210(1990)]. 11:137.Hearsay Exception: Unavailability for Trial. [Corl v.Kacmar, 391 Pa. Super. 376, 571 A.2d 417 (1990)].11:145.Hearsay Statements in Sexual Abuse Case.[Philadelphia County Department of Human Services,Division of Children and Youth v. Com.,Department ofPublic Welfare, 135 Pa. Comwlth. 542, 581 A.2d 704(1990)]. 12(1):8-9.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights: CourtAdopts "Clear and Convincing Evidence" Standard.[Petition for Involuntary Termination of ParentalRights, Appeal of G.J.A., 304 Pa. Super. 21, 450 A.2d80 (1982)]. 3:361-62.Mass Media Expert not an Expert to Make Physical andPsychological Conclusions from Frequent Visits to87