Legal Opinion · Dissent

Slomski v. Thermoclad Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 2009No. 5 & 6 WAP 2009Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

As a threshold matter, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the change of beneficiary accomplished by Rita Slomski was a “retirement plan transaction” for purposes of Section 5602(a) of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5602(a)(18). Nevertheless, I do not believe this conclusion alone warrants a reversal of the Superior Court’s order. Furthermore, given the limited nature of the allocatur grant, if the Court is to proceed to address the questions which I believe are dispositive, I believe it should issue a supplemental grant order. My reasoning follows.

By way…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of ReifsneiderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. In Re WeidnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Sexton v. CornettSupreme Court of Virginia · 2006
  4. Estate of Slomski v. Thermoclad Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. In Re Estate of SlomskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API