Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

DeMatteis v. DeMatteis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1990No. 1010Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTamilia, Judge

I concur in the Opinion by the majority to the point where it would hold that the trial court had the authority to exercise jurisdiction in enforcing the agreement in this case which was entered into prior to the amendment to the Divorce Code, 23 P.S. § 401.1(c). Sonder v. Sonder, 378 Pa.Super. 474, 549 A.2d 155 (1988), en banc, as acknowledged by the majority, required that this agreement be enforced as a contract but it then goes on to conclude, unnecessarily, for the purpose of the result, that section 401.1 may be retroactively applied to an agreement entered into prior to the amendments…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sonder v. SonderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Nessa v. NessaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API