Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hodge v. Hodge

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 29, 1986No. 50 and 51 M.D. Appeal Docket 1985Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHutchinson, Justice

I concur in the result Mr. Justice Zappala reaches in Part I of his opinion, which states that a medical license acquired during a marriage and the increased earning capacity arising therefrom do not constitute marital property or an otherwise divisible asset of the marriage subject to equitable distribution. Analysis of Chapters 4 (Property Rights) and 5 (Alimony and Support) of our Divorce Code1 convinces me that the legislature did not intend a medical license or resultant increased earning capacity to be considered such an asset. Instead, the legislature provided that “[t]he contribution…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bacchetta v. BacchettaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Remick v. RemickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources v. Butler County Mushroom FarmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Hess v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Lehmicke v. LehmickeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API