Hodge v. Hodge
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Bacchetta v. BacchettaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Remick v. RemickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources v. Butler County Mushroom FarmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Hess v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Lehmicke v. LehmickeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.