Legal Opinion · Dissent

Musko v. Musko

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 18, 1997No. 37 W.D.1996Published

1DissentCastille, Justice

The majority’s interpretation of the pre-nuptial agreement is contrary to this Commonwealth’s established law concerning contract interpretation. Accordingly, I must dissent as I disagree with this Court’s reversal of the Superior Court.

In Pennsylvania, prenuptial agreements are considered contracts and must be interpreted as such. Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162 (1990). When the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, its express terms will be given effect. Steuart v. McChesney, 498 Pa. 45, 444 A.2d 659 (1982). Where the terms of a contract are not clear, however, the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Steuart v. McChesneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Simeone v. SimeoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Minnotte AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Hutchison v. HutchisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

2 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