Legal Opinion · Dissent

Young v. Young

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 1984No. 4Published

1DissentPopovich, Judge

I disagree with the Majority that vested pension benefits derived from public funds in contradistinction to private funds are not accessible, i.e., subject to attachment, for purposes of equitable distribution under the Divorce Code of 1980. 23 Pa.S.A. § 101 et seq.

With the passage of the Divorce Code of 1980, the Legislature ushered in a new era in Pennsylvania regarding divorce. The vestiges of the prior divorce law, which made no provision for alimony and equitable distribution of property, were remedied. 23 Pa.S.A. §§ 401 & 504. Additionally, the Legislature delineated certain, specific…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Turner v. May Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Di Pietro v. Di PietroNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1982
  3. Giovannoni v. GiovannoniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API