Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ratony Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1971No. Appeal, 28Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

I am compelled to dissent for three reasons. In the first place, I am unable to accept the majority’s view that Julia and Alexander Ratony mutually intended the document signed on December 11, 1941, to be a waiver and a release of Mrs. Ratony’s statutory interest in her husband’s estate. Secondly, I think the agreement should be held void and unenforceable for reasons of public policy. Finally, the agreement is invalid for want of consideration.

The majority opinion ignores some of the most fundamental principles underlying our domestic relations law.…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CasperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Zlotziver v. ZlotziverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Lindenfelser v. LindenfelserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Hillegass EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  5. Kaufmann EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

23 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