Legal Opinion

Stoner v. Stoner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 2003No. 61 MAP 2002PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Chief Justice CAPPY.

We granted the petition for allowance of appeal to address whether a postnuptial agreement is a valid and enforceable contract even though it did not disclose the statutory rights to which a spouse is entitled. For the reasons herein, we conclude that such an agreement is enforceable, and accordingly, we reverse the order of the Superior Court. 1

Appellant Danny A. Stoner (“Husband”) and Appellee Mary Alice Stoner (“Wife”) were married on April 9, 1994, and separated in July 1999. This was not the first marriage for either party; no children were born of the union.

The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Buffalo Township v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Simeone v. SimeoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Hillegass EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  4. Ratony EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. In Re Estate of GeyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BradleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Bratton v. BrattonTennessee Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Reutzel v. DouglasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Bedrick v. BedrickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
  5. Stewart v. CombsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006

18 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