Getty, J. v. Getty, M., 221 A.3d 192

Husband (John Getty) and Wife married in 1980, separated in 1999; Wife filed for divorce in July 1999.
Trial court (Dec. 23, 2004) awarded Wife 65% of Husband’s City of Philadelphia deferred compensation plan; Husband moved for reconsideration to limit award to 65% of the marital portion.
On January 21, 2005 the court amended its order to award Wife 65% of the marital portion of the Plan; Husband had earlier filed (but did not perfect) an appeal that was later quashed by this Court.
The Pennsylvania legislature enacted 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(c) on January 28, 2005 to reverse Berrington and require pension valuation using salary at retirement (coverture fraction), applied to proceedings pending on or after that date.
In 2009 the trial court entered a QDRO signed by both parties that computed Wife’s share using Husband’s accrued monthly benefit as of his retirement.
In 2018 Husband sought declaratory judgment that Berrington (valuation at separation) should control because the case was not pending on January 28, 2005; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether 23 Pa.C.S. § 3501(c) applies (i.e., was the divorce proceeding "pending" on Jan. 28, 2005)	Case was final (no appeal from the Jan. 21, 2005 amended order), so Berrington controls and pension must be valued at separation salary	Case remained pending (Husband had appealed earlier and/or time to appeal from the Amended Order had not expired), so §3501(c) applies and pension is valued at retirement salary	§3501(c) applies: the matter was pending on Jan. 28, 2005 (appeal or statutory appeal period), so trial court correctly applied §3501(c) and denied declaratory relief
Whether Husband can invalidate or revisit the 2009 QDRO (mutual mistake / exception to coordinate-jurisdiction rule)	QDRO should be invalidated for mutual mistake; coordinate jurisdiction exception should allow revisiting	Issues were not preserved; QDRO stands	Both theories were not preserved in the 1925(b) statement and are waived

Berrington v. Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993) (held non-participant spouse’s share of deferred defined-benefit pension limited to salary at separation)
Smith v. Smith, 938 A.2d 246 (Pa. 2007) (discusses coverture fraction method for computing marital portion)
Getty v. Getty, 917 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashed Husband’s earlier appeal as inoperative after reconsideration)
Conway v. Conway, 209 A.3d 367 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explains QDRO purpose and limitations)
Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003) (explains the coordinate-jurisdiction rule within law-of-the-case doctrine)
Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2005) (addresses waiver of law-of-the-case claims)
School Dist. of Robinson Twp. v. Houghton, 128 A.2d 58 (Pa. 1956) (defines "pendency" as state of undetermined proceeding)