Goodemote v. Goodemote
44 A.3d 74
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Goodemote and Vickie married in 1991 and separated in 2007, final divorce in 2011.
- Goodemote receives 20% VA disability benefits since 1969 stemming from Vietnam War injuries.
- During the first marriage (ended 1978), Goodemote opened an Investment Account in his name and funded it with VA payments from 1971 onward; pre-1978 deposits stopped.
- As of marriage in 1991, Investment Account value was $74,374.67; at separation in 2007 it stood at $158,932.52, with an $84,557.85 increase during the marriage.
- Trial master concluded the pre-marital VA deposits remained non-marital; the increase during marriage was not subject to equitable distribution.
- Trial court later held that VA payments converted to permanent investments in the Investment Account lost exempt status; growth during marriage was marital property and divisible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investment-account growth from VA deposits is marital property | Goodemote argues growth was from nonmarital funds and remained exempt under Porter. | Goodemote converted VA funds into permanent investments; growth is marital property under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501. | The increase is marital property; Vickie entitled to 50% of growth. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 370 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court (1962)) (veterans' benefits retain exemption if not converted into permanent investments)
- Lawrence v. Shaw, 300 U.S. 245 (Supreme Court (1937)) (exemption maintained if funds remain for support and not investments)
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (Supreme Court (1989)) (FSPA and waivers; disability benefits not equal to military retirement pay for marital division)
- Carney v. Carney, 449 Pa. Super. 179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (veterans' disability benefits generally not marital property)