Jackson, L. v. Jackson, N
166 A.3d 329
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Husband (Leo) filed for divorce in 1999 and included a claim for equitable distribution; Wife did not file an answer or counterclaim initially.
- In August 2001 Wife filed a Section 3301(d) counter-affidavit checking the box that she wished to claim economic relief but did not file a separate written claim for economic relief.
- Husband filed a Notice of Intention to Request Entry of a 3301(d) Divorce Decree; a bifurcated divorce decree was entered October 16, 2001 retaining the court’s jurisdiction over claims for which no final order had been entered.
- No inventories were filed and no equitable distribution proceedings were initiated at that time.
- Fourteen years later Wife sought equitable distribution of Husband’s pension, filed an inventory and a motion for special relief to freeze retirement assets; Husband argued Wife had waived her equitable-distribution claim.
- Trial court held Wife waived her claim; Superior Court vacated that ruling and remanded, holding Wife did not waive the right to pursue equitable distribution under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife waived equitable-distribution claims by failing to file a written economic-claims petition before entry of the divorce decree | Wife: Husband’s pending equitable-distribution claim and Wife’s 3301(d) counter-affidavit plus the bifurcated decree retaining jurisdiction preserved economic claims; no petition to open/vacate needed | Husband: Wife failed to file a written claim as required and therefore waived economic relief; long delay forecloses relief | Held: Reversed — Wife did not waive; a party’s timely request for equitable distribution (here Husband’s) and the court’s retained jurisdiction preserved the claim so Wife could pursue equitable distribution on remand |
| Whether laches barred Wife’s claim | Wife: Not applicable; trial court invoked laches only in a 1925 opinion and did not make laches the basis of its orders | Husband: Delay (14 years) prejudiced him, supporting waiver/laches | Held: Superior Court found no laches ruling in the orders and noted prejudice was not established; laches not the basis for affirmance |
| Whether both parties must separately file equitable-distribution petitions to preserve claims | Wife: Only one party’s timely request suffices; rules and case law do not require both parties to file | Husband: Both parties should have taken procedural steps (inventories, petitions) to preserve claims | Held: Superior Court: precedent and rules allow one party’s filed claim to support equitable distribution; both filings are not required |
| Whether a petition to open/vacate the decree was necessary before pursuing equitable distribution | Wife: Not necessary because the decree expressly retained jurisdiction over unresolved economic claims | Husband: Wife should have moved to open/vacate or otherwise complied with procedural rules earlier | Held: Superior Court: opening/vacating decree not required here; court should permit equitable-distribution process to proceed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Raines v. Raines, 149 A.3d 375 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review where legal question presented)
- Gee v. Gee, 460 A.2d 358 (Pa. 1983) (a petition for equitable distribution requires the court to dispose of the parties’ marital property rights)
- Brickus v. Dent, 5 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2010) (tribunal may grant relief to either party even without a cross-petition in analogous family-law context)
- Shoup v. Shoup, 364 A.2d 1319 (Pa. 1976) (court may enter judgment for plaintiff or defendant once issues are joined)
- Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988) (laches requires both delay and prejudice)