Neyman, F. v. Buckley, F.
153 A.3d 1010
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- In 2002 Neyman and Buckley, Pennsylvania residents, entered a Vermont civil union and separated the same year; in 2014 Neyman filed in Philadelphia Family Court seeking dissolution under Pennsylvania’s Divorce Code, alleging six months’ Pennsylvania residency.
- Family Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning it could only dissolve "bonds of matrimony" and civil unions must be litigated in the Civil Trial Division; Neyman appealed.
- Vermont’s civil union statute (as enacted) conferred "all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities" as marriage and subjected civil unions to domestic relations law including dissolution.
- Federal and state law changed materially between 2002 and the appeal: DOMA, Windsor (2013) invalidating part of DOMA, Whitewood (M.D. Pa. 2014) enjoining Pennsylvania’s same-sex nonrecognition statutes, and Obergefell (2015) establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage and requiring interstate recognition of same-sex marriages.
- The Superior Court considered comity and Pennsylvania public policy, concluding Vermont civil unions are the functional equivalent of marriage for purposes of dissolution and that Family Court has equitable powers appropriate to resolve such cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court has jurisdiction to dissolve a Vermont civil union | Neyman: Family Court may dissolve under Divorce Code via comity because parties are Pennsylvania residents and civil union is equivalent to marriage | Buckley/Trial Ct: Divorce Code and rules permit divorce only "from the bonds of matrimony"; civil unions are distinct and belong in civil courts | Held: Family Court has jurisdiction; dismissal reversed and case remanded |
| Whether a Vermont civil union should be treated as a marriage for purposes of dissolution under the Divorce Code | Neyman: Vermont civil unions confer same rights/obligations as marriage; comity and uniformity require recognition and application of Divorce Code remedies | Buckley/Trial Ct: Vermont maintains civil unions as distinct from marriage; Pennsylvania law historically defined marriage as opposite-sex only | Held: A Vermont civil union is the functional equivalent of marriage for dissolution purposes; comity and changed constitutional law support recognition |
Key Cases Cited
- Magee v. Magee, 519 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 1987) (family court division has broad powers over family matters and equity remedies)
- In re Estate of Lenherr, 314 A.2d 255 (Pa. 1974) (policy favoring recognition of out-of-state marriages for uniformity of result)
- Schofield v. Schofield, 51 Pa. Super. 564 (Pa. Super. 1911) (general rule recognizing valid foreign marriages)
- Daven, Commonwealth v., 148 A. 524 (Pa. 1930) (comity permits application of another state's law when necessary for justice)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (struck down DOMA provisions denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages)
- Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania statutes prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional; permanent injunction)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere)
- Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Vermont constitutional basis for providing equal statutory rights to same-sex couples, prompting civil union statute)
- Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 912 A.2d 951 (Vt. 2006) (Vermont legislative intent to create legal equality between civil unions and marriage)
- Himmelberger v. Dept. of Revenue, 47 A.3d 160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (discussing equivalency of out-of-state civil unions to marriage but upholding nonrecognition under DOMA-era law)