Pankoe, L. v. Pankoe, R.
222 A.3d 443
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Laura and Ryan Pankoe married in 2009 and separated November 8, 2016; Wife filed for divorce on September 27, 2017 alleging the marriage was irretrievably broken under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d).
- Wife filed the required affidavit and Husband was served; Husband answered contesting that the marriage was irretrievably broken and later raised constitutional and jurisdictional objections.
- A masters hearing was held on November 27, 2018; both parties testified and the Master recommended granting the divorce.
- Husband repeatedly filed exceptions, a motion for summary judgment, and constitutional challenges asserting § 3301(d) violates the Establishment Clause, free exercise and due process, and that decree entry was merely ministerial.
- The trial court held argument, found Wife met the § 3301(d) elements and that the marriage was irretrievably broken, and entered a divorce decree on March 25, 2019.
- Husband appealed pro se; the Superior Court reviewed de novo and affirmed the decree, rejecting Husband’s constitutional and ministerial-act claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pankoe) | Defendant's Argument (Pankoe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d) (no‑fault divorce) is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause / Free Exercise / Due Process | Section is valid; the state may regulate marriage and grant divorces; Wife satisfied statutory elements | § 3301(d) forces Husband to live under Wife's beliefs, infringes religious freedom, Establishment Clause, and due process | Rejected. § 3301(d) is constitutional; state regulation of civil marriage/divorce does not violate religious freedoms; precedent supports enforcement of civil divorce despite religious objections |
| Whether granting the divorce was a purely ministerial act (i.e., no judicial discretion) | The court held a hearing, reviewed testimony and the Master's report, and made an independent judicial determination | The affidavit/one‑year separation requirement turns decree entry into a ministerial act without judicial review | Rejected. The court must determine separation and irretrievable breakdown when contested; the trial court exercised proper judicial discretion after hearing evidence |
| Whether Wife met the statutory elements for a § 3301(d) divorce | Wife met the one‑year separation and irretrievable breakdown requirements | Husband conceded statutory elements were met (did not dispute separation period on appeal) | The court found statutory elements satisfied and granted the divorce |
Key Cases Cited
- Rich v. Acrivos, 815 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 2003) (de novo review standard in divorce appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Atwell, 785 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 2001) (properly enacted statutes are presumed constitutional; burden on challenger)
- Perlberger v. Perlberger, 626 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Super. 1993) (legislative intent and purpose behind no‑fault divorce provisions)
- Dukmen v. Dukmen, 420 A.2d 667 (Pa. Super. 1980) (background on prior fault‑based divorce law)
- Wikoski v. Wikoski, 513 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 1986) (civil divorce does not violate a third party’s free exercise rights; ecclesiastical marriage separate)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1947) (incorporation of the Establishment Clause to the states)
- Williams v. Williams, 543 P.2d 1401 (Okla. 1975) (distinction between civil dissolution and ecclesiastical vows)