Reber v. Reiss
42 A.3d 1131
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Husband and Wife married on October 12, 2002; IVF in 2004 produced thirteen pre-embryos from Husband's sperm and Wife's eggs.
- Pre-embryos were cryopreserved and stored with RSI; Wife later diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent cancer treatment.
- Wife alleges infertility post-treatment; Wife seeks all thirteen pre-embryos for implantation; both parties agree pre-embryos are marital property subject to equitable distribution.
- Husband filed for divorce in 2006; he formed a relationship with another woman and a biological son was born in 2008.
- Trial master recommended awarding pre-embryos to Husband to destroy them; trial court instead awarded them to Wife after balancing interests.
- This appeal challenges the trial court’s balancing approach and the disposition of the pre-embryos under Pennsylvania law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to resolve pre-embryo disposition on divorce | Husband contends balancing approach misapplied; requests destruction of embryos. | Wife argues balancing approach appropriate given inability to procreate without embryos. | Balancing approach applied; weight favors Wife. |
| Effect of three-year storage destruction clause | Three-year destruction provision should control disposition. | No consent to destruction; storage contract does not bind parties to destroy embryos at three years. | Three-year clause not controlling; no agreement to destruction. |
| Wife's biological procreation capability as basis for disposition | Unknown if Wife can procreate biologically; embryos are not necessary for Wife's treatment. | Wife cannot have biological children without embryos; embryos are her only viable path to genetic parenthood. | Wife's need to procreate through these embryos supports award to Wife. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554 (1998) (consent to destroy or donate not required when no agreement)
- A.Z. v. B.Z., 431 Mass. 150 (2000) (separation differs from divorce; consent ambiguous; not enforceable)
- In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa 2003) (contemporaneous mutual consent approach violated public policy)
- Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992) (balancing interests framework in pre-embryo disputes)
- J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9 (2001) (wife's right not to procreate outweighs husband’s wants; balancing)
- Kesler v. Weniger, 744 A.2d 794 (Pa. Super. 2000) (private agreements on child support may be enforceable if fair)
- Roberts v. Furst, 385 Pa. Super. 530 (1989) (precludes binding a child to support commitments absent clear agreement)