Uneven Equitable Distribution in Pennsylvania

In divorce, many people expect that the property held in the marital estate will be divided 50/50 between the two parties, but that is not necessarily the case in Pennsylvania, where the court divides the assets held in the marital estate in a manner that is considered “equitable,” not necessarily equal.

In this article, we’ll discuss a real case in which the marital estate was not divided evenly; one litigant got more than the other.

Background of the case

In the aforementioned case, the dispute involved divorce proceedings for both parties, and as a result, the court had to make a ruling regarding the division of the couple’s marital assets. The case is similar to just about any divorce case in which the couple accrued property during the marriage. The court made the decision on the distribution plan, favoring the husband by awarding him 55 percent of the marital estate.

The wife contested the court’s ruling on the grounds that it was not fair to favor the husband by apportioning him a greater share of the marital estate. The case was finally reviewed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The appeal

In this case, the Superior Court in its review of the case underscored an important guideline under Pennsylvania family law: equitable distribution decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard on appeal. This is a stringent standard. It is not sufficient to show that the trial court might have decided differently, or that the appellee might have reached a different result. In order to reverse, it is necessary to show that the trial court decision was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, or that there was an error of law.

The Superior Court also reaffirmed that equitable distribution is something that is reviewed in its entirety as an overall system of distribution, rather than focusing on one particular asset or one particular line item in an equitable distribution case and arguing that it should have been distributed differently. There is an allowance for balancing considerations in an overall system of distribution, even if it results in an uneven allocation of certain assets individually

After examining all these aspects, the Superior Court found that the order for equitable distribution was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Therefore, the Superior Court affirmed an uneven distribution by the trial court.

Key takeaways

• Equitable does not mean equal. Pennsylvania courts can and do five more than 50 percent of the marital estate to one party when the statutory factors support it.
• An uneven split is not automatically reversible. However, even though a 45/55 split is not automatically improper if the court can justify why it’s fair.
• Appeals can be difficult. The abuse of discretion standard affords trial courts considerable flexibility, and appeals in equitable distribution cases will rarely be successful.

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Divorce Lawyer Today

The Law Office of Lauren H. Kane represents the interests of Philadelphia residents who are preparing for divorce. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

caselaw.findlaw.com/court/pa-superior-court/1551953.html