Understanding Equitable Distribution in Pennsylvania Family Law Cases

Pennsylvania is an equitable distribution state. While the courts will generally divide the marital estate 50/50, they sometimes favor one spouse by allotting them more of the marital estate than the other. There are several statutory factors that guide judges on equitable distribution. Suffice it to say, if one spouse would be left in a difficult place because of an even distribution, the courts will divide the marital estate unevenly. In this article, the Philadelphia family lawyers at the Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane will discuss a Pennsylvania family law case in which the judge decided to divide the marital estate unevenly.

Background of the case

In this case, the parties divorced after a long marriage. Their dispute primarily centered on how to divide their marital assets, including real property, retirement accounts, and other assets. The trial court, which considered the statutory equitable distribution factors described under 23 P.a.C.S. § 3502(a), awarded 60% of the estate to the wife, while the husband got 40% of the estate. The husband didn’t like this decision and appealed. He argued that the court erred by 1) awarding the wife a disproportionate share of the marital assets, and 2) improperly used pretrial sanction rules to influence the decision.

That gave rise to two questions:

• Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding the wife 60% of the marital estate?
• Did the trial court err by considering discovery sanctions (Pa.R.C.P. 1920.33) as part of the distribution decision?

The appeal

In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirmed some key principles about equitable distribution:

• Equitable does not equal “equal” – The court is not required to divide the marital estate 50/50. Instead, the statute directs courts to achieve “economic justice,” considering the circumstances of both spouses.
• Trial court discretion – The trial court generally has broad discretion to weigh the § 3502(a) factors, including length of the marriage, contributions of each party, economic disparity, future earning capacity, and the needs of dependent minors.
• 60/40 split justified – The record showed a significant economic disparity between the two spouses. In other words, one earned considerably more than the other. The trial court, thus, carefully addressed the statutory factors and explained its reasoning for awarding the wife a larger share.
• Limits on sanctions – Importantly, the Superior Court clarified that sanctions under Pa.R.C.P. 1920.33 (failing to comply with discovery or pretrial statements) cannot alter a party’s percentage share of the marital estate. Courts can impose fines, fees, or evidentiary consequences for noncompliance, but they must base the actual percentage split on the Divorce Code and case law. It cannot be a punishment.

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Divorce Lawyer Today 

The Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane represent the interests of Philadelphia couples who intend to divorce. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.