Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3105 (2026)

Effect of agreement between parties.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 3105. Effect of agreement between parties.

(a) Enforcement.--A party to an agreement regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the court under this part, whether or not the agreement has been merged or incorporated into the decree, may utilize a remedy or sanction set forth in this part to enforce the agreement to the same extent as though the agreement had been an order of the court except as provided to the contrary in the agreement.

(b) Certain provisions subject to modification.--A provision of an agreement regarding child support, visitation or custody shall be subject to modification by the court upon a showing of changed circumstances.

(c) Certain provisions not subject to modification.--In the absence of a specific provision to the contrary appearing in the agreement, a provision regarding the disposition of existing property rights and interests between the parties, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees or expenses shall not be subject to modification by the court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 63 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: McMahon v. McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McMahon v. McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 8× “Having said the above, it becomes evident that the majority went beyond what was necessary or permissible in deciding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, Effect of agreement between *606 parties, was applicable.”

Rosiecki, S. v. Rosiecki, W., 231 A.3d 928 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 4× “See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(c); see also Egan, 125 A.”

Chen v. Chen, 893 A.2d 87 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 4× “2d at 412 (noting that support provisions of separation agreements made prior to the enactment of 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105 (providing for modification of agreed upon levels of support upon a showing of changed circumstances) could be modified upward but could not be reduced).”

Hanrahan, M., Aplt. v. Bakker, J., 186 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2018). · cites it 2× “” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(c). [J-82-2017] - 39 The parties’ PSA provided the following relevant language concerning the award of attorney’s fees: It is the specific agreement and intent of the parties that a breaching or wrongdoing party shall bear the burden and obligation of any and…”

Sorace v. Sorace, 655 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 6× “The amendments to the Divorce Code in 1988 contained in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, corrected and solidified the law as reinterpreted and modified by the legislature as a result of developments that occurred in cases decided since 1980.”

Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “Nicholson addressed whether a child support provision *1274 contained in a property settlement agreement that was incorporated, but not merged, into a divorce decree prior to the effective date of 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, may be subject to a reduction by the trial court.”

Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 3105, 3323(c). [3] *1120 Appellee filed a short-form Complaint in Divorce.”

McClain v. McClain, 872 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “See also 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105 (stating that an agreement providing for child support, visitation or custody, regardless of whether it has merged or been incorporated into the decree, “shall be subject to modification by the court upon a showing of changed circumstances”).”

Nicholson v. Combs, 703 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1997). · cites it 2× “206, § 6, effective in 90 days, reenacted as 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(a), which provides for enforcement of non-merged agreements, “to the same extent as though the agreement had been an order of the court except as provided to the contrary in the agreement.”

Peck v. Peck, 707 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(a). However, “[t]he amendment neither adds to nor subtracts from the substantive rights of the parties under their [property settlement agreement]; rather, it merely provides an additional procedural vehicle for the enforcement of their respective rights…”

Morgante, S. v. Morgante, K., 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “Husband acknowledges that he is not challenging the constitutionality of 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(c) or 10 U.S.C. § 1408 , only the trial court's application of those statutes to the case at hand.”

Samii v. Samii, 847 A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). “¶ 8 Mother’s petition alleged a change in circumstances based on an increase in Father’s income, 1 a decrease in her income, and an increase in the child’s expenses.”

Show all 63 citing cases →

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3105(B) — 1 case

McMichael v. McMichael, 700 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3105(a) — 24 cases

Sorace v. Sorace, 655 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “The amendments to the Divorce Code in 1988 contained in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, corrected and solidified the law as reinterpreted and modified by the legislature as a result of developments that occurred in cases decided since 1980.”

Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “Nicholson addressed whether a child support provision *1274 contained in a property settlement agreement that was incorporated, but not merged, into a divorce decree prior to the effective date of 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, may be subject to a reduction by the trial court.”

K.A.R. v. T.G.L., 107 A.3d 770 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).

Nicholson v. Combs, 703 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1997). “206, § 6, effective in 90 days, reenacted as 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(a), which provides for enforcement of non-merged agreements, “to the same extent as though the agreement had been an order of the court except as provided to the contrary in the agreement.”

Polito v. Polito, 655 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3105(b) — 16 cases

Brangs v. Brangs, 595 A.2d 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).

McGinnis v. McGinnis, 654 A.2d 563 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).

Patterson v. Robbins, 703 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3105(c) — 11 cases

McMahon v. McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “Having said the above, it becomes evident that the majority went beyond what was necessary or permissible in deciding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105, Effect of agreement between *606 parties, was applicable.”

Rosiecki, S. v. Rosiecki, W., 231 A.3d 928 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(c); see also Egan, 125 A.”

Hanrahan, M., Aplt. v. Bakker, J., 186 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2018). “” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(c). [J-82-2017] - 39 The parties’ PSA provided the following relevant language concerning the award of attorney’s fees: It is the specific agreement and intent of the parties that a breaching or wrongdoing party shall bear the burden and obligation of any and…”

Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi, 100 A.3d 587 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).

— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3105(e) — 1 case

Peck v. Peck, 707 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(a). However, “[t]he amendment neither adds to nor subtracts from the substantive rights of the parties under their [property settlement agreement]; rather, it merely provides an additional procedural vehicle for the enforcement of their respective rights…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.