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.
§ 3333. Res judicata and estoppel.
The validity of a divorce or annulment decree granted by a court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter may not be questioned by a party who was subject to the personal
jurisdiction of the court except by direct appeal provided or prescribed by law. A
party who sought and obtained a decree, financed or agreed to its procurement, or
accepted a property settlement, alimony pendente lite or alimony pursuant to the terms
of the decree, or who remarries after the decree, or is guilty of laches, is barred
from making a collateral attack upon the validity of the decree unless, by clear and
convincing evidence, it is established that fraud by the other party prevented the
making of a timely appeal from the divorce or annulment decree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1993–1995 · leading case:
Curran v. Curran, 667 A.2d 1155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
Curran v. Curran, 667 A.2d 1155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3333 provides that the validity of a divorce or annulment decree cannot be attacked unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that fraud by the other party prevented the taking of a timely appeal from the divorce or annulment decree.”
Warner v. Warner, 19 Pa. D. & C.4th 378 (1993).
· cites it 3× “decree granted by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter may not be questioned by a party who was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court except by direct appeal provided or prescribed by law.”
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.