§ 3502. Equitable division of marital property.
(a) General rule.--Upon the request of either party in an action for divorce or annulment, the court
shall equitably divide, distribute or assign, in kind or otherwise, the marital property
between the parties without regard to marital misconduct in such percentages and in
such manner as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors. The court
may consider each marital asset or group of assets independently and apply a different
percentage to each marital asset or group of assets. Factors which are relevant to
the equitable division of marital property include the following:
(1) The length of the marriage.
(2) Any prior marriage of either party.
(3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability,
estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties.
(4) The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power
of the other party.
(5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income.
(6) The sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement,
insurance or other benefits.
(7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation
or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as
homemaker.
(8) The value of the property set apart to each party.
(9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.
(10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to
become effective.
(10.1) The Federal, State and local tax ramifications associated with each asset to be divided,
distributed or assigned, which ramifications need not be immediate and certain.
(10.2) The expense of sale, transfer or liquidation associated with a particular asset, which
expense need not be immediate and certain.
(11) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any dependent minor children.
(b) Lien.--The court may impose a lien or charge upon property of a party as security for the
payment of alimony or any other award for the other party.
(c) Family home.--The court may award, during the pendency of the action or otherwise, to one or both
of the parties the right to reside in the marital residence.
(d) Life insurance.--The court may direct the continued maintenance and beneficiary designations of existing
policies insuring the life or health of either party which were originally purchased
during the marriage and owned by or within the effective control of either party.
Where it is necessary to protect the interests of a party, the court may also direct
the purchase of, and beneficiary designations on, a policy insuring the life or health
of either party.
(e) Powers of the court.--If, at any time, a party has failed to comply with an order of equitable distribution,
as provided for in this chapter or with the terms of an agreement as entered into
between the parties, after hearing, the court may, in addition to any other remedy
available under this part, in order to effect compliance with its order:
(1) enter judgment;
(2) authorize the taking and seizure of the goods and chattels and collection of the rents
and profits of the real and personal, tangible and intangible property of the party;
(3) award interest on unpaid installments;
(4) order and direct the transfer or sale of any property required in order to comply
with the court's order;
(5) require security to insure future payments in compliance with the court's order;
(6) issue attachment proceedings, directed to the sheriff or other proper officer of the
county, directing that the person named as having failed to comply with the court
order be brought before the court, at such time as the court may direct. If the court
finds, after hearing, that the person willfully failed to comply with the court order,
it may deem the person in civil contempt of court and, in its discretion, make an
appropriate order, including, but not limited to, commitment of the person to the
county jail for a period not to exceed six months;
(7) award counsel fees and costs;
(8) attach wages; or
(9) find the party in contempt.
(f) Partial distribution.--The court, upon the request of either party, may at any stage of the proceedings enter
an order providing for an interim partial distribution or assignment of marital property.
(Nov. 29, 2004, P.L.1357, No.175, eff. 60 days)
2004 Amendment. Act 175 amended subsec. (a) and added subsec. (f). See section 5(8) and (9) of Act
175 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to applicability.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
171
cases (
42 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 5× “¶ 3 Initially, we first set out the facts we have gleaned from the Master’s report, 2 which contains a discussion of the evidence presented in the context of the eleven fac *776 tors provided in section 3502(a) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). 3 The parties, neither of…”
Smith v. Smith, 653 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Wife, on the other hand, argues that the trial court correctly applied the eleven factors found in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), and arrived at a fair and reasonable distribution of the marital property.”
Carney, K. v. Carney, D., 167 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(10.1), (10.2) (emphases added).”
Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/09, at 15.”
Perlberger v. Perlberger, 626 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) (emphasis added). With respect to alimony, section 3701 of the Divorce Code provides that the court may consider marital misconduct, along with all other *262 relevant factors, in determining whether alimony is necessary and in determining the nature,…”
Middleton v. Brown Middleton, 812 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 4× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). In assessing the propriety of an equitable distribution scheme, our standard of review is whether the trial court, by misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure, abused its discretion.”
Berrington v. Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993).
· cites it 4× “§ 102(a)(6)) and 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502 (formerly 23 P.S. § 401), the law that we develop must be governed by the import of our rulings.”
Wagoner v. Wagoner, 648 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1994).
· cites it 6× “The stock holdings which had not yet been distributed could have been examined, along with the payment order, to determine the viability of applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4), or some other section of the statute which would achieve the equity sought after by the court.”
Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). In assessing the propriety of an equitable distribution scheme, our standard of review is whether the trial court, by misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper *1185 legal procedure, abused its discretion.”
Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(10.1) and (10.2). Wife and Master Miller believe the tax ramifications and expense of sale can only be considered if Husband is likely to sell the marital interest in the insurance agency.”
Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). In assessing the propriety of an equitable distribution scheme, our standard of review is whether the trial court, by misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure, abused its discretion.”
Hess, R. v. Hess, J., 212 A.3d 520 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). Among other factors, Section 3502 requires a trial court to consider the "sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance, or other benefits.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a) — 90 cases
Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
“¶ 3 Initially, we first set out the facts we have gleaned from the Master’s report, 2 which contains a discussion of the evidence presented in the context of the eleven fac *776 tors provided in section 3502(a) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). 3 The parties, neither of…”
Middleton v. Brown Middleton, 812 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). In assessing the propriety of an equitable distribution scheme, our standard of review is whether the trial court, by misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper legal procedure, abused its discretion.”
Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). In assessing the propriety of an equitable distribution scheme, our standard of review is whether the trial court, by misapplication of the law or failure to follow proper *1185 legal procedure, abused its discretion.”
Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(10.1) and (10.2). Wife and Master Miller believe the tax ramifications and expense of sale can only be considered if Husband is likely to sell the marital interest in the insurance agency.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(1) — 9 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(10) — 4 cases
Smith v. Smith, 653 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
“Wife, on the other hand, argues that the trial court correctly applied the eleven factors found in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), and arrived at a fair and reasonable distribution of the marital property.”
Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
“¶ 3 Initially, we first set out the facts we have gleaned from the Master’s report, 2 which contains a discussion of the evidence presented in the context of the eleven fac *776 tors provided in section 3502(a) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). 3 The parties, neither of…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(11) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(3) — 4 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(4) — 1 case
Wagoner v. Wagoner, 648 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1994).
“The stock holdings which had not yet been distributed could have been examined, along with the payment order, to determine the viability of applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4), or some other section of the statute which would achieve the equity sought after by the court.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(5) — 4 cases
Perlberger v. Perlberger, 626 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) (emphasis added). With respect to alimony, section 3701 of the Divorce Code provides that the court may consider marital misconduct, along with all other *262 relevant factors, in determining whether alimony is necessary and in determining the nature,…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(6) — 3 cases
Hess, R. v. Hess, J., 212 A.3d 520 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). Among other factors, Section 3502 requires a trial court to consider the "sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance, or other benefits.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(7) — 11 cases
Berrington v. Berrington, 633 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1993).
“§ 102(a)(6)) and 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502 (formerly 23 P.S. § 401), the law that we develop must be governed by the import of our rulings.”
Smith v. Smith, 653 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
“Wife, on the other hand, argues that the trial court correctly applied the eleven factors found in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), and arrived at a fair and reasonable distribution of the marital property.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(9) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(a)(l) — 2 cases
Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/09, at 15.”
Smith v. Smith, 653 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
“Wife, on the other hand, argues that the trial court correctly applied the eleven factors found in 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), and arrived at a fair and reasonable distribution of the marital property.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(b) — 4 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(c) — 2 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(d) — 4 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e) — 21 cases
Wagoner v. Wagoner, 648 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1994).
“The stock holdings which had not yet been distributed could have been examined, along with the payment order, to determine the viability of applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(4), or some other section of the statute which would achieve the equity sought after by the court.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e)(1) — 2 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e)(3) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e)(4) — 3 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e)(7) — 10 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e)(8) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(e)(9) — 2 cases
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502(f) — 1 case
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.