Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3506 (2026)
Statement of reasons for distribution.
✓ 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
§ 3506. Statement of reasons for distribution.
In an order made under this chapter for the distribution of property, the court shall set forth the percentage of distribution for each marital asset or group of assets and the reason for the distribution ordered.
(Nov. 29, 2004, P.L.1357, No.175, eff. 60 days)
2004 Amendment. Section 5(11) of Act 175 provided that the amendment shall apply to all orders made on or after the effective date of par. (11).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2021 · leading case: Misitano, M. v. Misitano, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
Misitano, M. v. Misitano, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion when it failed to grant Husband’s exception objecting to the Divorce Master failing to provide a statement of reasons, or other explanation, for the recommendation of distribution as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506 and relied…”
Thomas, R. v. Thomas, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “§ 3502(a) equitable distribution factors and failed to set forth the percentage of distribution for each marital asset pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506. Upon review, we vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.”
Ceballos, M. v. Ceballos-Ramos, Y. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). “However, Husband claims that some of the court’s findings and the basis for its conclusions are not supported by evidence in the record.”
Poist, S. v. Poist, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “§ 3502 to divide the marital estate in an equitable manner and to give a reasoned explanation for that division, as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506? 3. Did the trial court err by failing to give any consideration in the equitable distribution process to [Husband’s] evidence of…”
Goodwin, J. v. Goodwin, S., 2020 Pa. Super. 284 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “In his second issue, Husband avers the trial court erred in failing to designate “a percentage to the equitable distribution scheme in its [July 22, 2019,] order,” as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506. Husband’s Brief at 55.”
Goodwin, J. v. Goodwin, S., 244 A.3d 453 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “In his second issue, Husband avers the trial court erred in failing to designate “a percentage to the equitable distribution scheme in its [July 22, 2019,] order,” as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 3506. Husband’s Brief at 55.”
Bartko, D. v. Bartko, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “23 Pa.C.S. § 3506 (emphasis added). - 17 - J-A19010-14 However, it appears that Husband’s main point of contention is that no reasons were articulated by the court for the distribution of the escrowed funds as required by section 3506.”
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.