§ 3702. Alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and expenses.
(a) General rule.--In proper cases, upon petition, the court may allow a spouse reasonable alimony pendente
lite, spousal support and reasonable counsel fees and expenses. Reasonable counsel
fees and expenses may be allowed pendente lite, and the court shall also have authority
to direct that adequate health and hospitalization insurance coverage be maintained
for the dependent spouse pendente lite.
(b) Exception.--Except where the court finds that an order for alimony pendente lite or spousal support
is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, a party who has been convicted of committing
a personal injury crime against the other party shall not be entitled to spousal support
or alimony pendente lite. Any amount paid by the injured party after the commission
of the offense but before the conviction of the other party shall be recoverable by
the injured party upon petition.
(Dec. 16, 1997, P.L.549, No.58, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Mar. 24, 1998, P.L.204, No.36,
eff. imd.; Oct. 24, 2018, P.L.680, No.102, eff. 60 days)
1997 Amendment. Act 58 of 1997 was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1910.50(3),
as amended May 31, 2000, insofar as it is inconsistent with Rule No. 1910.20 relating
to the availability of remedies for collection of past due and overdue support.
Cross References. Section 3702 is referred to in section 3703 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
Cook, R. v. Cook, D., 186 A.3d 1015 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Cook, R. v. Cook, D., 186 A.3d 1015 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702. By way of background: [Alimony pendente lite ] is an order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce or annulment proceeding.”
Musko v. Musko, 697 A.2d 255 (Pa. 1997).
· cites it 4× “23 Pa.C.S. § 3702; DeMasi v. DeMasi, 408 Pa.”
Prol v. Prol, 840 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702, alimony pendente lite is allowable to either spouse during the pendency of the action.”
Llaurado, M. v. Garcia-Zapata, 223 A.3d 247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702(a). We will reverse a determination of counsel fees and costs only for an abuse of discretion.”
O'Connell v. O'Connell, 597 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
“This is not to be confused with 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702, Alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and expenses, which allows an award of counsel fees during the pendency of divorce and alimony proceedings.”
Sell v. Sell, 714 A.2d 1057 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
“In actuality, the court concluded that the award of fees was justified under either or both of the statutory provisions.”
Llaurado, M. v. Garcia-Zapata, J., 2019 Pa. Super. 338 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702(a). We will reverse a determination of counsel fees and costs only for an abuse of discretion.”
Logan, A. v. Thompson, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “" Cook, at 1028; 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702. IV. MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL 9 In response to this Court's order to submit aconcise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), Husband raised the following issues, which are repeated below verbatim.”
Goldblatt, B. v. Young, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702. By way of background: [Alimony pendente lite] is an order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce or annulment proceeding.”
Goldblatt, B. v. Young, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702. By way of background: [Alimony pendente lite] is an order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce or annulment proceeding.”
Ciardi, K. v. Ciardi, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“23 Pa.C.S. §§ 3702, 3103. A grant of APL by the trial court is not a matter of right to either party.”
McCleary, L. v. McCleary, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“As Wife correctly observes, unlike the statutory alimony factors which explicitly list marital misconduct as a factor the trial court may consider, the statutory provision regarding assignment of counsel fees does not mention marital misconduct.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3702(a) — 7 cases
Llaurado, M. v. Garcia-Zapata, 223 A.3d 247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702(a). We will reverse a determination of counsel fees and costs only for an abuse of discretion.”
Llaurado, M. v. Garcia-Zapata, J., 2019 Pa. Super. 338 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3702(a). We will reverse a determination of counsel fees and costs only for an abuse of discretion.”
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.