§ 5924. Spouses as witnesses against each other.
(a) General rule.--In a civil matter neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify
against each other.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in an action or proceeding:
(1) For divorce, including ancillary proceedings for the partition or division of property.
(2) For support or relating to the protection or recovery of marital or separate property.
(3) For custody or care of children, including actions or proceedings relating to visitation
rights and similar matters.
(4) Arising under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 61 (relating to protection from abuse).
(5) When a statute heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the action or proceeding
provides either expressly or by necessary implication that spouses may testify therein
against each other.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; Dec. 19, 1990, P.L.1240, No.206, eff.
90 days)
Cross References. Section 5924 is referred to in section 5931 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Spetzer, 813 A.2d 707 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 4× “§ 317, the predecessor to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(b)(1), which provides an exception in divorce proceedings to the general rule that in a civil matter neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify against each other.”
B.K. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(a). However, section 5924(b) provides, in pertinent part: (b) Exception.”
Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 633 A.2d 1074 (Pa. 1993).
· cites it 2× “This Court first determined that under section 5(c) the Act of May 23, 1887, predecessor of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(b)(1) [husband or wife competent to testify against spouse in divorce proceedings], the wife was "clearly competent to testify to anything she had seen," 170 Pa.”
Kurland v. Stolker, 533 A.2d 1370 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Stolker’s testimony was received, inspite of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924, which makes Mrs. Stolker incompetent to testify against her husband in a civil matter.”
Emmi v. DeAngelo, 261 F. Supp. 3d 556 (E.D. Pa. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5924 (“In a civil matter neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify against each other.”
T.D. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 54 A.3d 437 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“The ALJ overruled the objection based on the exception to spousal “incompetence” contained in Section 5924(a)(3) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(a)(3) which bars the privilege “in proceedings or actions .”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5924(a) — 2 cases
B.K. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(a). However, section 5924(b) provides, in pertinent part: (b) Exception.”
Kurland v. Stolker, 533 A.2d 1370 (Pa. 1987).
“Stolker’s testimony was received, inspite of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924, which makes Mrs. Stolker incompetent to testify against her husband in a civil matter.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5924(a)(3) — 1 case
T.D. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 54 A.3d 437 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“The ALJ overruled the objection based on the exception to spousal “incompetence” contained in Section 5924(a)(3) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(a)(3) which bars the privilege “in proceedings or actions .”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5924(b)(1) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Spetzer, 813 A.2d 707 (Pa. 2002).
“§ 317, the predecessor to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(b)(1), which provides an exception in divorce proceedings to the general rule that in a civil matter neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify against each other.”
Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 633 A.2d 1074 (Pa. 1993).
“This Court first determined that under section 5(c) the Act of May 23, 1887, predecessor of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(b)(1) [husband or wife competent to testify against spouse in divorce proceedings], the wife was "clearly competent to testify to anything she had seen," 170 Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5924(b)(3) — 1 case
B.K. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(a). However, section 5924(b) provides, in pertinent part: (b) Exception.”
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.