- 12 -
distribution of marital property also abate upon the death of a
party to the divorce action. Reese v. Reese, 506 A.2d 471, 474
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1986); see Myers v. Myers, 580 A.2d 384, 385 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 1990) (ancillary economic claims abate). But see
Pastuszek v. Pastuszek, 499 A.2d 1069, 1070-1071 (Pa. Super. Ct.
1985) (no abatement if death occurs after a divorce decree, but
before the disposition of equitable claims).
Twenty-three Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. section 3707 (West 2001),
which codifies the doctrine of abatement, provides: “Upon the
death of the payee party, the right to receive alimony pursuant
to this chapter shall cease.”11 We note, however, that a
similar provision does not exist for the termination of child
support pursuant to a divorce proceeding. See Garney v. Estate
of Hain, 653 A.2d 21, 23 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). In Pennsylvania,
both parents are equally responsible for their children who are
unemancipated and under the age of 18. 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
11We have examined a state statute similar to 23 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. sec. 3707 (West 2001). See Ambrose v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-128 (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 4337 (West 1994) held to
terminate unallocated support payments upon death of custodial
spouse). But see Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-2 (Cal.
Fam. Code sec. 4337 does not automatically terminate unallocated
support payments upon death of payee custodial spouse).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011