Wolfe v. Wolfe

5 Citing cases

  1. Wareham by Trout v. Wareham

    716 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    However, the DiValerio court did not state that a remarriage would void a post-nuptial agreement where a reconciliation would not. The DiValerio analysis distinguishing separation agreements from post-nuptial agreements that are complete property settlements was later used in Wolfe v. Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 491 A.2d 281 (1985). In Wolfe, supra, wife argued that she and her husband continued their marital relationship after signing a post-nuptial agreement.

  2. Gula v. Gula

    551 A.2d 324 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    1980, April 1, P.L. 63, No. 26, ยง 103, effective in 90 days. Not only does the Act itself provide that it shall not affect a marital agreement entered into before the effective date of the Act, but the question was addressed in Wolfe v. Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 318, 491 A.2d 281, 283 (1985) which held that a valid post-nuptial agreement entered into prior to the effective date of the Divorce Code bars a claim for equitable distribution under the Code. In Wolfe, the wife claimed that the post-nuptial agreement was not complete because she could not waive her right to equitable distribution since the right had not yet come into existence.

  3. Bragan v. Bragan

    4 Va. App. 516 (Va. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times

    This same policy has prompted courts of other states to conclude that a release of claims contained in a separation agreement entered into prior to the enactment of an equitable distribution statute is a bar to relief under the new statute. See Boss v. Boss, 107 Misc.2d 984, 436 N.Y.S.2d 167 (1981); Morris v. Morris, 79 N.C. App. 386, 339 S.E.2d 424 (1986); Cator v. Cator, 70 N.C. App. 719, 321 S.E.2d 36 (1984); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 491 A.2d 281 (1985). In the separation agreement the parties sought to resolve their disputes concerning their marital property rights.

  4. Casper v. Casper

    359 Pa. Super. 559 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    In Casper v. Casper, 359 Pa. Super. 559, 519 A.2d 493 (1986), allocatur denied, 516 Pa. 631, 533 A.2d 90 (1987), we specifically stated "[o]ur courts have long recognized the difference between `court ordered support' and orders which include the terms of a mutually agreed upon support agreement."

    "Under prior law, the party seeking to nullify such an agreement had the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, either that a reasonable provision for the claiming spouse was not made at the time of the agreement or, in the absence of such a provision, a full and fair disclosure of the other spouse's worth had not been made." Wolfe v. Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 317, 491 A.2d 281, 283 (1985), citing RatonyEstate, 443 Pa. 454, 277 A.2d 791 (1971). Generally, such agreements are governed by the law of contracts.

  5. Laub v. Laub

    351 Pa. Super. 110 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)   Cited 15 times
    In Laub v. Laub, 351 Pa. Super. 110, 505 A.2d 290 (1986), this court upheld an antenuptial agreement in which the parties relinquished their rights to alimony and support.

    1980, April 2, P.L. 63, No. 26, ยง 103, effective in 90 days. Not only does the Act itself provide that it shall not affect a marital agreement entered into before the effective date of the Act, but the question was addressed in Wolfe v.Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 318, 491 A.2d 281, 283 (1985) which held that a valid post-nuptial agreement entered into prior to the effective date of the Divorce Code bars a claim for equitable distribution under the Code. In Wolfe, the wife claimed that the post-nuptial agreement was not complete because she could not waive her right to equitable distribution since the right had not yet come into existence.