# Smith v. Smith

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 27, 2007 · 595 Pa. 80

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630748

## Case

- **Full name:** F. Andrew SMITH, Appellee v. Therese A. SMITH, Now Therese A. Boulding, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 27, 2007
- **Citations:** 595 Pa. 80; 938 A.2d 246; 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2877
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eakin
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin, Former, Newman
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630748

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN
dissenting.
I must differ from my learned colleagues’ conclusion that, except for the 1.5% increase in payroll deductions after July 1, 2001, the increased benefits did not arise from husband’s postseparation contributions. In fact, without husband’s continued employment efforts from the time of separation in 1995 until the enactment of Act 2001-9 in 2001, the opportunity to *110 elect Class AA status would not have been available, and the pension’s value could not have increased. Husband’s continued employment resulted in his being able to elect this status, which triggered the increase in value; that is, the increase necessarily resulted from husband’s actions, nearly six and a half years of continued employment after separation.
Husband’s efforts may not have been heroic or entrepreneurial, but they were his efforts alone. Whether this was a windfall to him or not, windfalls after the fact are still after the fact. If the nature of this case causes us to craft a rule that depends on the quantity or quality of his efforts, vis á vis the amount of the unanticipated increased benefit, there will be no closure in any case. The parties separated in January, 1995. The pension was divided by order of July, 1998. The legislative change was effective in July, 2001, and husband retired in July, 2002, seven and a half years after separation.
While a portion of a pension earned during coverture is appropriately awarded, there comes a point where finality must attach and litigation over “marital property” ends. We are now twelve and a half years postseparation. Opportunities afforded to and contributions made by either party after the relevant date for valuing marital assets should not change the basic scheme of distribution of property made as part of the divorce. As I find the entire enhancement of the pension was the result of husband’s postseparation effort, it should not change the mathematics agreed to by the parties when they divided this pension.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630748. Public record. Not legal advice.