applying determination that “[f]oreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit so long as the foreign court had jurisdiction and the defendant had the opportunity to appear and defend” to res judicata between federal and state courts
How later courts described this case
- applying determination that “[f]oreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit so long as the foreign court had jurisdiction and the defendant had the opportunity to appear and defend” to res judicata between federal and state courts
- federal district court judgment in wife’s declaratory judgment action that her waiver of pension rights in property settlement agreement was void under Employee Retirement Income Security Act was binding on state court in divorce proceeding under doctrine of res judicata, where federal district court was court of competent jurisdiction and its final judgment on merits was entitled - 12 - J-A04018-21 to full faith and credit, and same parties appeared in state and federal court actions
- vacating award of attorneys’ fees and remanding for the trial court to reconsider the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded
- discussing factors relevant to award of counsel fees
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BECK, J.,
Dissenting.
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. I do not agree with the majority that the federal district court “clearly went beyond the scope of survivorship benefits and addressed waiver in its totality.” In my view the federal district court order in question, and the order affirming it in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed only the validity of Wife’s waiver with respect to survivor benefits. Although the district court did not explicitly state that its order was limited in this manner, it is clear that Wife sought to negate her waiver by relying only on 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (c)(2)(A)(iii). Further, in rendering a decision on the matter, the federal district court deemed Wife’s waiver invalid based solely on noncompliance with § 1055(c)(2)(A)(iii), which addresses only survivor benefits. As a result, Wife was afforded relief in her federal action only to the extent of such benefits.
*762 ¶ 2 This court’s opinion in Sabad v. Fessenden, 825 A.2d 682 (Pa.Super.2003), confirms the limited effect of § 1055(c)(2)(A)(iii) on state domestic relations law, holding that the waiver restrictions announced therein are limited to survivor benefits alone. In my opinion the trial court properly interpreted the nature and effect of the federal courts’ rulings and thereafter correctly applied the holding in Sabad to the facts of this case.
¶ 3 I would affirm the trial court. 8
. Based on our standard of review, I would find no error in the trial court's award of attorney's fees.