# Holz v. Holz

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2004 · 2004 Pa. Super. 181

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759587

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert HOLZ, Appellee, v. Joan HOLZ, Appellant; Robert Holz, Appellant, v. Joan Holz, Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 24, 2004
- **Citations:** 2004 Pa. Super. 181; 850 A.2d 751; 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1244
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Beck
- **Judges:** Bender, Beck, Kelly
- **Cited by:** 26 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/9759587

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- discussing factors relevant to award of counsel fees

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759587. Public record. Not legal advice.