A Pennsylvania woman cannot retroactively specify which benefits option is attached to her ex-husband’s pension, a Northumberland County judge has ruled, because the couple’s separation agreement was silent on the issue and because such relief is now barred by the doctrine of laches.
Common Pleas Court Judge Charles H. Saylor said the 2008 separation agreement (MSA) between plaintiff Ann L. Swank and her ex-husband, defendant Mark D. Swank, did not address which benefits option would apply to Mark Swank’s State Employees Retirement System (SERS) pension — which the couple agreed to split 50-50.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
