Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 5/2/2006

Berry v. Berry

Citations

898 A.2d 1100
2006 Pa. Super. 98
2006 Pa. Super. LEXIS 655
2006 WL 1148507

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a partnership accrual account was marital property and, therefore, the trial court erred when it considered it to be income
holding that a partnership accrual account was marital property and, thus, could not be considered income
holding that a partnership accrual account was marital property and, thus, could not be considered income
stating, “unreimbursed business expenses may be deducted in determining monthly [net] income if the expenses constitute bona fide expenses”
reducing gross income based on claimed business expenses -5- J-S35045-23 that were not supported by itemization or documentation was abuse of discretion
in determining whether severance pay is marital property the court must determine whether the pay was intended to compensate the employee for efforts made during the marriage or to replace post-separation earnings; in the latter situation, it is not marital property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gantman, Panella, Popovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.