Hodge v. Hodge
513 Pa. 264, 520 A.2d 15, 1986 Pa. LEXIS 969 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A professional license and the associated increase in future earning capacity are not considered 'marital property' subject to equitable distribution under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code.
Facts:
- Dr. Hodge and Mrs. Hodge married in 1967; she was a clinical instructor and he was a medical technology student.
- After Dr. Hodge served in the Army until 1970, he worked for nine months as a serologist earning $6,938 per year.
- In 1971, Dr. Hodge enrolled in medical school in Guadalajara, Mexico.
- For the first year of medical school, Mrs. Hodge remained in Pennsylvania and worked to support the family and Dr. Hodge's education.
- Mrs. Hodge and their children later joined Dr. Hodge in Mexico for the remaining three years of his medical schooling.
- The family returned to Pennsylvania in 1975 for Dr. Hodge's required medical training and internship.
- Dr. Hodge received his license to practice medicine in February 1977.
- In August 1977, six months after receiving his license, Dr. Hodge informed Mrs. Hodge that he wanted to end their marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Hodge initiated a divorce action in the Schuylkill County trial court.
- Dr. Hodge later filed a separate divorce complaint.
- The trial court entered a divorce decree but retained jurisdiction over economic issues.
- A special master was appointed, who concluded the medical license was not marital property and recommended an alimony award for Mrs. Hodge.
- Both parties filed exceptions to the master's report, which the trial court judge dismissed, adopting the master's recommendations in a final decree.
- Both parties appealed the trial court's final decree to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted both parties' petitions for allowance of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a professional license, specifically a medical license, and the increased earning capacity it represents, considered 'marital property' subject to equitable distribution under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Zappala, J.
No, a professional license is not marital property subject to equitable distribution. The court reasoned that a professional license lacks the fundamental attributes of property, as it has no exchange value, cannot be sold, transferred, or inherited, and terminates upon the holder's death. Furthermore, even if it were considered property, the value sought is the future earning capacity, which is not 'acquired' during the marriage but rather earned subsequent to the separation. Therefore, it does not fall within the statutory definition of marital property, which requires property to be acquired during the marriage.
Dissenting - Larsen, J.
Yes, the increased earning capacity represented by the license should be treated as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. While the license itself may not be property, the proceeds generated by it are. The dissent argues that the supporting spouse's contributions are an investment in the student spouse's future earning capacity, similar to a business investment, and that spouse is entitled to a return. To deny distribution of the proceeds makes a mockery of economic justice, especially when the supporting spouse sacrificed personal and financial opportunities for the benefit of the marital partnership.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Hutchinson, J.
No, a professional license is not marital property. The legislature specifically provided that a spouse's contribution to the other's education and increased earning power should be a factor in both the equitable distribution of existing marital assets and in the determination of alimony. This indicates a legislative intent to provide a remedy through alimony and property division factors, rather than by classifying the license itself as a divisible asset. The opinion dissents from the majority's reasoning on alimony, arguing that the lower court properly exercised its discretion in awarding long-term alimony to Mrs. Hodge precisely because the license was not a divisible asset and her contributions needed to be recognized to achieve economic justice.
Analysis:
This case establishes the controlling precedent in Pennsylvania that professional degrees and licenses are not marital property. It aligns Pennsylvania with the majority of jurisdictions by rejecting the concept of a degree as a divisible asset. The decision channels the legal remedy for a spouse who supported their partner's education away from property division and towards alimony, making the supporting spouse's contributions a key factor in determining the necessity, amount, and duration of spousal support. This framework significantly impacts divorce cases involving a professional spouse with high future earning potential but few tangible marital assets at the time of separation.
Unlock the full brief for Hodge v. Hodge