339 Pa. Super. 230 - Kopp v. Kopp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is true that any agreement to modify or postpone the time of partition may not place a restraint upon alienation that extends beyond a ‘reasonable’ period of time. Shoup v. Shoup, 469 Pa. 165 , 364 A.2d 1319 (1976). Furthermore, we believe that the Hyatt court properly held that by not limiting the wife’s absolute right to seek partition for any discemable [sic] time, the agreement constituted an unlawful restraint upon alienation of the property and was, therefore, unenforceable. A clear factual distinction exists, however, between Hyatt and the case at bar. The Hyatts’ separation agreement obligated the husband to divide the proceeds with the wife if and when a sale of the property were to occur. In the words of the court, ‘although a partition may be modified or postponed for a reasonable time by agreement of the parties, the instant agreement did not limit appellant’s absolute right to seek partition for any discemable [sic] time.’ Hyatt v. Hyatt, supra, 273 Pa. Super, at 440, 417 A.2d at 729 . Whether or not he continued to occupy the premises, there were no conditions placed upon the husband, the occurrence of which would have triggered the wife’s right to compel partition. “As was the husband in Hyatt , appellant in the case at bar was already occupying the residence at the time the separation, agreement was signed; however, appellant’s ability to restrain partition in the instant case is conditioned upon her continued use of the premises as her residence. Appellee”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Pa. D. & C.4th 499 - Mowers v. Mowers