Court Opinion

ID: 9756887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:06:16.897105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:32.608149
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The crux of this matter is that William Bower’s rights to the property in question did not flow from the marriage or depend upon that relationship, and therefore, did not terminate pursuant to section 401(j) of the Divorce Code. Thus, I agree that *63appellant did not waive his rights in the property by failing to seek equitable distribution prior to the final divorce decree.1
I, therefore, concur in the reversal of the order of the Superior Court and remand to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.

. The issue as to whether the increased value in the property in question which may have occurred during the marriage is marital property, should be addressed at a later time.

. 23 P.S. § 101 ct seq. (repealed 1990). The Divorce Code is now officially codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 3101 et seq.