## Facts

- Arthur J. Hodge (husband) and Patricia Hodge (wife) married in 1967.
- During the marriage, the husband pursued medical education and training, including attending medical school in Mexico; the wife worked, managed the household, and supported the family during much of his schooling.
- The husband obtained a license to practice medicine in February 1977.
- In August 1977, the husband told the wife he no longer wished to continue the marriage.
- The wife filed for divorce in 1978; a divorce decree was entered in 1981, with jurisdiction retained over economic matters.
- A special master recommended that the medical license was not marital property and that the wife receive alimony of $100 per week until 1994.
- The trial court adopted the recommendations; the Superior Court affirmed.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allowance of appeal on whether the license was marital property and whether the alimony award was proper.

## Issues

1. Whether a medical license obtained during marriage constitutes “marital property” subject to equitable distribution under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code.
2. Whether the alimony award was proper under the Divorce Code’s standards governing alimony.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the ruling that the medical license was not marital property.
- The court held a professional license lacks traditional property attributes (including transferability and market value) and cannot be equitably distributed as property.
- The court vacated the alimony award because the lower courts treated alimony as a long-term tool for economic equalization tied to the husband’s enhanced earning capacity.
- The case was remanded for a new alimony determination under the correct statutory framework.

## Legal Principles

- “Marital property” under the Divorce Code does not include a professional license merely because it was obtained during marriage.
- A professional license is personal to the holder, not transferable, and lacks exchange value; it is a qualification to engage in an occupation rather than distributable property.
- Enhanced future earning capacity associated with a license is not “property acquired” during marriage; valuing a license by future earnings is speculative and inconsistent with property distribution.
- A supporting spouse’s contributions and sacrifices toward the other spouse’s education and licensure may be considered in equitable distribution of actual marital assets and in support determinations, but not by treating the license itself as an asset.
- Alimony is a secondary, need-based remedy focused on the recipient’s reasonable needs and the payor’s ability to pay, generally with a rehabilitative purpose; it is not a device for long-term income leveling or a substitute for distributing future earnings.

## Conclusion

The court held that a medical license is not marital property subject to equitable distribution and vacated an alimony award that functioned as long-term economic equalization, remanding for reconsideration of alimony based on statutory need-and-ability-to-pay factors.


Hodge v. Hodge, 513 Pa. 264, 520 A.2d 15 (Pa. 1986)