Mark Gubinsky | The Gubinsky Law Firm, P.C.
Mark Gubinsky is the founding partner of The Gubinsky Law Firm, P.C., located in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. Prior to starting the Gubinsky Law Firm in 2011, he was a shareholder and president of a family law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. An attorney since 1994, Mark focuses his practice on family law issues including equitable distribution, support, and custody. He practices primarily in Allegheny and Washington counties. In addition to his litigation practice, Mark is also trained in collaborative law and in mediation. He is one of three founding members of the Collaborative Law Association of Southwestern Pennsylvania (a practice group with more than 60 members) and a former president. He has lectured on family law topics for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, National Business Institute, and Cape Institute. Mark obtained a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Juris Doctorate degree is from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
2016 Divorce/Equitable Distribution Opinions
Raines v. Raines, 2016 Pa. Super. 227, 1107 MDA 2015: 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8101 which provides for post-judgment interest does not automatically apply to equitable distribution awards.
Mundy v. Mundy, 2016 Pa. Super. 256, 1529 WDA 2015: Trial Court erred in calculating the marital increase of husband’s premarital residence by relying upon the date of marriage fair market value as opposed to the date of marriage equity. The Trial Court’s holding that the wife would be assessed with responsibility for 100% of her student loans would not be disturbed where the wife failed to provide any evidence as to how her student loan disbursements were utilized.
Neyman v. Buckley, 2016 Pa. Super. 307, 2203 EDA 2015: A Vermont civil union should be considered the legal equivalent of a marriage for the purposes of dissolution under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code.
Russell v. Russell, 1778 WDA 2015 (non-precedential opinion): The terms of a marital settlement agreement cannot be modified by a court in the absence of a specific provision in the agreement providing for judicial modification.
2016 Alimony Opinions
McKernan v. McKernan, 135 A.3d 1116, 2016 Pa. Super. 60: The husband was not entitled to modification of his alimony obligation based upon the wife’s eligibility for Social Security benefits.