• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Initiative in Practice

  • Home
  • Legal Services
        • Banking & Finance Law
        • Business & Corporate Law
        • Criminal Defense
        • Employment Law
        • Estates & Trusts Law
        • Family Law
        • Litigation Law
        • Mediation and Arbitration
        • Personal Injury Law
        • Real Estate & Land Use Law
        • Tax Law
  • Our Team
        • Joseph A. Bellinghieri
        • Hiruy Y. Berhane
        • Patrick J. Boyer
        • Krzysztof M. Bozentka
        • Jeffrey P. Burke
        • Robert A. Burke
        • Matthew C. Cooper
        • John C. Cronin
        • Marie I. Crossley
        • Pilar Diaz
        • Harry J. DiDonato
        • Jaycie DiNardo
        • Caroline G. Donato
        • Nicholas S. Eisel
        • Sally A. Farrell
        • Brian J. Forgue
        • William J. Gallagher
        • Patrick J. Gallo, Jr.
        • Mary Kay Gaver
        • J. Charles Gerbron, Jr.
        • Leo M. Gibbons
        • Joseph P. Green, Jr.
        • Frank W. Hosking III
        • Katherine A. Isard
        • Peter E. Kratsa
        • Mary E. Lawrence
        • Daniel R. Losco
        • Michael G. Louis
        • John F. McKenna
        • Matthew M. McKeon
        • Lou Mincarelli
        • Brian L. Nagle
        • Lance J. Nelson
        • Timothy F. Rayne
        • Michael C. Rovito
        • Duke Schneider
        • Andrew R. Silverman
        • Ashley B. Stitzer
        • Patrick L. Ware
        • Jeremy A. Whalen
        • Natalie R. Young
  • About Us
    • Our History
    • Our Approach
    • Social Responsibility
    • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • News & Updates
    • Articles by Our Attorneys
    • News
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Newsletters
  • Offices
    • Centreville, DE
    • Kennett Square, PA
    • West Chester, PA
  • Contact
  • (610) 436-0100

Articles by Our Attorneys

Can My Spouse Force Me To Sell Our House During a Divorce?

September 17, 2026 by Michael C. Rovito, Esq. Leave a Comment

It’s a common question — particularly when one spouse wants to sell and the other wants to stay.

As with many things in family law, the answer is: it depends.

If both spouses agree to sell the marital residence, the process can be relatively straightforward. But even then, it’s important to agree on the details: How will the listing price be set? When must an offer be accepted? And will the proceeds be divided immediately or held in escrow until equitable distribution is resolved?

But what if one spouse doesn’t agree to sell?

That’s where things get more complicated.

A spouse seeking to force a sale may need to ask the court to intervene. Financial circumstances are often an important part of that analysis — particularly if the carrying costs of the home can no longer be sustained or the property is not being properly maintained.

The bottom line: Wanting the house sold and being able to force its sale are not necessarily the same thing.

Every family and every case is different. If you’re facing questions about the marital home — whether to stay, sell, or what happens when you and your spouse don’t agree — the MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Family Law team can help you evaluate the legal and practical considerations before making that decision. Contact Michael C. Rovito at (610) 840-0241 or MRovito@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: michael c. rovito, michael rovito

Can You Record Your Spouse?

September 5, 2026 by Michael C. Rovito, Esq. Leave a Comment

Thinking about secretly recording your spouse? Think twice before you hit record.

It may seem like a good way to document an argument or preserve evidence for a divorce or custody case.

In Pennsylvania, however, secretly recording a private conversation can create a much bigger problem.

Pennsylvania generally requires the consent of all parties to record a private conversation. Marriage does not create an exception.

And the potential consequences can be far more serious than whether the recording can be used in your family law case. An unlawful recording can potentially expose the person making it to criminal liability.

What about a voicemail your spouse leaves you? Or a text or email they send?

That’s different.

Those are communications voluntarily sent to you, and they raise different questions about whether and how they may be used as evidence.

The practical takeaway is simple:

Before you hit record, talk to an attorney.

There may be completely lawful — and strategically better — ways to preserve evidence. In a family law case, good judgment about how you obtain evidence can matter too.

And if you discover that your spouse has been secretly recording you, speak with an attorney about your options.

If you’re dealing with an issue involving recordings or other evidence in a Pennsylvania divorce or custody matter, contact me or the MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Family Law team to discuss your options.

Every family’s circumstances are different. If you are considering leaving the marital residence, the MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Family Law team can help you evaluate the legal and practical considerations before making that decision. Contact Michael C. Rovito at (610) 840-0241 or MRovito@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: michael c. rovito, michael rovito

Employment Law Update August 2026

August 27, 2026 by Jeffrey P. Burke, Esq. Leave a Comment

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Chair Andrea Lucas said Wednesday that the agency’s new four-year strategic plan has secured final approval. This announcement is one of a series of shifts in EEOC focus under Lucas. So what do employers need to know about the current state of the EEOC, and where it is headed? Read more about it in the August employment law update:

The EEOC Under Andrea Lucas: What Employers Need to Know

Since President Trump designated Lucas as Chair of the EEOC, the agency has undertaken a significant shift in its enforcement priorities. While the EEOC’s mission remains the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws, Chair Lucas has emphasized what she describes as “evenhanded” enforcement, focusing on protecting all employees from unlawful discrimination regardless of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

The most significant development came in June 2026, when the EEOC adopted a new National Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025-2029, replacing the prior Strategic Enforcement Plan. The four-year plan provides a roadmap for the agency’s enforcement, litigation, outreach, and compliance efforts and offers employers valuable insight into where the EEOC intends to direct its resources.

A central theme of the Lucas EEOC is increased scrutiny of workplace policies or programs that make distinctions based on protected characteristics. The agency has signaled that it intends to examine diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives that may involve race- or sex-based preferences in hiring, promotions, internships, mentoring, leadership development, or other employment opportunities. According to the EEOC, Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual, even when undertaken in pursuit of broader diversity objectives.

The agency has also elevated religious discrimination and accommodation claims as a key enforcement priority. Under Lucas’s leadership, the EEOC has pursued significant recoveries and litigation involving religious accommodations, including claims arising from workplace vaccination policies and other faith-based workplace conflicts. Employers should expect continued focus on accommodation requests, religious expression in the workplace, and allegations of religious harassment.

The Lucas EEOC has also proposed a significant change to federal workforce demographic reporting. In July 2026, the agency issued a proposed rule that would eliminate the long-standing EEO-1 reporting requirement and related demographic reporting obligations. While the proposal has not yet been finalized and covered employers must continue complying with existing reporting requirements, the initiative reflects the agency’s broader view that mandatory race- and sex-based workforce reporting is inconsistent with its current enforcement philosophy.

In addition, the new National Enforcement Plan highlights enforcement against overt discrimination in recruiting and hiring, job advertisements that discourage applicants based on protected characteristics, and practices that allegedly disadvantage employees based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. The plan also emphasizes prevention, education, voluntary compliance, and strategic litigation as complementary enforcement tools.

For employers, the changing enforcement landscape presents an opportunity to reassess workplace policies and practices. Companies should consider reviewing hiring and promotion procedures, DEI initiatives, accommodation processes, employee training programs, and anti-discrimination policies to ensure they are grounded in objective, job-related criteria.

Although EEOC priorities often change with administrations, the Lucas EEOC has made clear that it will pursue a different enforcement strategy than its recent predecessors. Employers who understand these priorities and proactively evaluate their practices will be better positioned to minimize risk and respond effectively to future agency scrutiny.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: Jeffrey Burke

Does Moving Out of the Marital Home Hurt You in a Divorce?

August 27, 2026 by Michael C. Rovito, Esq. Leave a Comment

Author: Michael Rovito

It’s a question I hear frequently from individuals considering divorce: If I leave the marital home, will it be considered abandonment or hurt me later?

In Pennsylvania, simply moving out of the marital residence does not necessarily mean you are giving up your rights or putting yourself at a disadvantage in the divorce.

There are many legitimate reasons a spouse may decide to leave—financial circumstances, concerns about safety or conflict in the home, or simply the need to begin moving forward. The financial issues associated with maintaining two households can generally be addressed through the divorce and support process.

The more significant consideration is often whether children are involved.

Before leaving, it is important to consider where the children will live, whether their established routine will be disrupted, and how a change may affect their stability and best interests. Those considerations can have implications beyond simply who remains in the house.

There can also be important support and procedural issues to consider depending on the circumstances and where your case is being handled. That is why I generally recommend discussing the decision with a family law attorney before moving out whenever possible.

The bottom line: Moving out is not automatically “abandonment,” but how and when you leave can matter.

Every family’s circumstances are different. If you are considering leaving the marital residence, the MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Family Law team can help you evaluate the legal and practical considerations before making that decision. Contact Michael C. Rovito at (610) 840-0241 or MRovito@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: michael c. rovito, michael rovito

Relocation Cases in Pennsylvania – What Does the Court Consider?

August 7, 2026 by Michael C. Rovito, Esq. Leave a Comment

Author: Michael C. Rovito

Let’s answer the next question I often hear:

How does a judge decide whether a parent can relocate with a child?

The answer isn’t as simple as whether the move is for a better job or to be closer to family.

Under Pennsylvania law, courts must evaluate 10 specific relocation factors, all through one lens: What is in the child’s best interest?

Some of the questions the court will consider include:

What kind of relationship does the child have with each parent, siblings, and other important people in their life?

How will the move affect the child’s emotional, educational, and developmental needs?

Can the relationship with the non-relocating parent realistically be preserved through a modified custody schedule?

If the child is old enough and mature enough, what are their wishes?

Has either parent encouraged—or interfered with—the child’s relationship with the other parent?

Will the relocation improve the quality of life for the parent seeking to move, and will those benefits also improve the child’s quality of life?

What are each parent’s motivations for supporting or opposing the relocation?

Are there any safety concerns or a history of abuse that the court must consider?

And finally, are there any other facts that affect the child’s best interests?

One important point that often surprises people is that the parent seeking to relocate has the burden of proving that the move is in the child’s best interest.

No one factor automatically determines the outcome. Every relocation case is unique, and the court must carefully weigh all of the evidence before making a decision.

If you’re considering relocating with your child—or you’ve received notice that the other parent intends to relocate—it’s important to understand both your rights and your responsibilities before taking the next step.

If you have questions about relocation, custody, divorce, or support matters, the Family Law team at MacElree Harvey, Ltd. is here to help. We’re committed to providing practical guidance and experienced representation tailored to your family’s unique circumstances. Contact Michael C. Rovito at (610) 840-0241 or MRovito@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: michael c. rovito, michael rovito

Independent Practice Authority for Delaware Physician Associates 

August 4, 2026 by Andrew R. Silverman, Esq. Leave a Comment

This article is part of a series on Delaware’s new Physician Associate Act. Start with Delaware’s New Physician Associate Act: What Changed and Who It Affects. 

A physician associate who has practiced in Delaware for several years and is considering what comes next now has an option that did not exist a year ago. House Bill 325, signed May 12, 2026, permits a physician associate with sufficient clinical experience to seek authority to practice without a collaborating physician. 

The question that follows is a practical one: who qualifies, how does the application work, and what does the authority actually change? The threshold is specific, the application runs through a body most physician associates have never dealt with, and the authority does somewhat less than the coverage of the new law suggests. 

Collaboration remains the default 

Except in a medical emergency or as otherwise provided, a physician associate may not perform any medical act without a collaborative agreement, and nothing in the chapter authorizes a physician associate with fewer than 6,000 post-graduate clinical hours to practice independent of a collaborating physician. (24 Del. C. § 1772.) 

There are exactly three exceptions. 

  1. Independent practice authority, discussed below. We refer to it throughout as “independent practice authority” or “IPA.” 
  1. Uncompensated volunteer or charitable care, which may be rendered without a collaborating physician, or with such collaborating physicians as are available. (24 Del. C. § 1774E.) 
  1. A medical emergency. 

That is the complete list. Seniority alone does not qualify a physician associate to practice independently, and neither does an employer’s willingness to operate without oversight. 

What independent practice authority requires 

More than 6,000 post-graduate clinical practice hours. Below that threshold, independent practice is expressly unauthorized and there is no discretionary waiver. For a physician associate practicing full time, the threshold generally arrives somewhere around the three-to-four-year mark, although part-time and intermittent practice will extend that considerably. 

An application to the Regulatory Council for Physician Associates. A qualifying physician associate who intends to practice without a collaborative agreement must apply, and the Council verifies the hours. 

One of two application tracks. Which track applies matters more than it initially appears. 

  1. Practice in a setting with at least one licensed Delaware physician in the group, practice, or health system. 
  1. Practice in a setting without such a physician. This track additionally requires proof that the physician associate has had training which aligns to the physician associate’s practice areas. 

Both forms require the physician associate’s name, license number, practice location, contact information, primary practice area, and proof of the required hours. In addition, a physician associate who later changes practice areas must notify the Council beforehand, again with proof of aligned training. 

The second track is the one that matters for a physician associate planning a solo practice or a practice without a physician in the group, and it carries the additional documentary burden. 

When applications can be filed 

House Bill 325 was signed on May 12, 2026. Although the Act carries a May 12, 2026 effective date, the new independent-practice framework is not fully operational until the earlier of Board approval of implementing regulations or May 12, 2027. 

Those regulations have not been adopted as of the date of this article. Thus, the application forms described in the statute do not yet exist in usable form and no physician associate can presently file. The outside date is May 12, 2027, though the regulations may issue sooner. 

What independent practice authority does not do 

  • It does not end the duty to consult and refer. Every physician associate, whether or not he or she holds independent practice authority, must collaborate with, consult with, and refer to the appropriate member of the healthcare team as indicated by the patient’s condition and by the physician associate’s own education, experience, and competencies. Independent practice authority removes the collaborative agreement; it does not remove the underlying obligation of clinical judgment, and it does not alter the standard of care. 
  • It does not displace the license. A physician associate’s authority flows entirely from the Chapter 17 license. Treating a Delaware patient constitutes practice “in this State,” and unlicensed practice as a physician associate is a criminal offense carrying a fine of $500 to $2,000, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. (24 Del. C. § 1774B.) This is most easily overlooked by physician associates practicing remotely, who may assume that their physical location governs. It does not. 
  • It does not by itself authorize a physician associate to own or operate a practice. Ownership of a practice entity and authority to practice independently are related but distinct questions, and Section 1772 contains a provision concerning the maintenance or management of a practice location that reaches physician associates who have not obtained independent practice authority. A physician associate planning to practice through his or her own limited liability company should review that provision before forming anything, and we address it in detail in the telehealth and entity structure article. 

A note for physician associates re-entering practice 

A physician associate returning after more than three years away from practice, including one who was practicing in another United States jurisdiction, may be subject to Board-imposed re-entry conditions. Those conditions may include requiring the collaborating physician to be physically on site while the physician associate is practicing. (24 Del. C. § 1774D.) 

An on-site requirement will foreclose remote practice for as long as it remains in force. A physician associate planning a telehealth practice after time away from Delaware should therefore resolve this question before building a practice model around remote delivery. 

What can be done while the regulations are pending 

Although no application can be filed today, the preparatory work is entirely documentary and can begin immediately. 

  1. Assemble documentation of clinical hours. Verification is the Council’s responsibility, but assembly is the applicant’s, and reconstructing several years of clinical hours after the fact is considerably more difficult than exporting the records while system access to a current or former employer remains available. Physician associates who have changed positions more than once should begin here. 
  1. Map training records to intended practice areas. For a physician associate who plans to practice in a setting with no Delaware physician in the group, the aligned-training requirement is, on the statutory language, the item most likely to delay an application. Continuing education certificates, specialty training records, and procedure logs are all more easily gathered now than under a filing deadline. 
  1. Consider the practice area designation carefully. Because a later change in practice areas requires advance notice to the Council together with fresh proof of aligned training, the designation on the initial application is not a formality. 

TIP: If a change in employment is contemplated in the next year, gather the hour documentation before giving notice. Former employers are generally cooperative, but requests made after a departure move more slowly than requests made before one. 

Conclusion 

The qualifying threshold is hours, the gatekeeper is the Regulatory Council, and the preparation is documentary, which means it can be substantially completed before the application process opens. 

Physician associates considering independent practice, and particularly those contemplating a practice with no physician in the group, are advised to review both their documentation and their intended practice structure with counsel before the regulations issue, because the entity and licensure questions are more closely connected than they first appear. 

Also in this series: [Telehealth, Limited Liability Companies, and Independent Practice] and, for employers, [how the four-physician-associate collaboration cap works]. 


Andy Silverman is a partner in the Business Department at MacElree Harvey, Ltd. He advises medical practices and providers on business structure and governance, equity and physician compensation arrangements, employment agreements, private equity and M&A transactions, and regulatory and tax matters. Admitted in both Delaware and Pennsylvania, he holds an LL.M. in Taxation from Villanova University School of Law and is a member of the American Health Law Association. 

This article reflects Delaware law as of August 4, 2026. The Regulatory Council’s implementing regulations had not been adopted as of publication. 

This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising. 

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: Andrew R. Silverman, Andrew Silverman

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 37
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Footer

(610) 436-0100

LEGAL SERVICES

ABOUT US

NEWS & INSIGHTS

OFFICES

Centreville, DE

5721 Kennett Pike
Wilmington, DE 19807
302-654-4454
Learn More

Kennett Square, PA

209 East State Street Road
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-444-3180
Learn More

West Chester, PA

17 West Miner Street
West Chester, PA 19382
610-436-0100
Learn More

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Staff Only
  • Careers

© 2026 and all rights reserved by MacElree Harvey, Ltd.