Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms In-Kind Cryptocurrency Division in Green Divorce Appeal

On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an order affirming a lower court’s decision in the divorce case of Chih-Hui Green and Stephen Randolph Green, addressing several contested points, including the distribution of cryptocurrency assets.

The Greens’ divorce, initiated in April 2019, involved disputes over the valuation and distribution of marital assets, including two businesses, Bike USA, Inc. (BUSA) and SRI Group, LLC (SRI), as well as the handling of cryptocurrency investments.

One of the key issues in the appeal was Wife’s contention that the trial court erred by ordering an in-kind division of cryptocurrency assets, arguing that Husband had managed all the investments during the marriage and she lacked the knowledge to manage such assets. The divorce master’s report indicated that Husband was responsible for the parties’ finances and managed the investment portfolio. Wife testified that she did not have the knowledge to invest in cryptocurrency.

However, the Superior Court found this argument waived due to the Wife’s failure to provide citations to case law or other authority to support her claim. The court cited Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a), which requires arguments to be supported by relevant discussion and citations. Because the wife’s brief lacked this support, the court declined to develop the argument on her behalf, thus upholding the trial court’s decision to divide the cryptocurrency assets in kind.

The court addressed several other issues raised by both Husband and Wife, including the valuation of BUSA and SRI, alimony payments, and counsel fees. Husband’s appeals centered on the trial court’s valuation of BUSA and SRI, arguing that the court failed to consider tax implications and arbitrarily assigned value to SRI based on a single monthly bank statement. Wife’s cross-appeal challenged the determination that BUSA was a gift to Husband, the valuation of BUSA at the time of transfer, and the duration and amount of alimony awarded.

Ultimately, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions on all points, finding no abuse of discretion or errors of law. The court emphasized that it is not its responsibility to develop arguments on behalf of the parties and that proper legal arguments must be supported by relevant authority.

Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.