dissenting.
I dissent. On April 23, 1981, in the Court of Common Pleas of the Fifteenth Judicial District, a decree was entered dissolving the twenty-six year marriage of the appellant, Lena Troiani Bacchetta, and the appellee, Vincent Louis Bacchetta. Appellant was awarded alimony, but was denied equitable division of marital property on grounds that the Divorce Code of 19801 [hereinafter Code] provision authorizing such a division effected a retroactive and unconstitutional deprivation of property. The instant appeal ensued.
Regarding the distribution of spouses’ property upon divorce, the Code, 23 P.S. § 401(d)-(f), provides:
(d) In a proceeding for divorce or annulment, the court shall, upon request of either party, equitably divide, distribute or assign the marital property between the parties without regard to marital misconduct in such proportions
*239as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors including .. .2
(e) For purposes of this chapter only, “marital property” means all property acquired by either party during the marriage except. . .3
*240(f) All property, whether real or personal, acquired by either party during the marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by the parties in some form of co-ownership súch as joint tenancy, tenancy in common or tenancy by the entirety. The presumption of marital property is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by a method listed in subsection (e).
The principal issue on appeal is whether the “marital property” subject to equitable distribution under the foregoing provision includes property acquired prior to July 1, 1980, the effective date of the Code. By construing the Code as rendering such prior-acquired property subject to equitable distribution, thereby according 23 P.S. § 401(d)-(f) a retroactive rather than merely prospective effect, vested property rights existing before the Code’s effective date could be abrogated by a court decree transferring property unconditionally owned by one spouse to the sole ownership of the other. Likewise, a spouse’s interest as a joint tenant, or tenant by the entirety, could be extinguished by being transferred to the other spouse. Prior to the Code’s effective date, the statutory and common law of the Commonwealth governed the status of spouses’ assets upon divorce. Hence, propertied spouses seeking to protect assets against loss upon divorce relied upon the expectation that property would remain as it had been legally titled. See DiFlorido v. DiFlorido, 459 Pa. 641, 331 A.2d 174 (1975).
The constitutional issue raised by a retroactive application, permitting the deprivation of property rights vested prior to the Code’s effective date, is manifest. See Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 357 Pa. 581, 590-594, 55 A.2d 521, 526-528 (1947).4 In ascertaining legislative intent *241as to retroactive application, the legislature is presumed not to have intended to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this Commonwealth. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, No. 290, § 3, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(3) (Supp.1981). However, as this Court recently stated in Ballou v. State Ethics Commission, 496 Pa. 127, 129, 436 A.2d 186, 187 (1981), “[i]t is well settled that when a case raises both constitutional and non-constitutional issues, a court should not reach the constitutional issue if the case can properly be decided on non-constitutional grounds.” Hence, unless absolutely necessary for resolution of a controversy, a constitutional question will not be decided. Misitis v. Steel City Piping Co., 441 Pa. 339, 341, 272 A.2d 883, 884 (1971). After careful examination of the Code, it is apparent that the division of marital property provided for therein is intended to be applied prospectively rather than retroactively; thus, the issue of whether a retroactive application would be constitutional need not be determined.
The opinion authored by Mr. Justice Roberts, construing the marital property distribution provision as having a retroactive effect, rests upon the conclusion that “[t]here is no basis in the statute” (emphasis added) for limiting the provision’s retroactive effect. Focusing only upon whether there is an express limitation “in the statute” is a misdirected approach to determining the question of a statute’s retroactive effect. The approach ignores longstanding precedents of this Court, as well as express directives of the legislature, which clearly establish that there need not be any language in a statute limiting its retroactive application *242in order for a determination to be reached that its effect is prospective only.
A retroactive interpretation of 23 P.S. § 401(d)-(f) has been expressly disfavored by the legislature, as the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 provides:
§ 1926. Presumption against retroactive effect
No statute shall [be] construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the General Assembly.
(Emphasis Added.) Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, No. 290, § 3, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1926 (Supp.1981). As Mr. Justice Roberts stated in Commonwealth v. Story, 497 Pa. 273, 440 A.2d 488, 489 (1981), “[t]he prohibition against a retroactive construction of a statute is long-standing.” Statutes impairing vested substantive rights must be construed prospectively, except where legislative intent that they shall act retroactively is so clear as to preclude all question of retroactive intendment. Smith v. Fenner, 399 Pa. 633, 640, 161 A.2d 150, 154 (1960); See also Estate of Bertolet, 483 Pa. 496, 502, 397 A.2d 776, 779 (1979); Misitis v. Steel City Piping Co., 441 Pa. at 342, 272 A.2d at 884. This principle is particularly applicable to “laws which, while operating upon events taking place in the future, divest rights, particularly property rights, which were vested anterior to the time of the enactment of such law.” (Emphasis added.) Commonwealth ex rel. Greenawalt v. Greenawalt, 347 Pa. 510, 512, 32 A.2d 757, 758 (1943). In the instant case, 23 P.S. § 401(d) authorizes divestment of property rights by “operating upon events taking place in the future,” divorces being the future events in question; hence, absent statutory language so clear as to preclude all question of retroactive intendment, the provision must be interpreted as affecting rights vesting prospectively, alone.
Clearly, 23 P.S. § 401(d)-(f) is devoid of any express language rendering property acquired prior to the Code’s effective date subject to the same equitable division process as is prospectively acquired property. By defining the subject “marital property” as “all property acquired by either *243party during the marriage”, 23 P.S. § 401(e) fails to clarify whether “acquired” means theretofore acquired, thereafter acquired, or both. When the language of a statute is general, so that it might be accorded both retroactive and prospective operation, it will be held to be prospective only, so as not to affect property interests in existence at the time of its passage. Commonwealth ex rel. Greenawalt v. Greenawalt, 347 Pa. at 512-513, 32 A.2d at 758-759. Nowhere in the property distribution provision, or elsewhere in the Code, is there contained language which “clearly and manifestly” sets forth legislative intent in a manner so clear as to preclude all question of retroactive intendment. See 1 Pa.C. S.A. § 1926, supra; Smith v. Fenner, supra. Indeed, the contemplated retroactive or prospective application of the property distribution provision is simply not addressed in the statute. The guide to construction set forth in 23 P.S. § 103, which merely establishes that pre-Code events may constitute grounds for divorce under the Code, provides in pertinent part: “The provisions of this act shall apply to all cases, whether the cause for divorce or annulment arose prior or subsequent to enactment of this act.” (Emphasis added.) This guide to construction is not to be interpreted so broadly as to require that the property distribution provision of the Code shall, in addition to being applicable regardless of the date when grounds for divorce arose, be interpreted as having a retroactive, as opposed to solely prospective, effect upon properties acquired. Specifically, the construction accorded 23 P.S. § 103 is governed by the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, which provides: “All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed: ... (2) Retroactive provisions.” Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, No. 290, § 3, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1928(b) (Supp.1981). “Even where the General Assembly intends a retroactive construction, the statute is to be ‘strictly construed.’ ” Commonwealth v. Story, 497 Pa. at 276, 440 A.2d at 489. Hence, guided by settled rules of statutory construction, there is no basis to conclude that the legislature intended property acquired prior to the Code’s effective *244date to be subject to the equitable distribution process set forth in 23 P.S. § 401(d)-(f).5
LARSEN, J., joins this dissenting opinion.. Act of April 2, 1980, P.L. 63, No. 26, 23 P.S. § 101 et seq. (Supp. 1981).
. The factors set forth in 23 P.S. § 401(d) to be considered by the court in the equitable distribution process include:
(1) The length of the marriage.
(2) Any prior marriage of either party.
(3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties.
(4) The contribution by one party to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other party.
(5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income.
(6) The sources of income of both parties, including but not limited to medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.
(7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker.
(8) The value of the property set apart to each party.
(9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.
(10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective.
. Under 23 P.S. § 401(e), the following are excepted from the definition of “marital property”:
(1) Property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the marriage except for the increase in value during the marriage.
(2) Property excluded by valid agreement of the parties entered into before, during or after the marriage.
(3) Property acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent except for the increase in value during the marriage.
(4) Property acquired after separation until the date of divorce, provided however, if the parties separate and reconcile, all property acquired subsequent to the final separation until their divorce.
(5) Property which a party has sold, granted, conveyed or otherwise disposed of in good faith and for value prior to the time proceedings for the divorce are commenced.
(6) Veterans’ benefits exempt from attachment, levy or seizure pursuant to the act of September 2, 1958, Public Law 85-857, 72 Statute 1229 [38 U.S.C.A. § 3101], as amended, except for those benefits received by a veteran where such veteran has waived a portion of his military retirement pay in order to receive Veteran’s Compensation.
(7) Property to the extent to which such property has been mortgaged or otherwise encumbered in good faith for value, prior to the time proceedings for the divorce are commenced.
. Regarding the application of a statute so as to divest rights vested prior to the statute’s effective date, this Court, in Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 357 Pa. at 591, 55 A.2d at 526, stated:
“In Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. 193, 199, 33 A. 237, 29 L.R.A. 808, 50 Am.St.Rep. 801, it was declared that ‘A statute * * that should take the property of one person and give it to another or to the public, without making just compensation therefor, would violate the bill of rights, and would be, for that reason, unconstitu*241tional and void.’ And in E.T. Fraim Lock Co. v. Shimer, 43 Pa.Super. 221, 224, it was said that ‘An act of assembly which operates retrospectively to take the property of John Doe and give it to Richard Roe, is prohibited by the fundamental law.’ It is clear, then, that had the legislature attempted by the Community Property Law to transform property then owned by either spouse from separate into community property, such a provision could not have stood the test of constitutionality.”
It is equally clear that a legislative scheme for court ordered transfers between spouses, upon divorce, of property already owned by the spouses at the effective date of the Divorce Code would be no less offensive to constitutional standards.
. We note that the Code’s alimony provision, 23 P.S. § 501, directs that the extent of the parties’ assets be considered as a factor in determining the amount of alimony payable. Inherently, therefore, an alimony award will be affected by whether the property distribution provision has yielded an award of property to the spouse in need.