Opinion

Commonwealth ex rel. Rubin v. Rubin

  • 230 Pa. Super. 591
  • 326 A.2d 578
  • 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2503
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Sep 23, 1974
Status
Published
Author
Voort
On the bench
Cercone, Hoffman, Jacobs, Price, Spaeth, Voort, Watkins, Yoort
Cited by
11 cases

The opinion

*596 Concurring Opinion by

Van deb Voort, J.:

I concur in Judge Hoffman’s majority opinion. I feel that it is important, however, that parties and our trial courts clearly understand the procedural aspects of this Court’s actions in this case. When a spouse, who is already the beneficiary of a support order, seeks a bed and board divorce decree, that party faces an election of remedies. If no alimony is sought by that party, as part of its divorce action, the support order shall remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding the court’s action in the bed and board divorce action. However, if the party seeks alimony pursuant to a bed and board divorce, any alimony order resulting from this action will operate to cancel a pre-existing support order in favor of the party. The election by the support beneficiary to seek alimony is, for all practical purposes, treated by our courts the same as a petition for modification of support. As Judge Hoffman has noted, the standard in both actions for inquiry is an examination of one spouse’s needs and the ability of the other spouse to pay.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.