# Commonwealth ex rel. Rubin v. Rubin

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · September 23, 1974 · 230 Pa. Super. 591

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6292435

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth ex rel. Rubin v. Rubin
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 23, 1974
- **Citations:** 230 Pa. Super. 591; 326 A.2d 578; 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2503
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Voort
- **Judges:** Cercone, Hoffman, Jacobs, Price, Spaeth, Voort, Watkins, Yoort
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6292435

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6292435. Public record. Not legal advice.