# Reif v. Reif

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 1, 1993 · 426 Pa. Super. 14

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637179

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael E. REIF, Appellant, v. Elaine M. REIF, Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 1, 1993
- **Citations:** 426 Pa. Super. 14; 626 A.2d 169; 1993 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1790
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wieand
- **Judges:** Wieand, Olszewski, Tamilia
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9637179

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating: “Since Father’s support obligation in this case is defined in the post-nuptial agreement, his duty is contractual, not legal”

## Opinion text

WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
Although I must agree with my colleagues that the order entered by the trial court is unusual and in some respects unsupportable by the record, 1 it seems clear to me that the order does not constitute a final determination of the dispute between the parties. For this reason I would quash the instant appeal. If the appeal is not quashed, appellant will most certainly have the right to a second review after the amount of the order has been determined finally. To permit piecemeal appeals does not serve the efficient use of judicial resources and, therefore, should not be allowed. See: Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89 , 501 A.2d 211 (1985).
. Although it has not been made an issue in this case, in my judgment it is improper for a court to direct the Domestic Relations Officer to determine the amount of a support order where adverse proceedings have been heard by the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637179. Public record. Not legal advice.