Opinion

D'Huy v. D'Huy

  • 390 Pa. Super. 509
  • 568 A.2d 1289
  • 1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 80
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 23, 1990
Status
Published
Author
Tamilia
On the bench
Cirillo, Cavanaugh, Brosky, Rowley, Montemuro, Beck, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson, Johnson'S
Cited by
29 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.0%

"The property settlement agreement remains an enforceable contract, not subject to unilateral modification as a court order."

How later courts described this case

  • "The property settlement agreement remains an enforceable contract, not subject to unilateral modification as a court order."
  • property settlement agreement did not merge into divorce decree and remained enforceable contract where agreement stated clearly that it would remain in full force and effect and would survive divorce
  • refusal by the en banc court majority to reach applicability of Act No. 13, in spite of special scheduling and briefing for just that purpose
  • refusal by the en banc court majority to reach applicability of Act No. 18, in spite of special scheduling and briefing for just that purpose

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

TAMILIA, Judge,

dissenting.

I would remand this case to the panel with directions that original majority Opinion by Tamilia, J., be filed and that the review by the Court en banc be dismissed as improvidently granted. The review of this case by the Court en banc resulted on a certification by a majority of the panel, Beck, Tamilia, Johnson, JJ., with Tamilia dissenting to certification. In that certification, a proposed memorandum by Johnson, J., would have had the Court en banc consider the effect of amendments to the Divorce Code, section 401.1, having to do with modification of separation agreements. That issue was not raised in the original appeal and was not briefed before the Court en banc. Judge Beck, in her proposed en banc Opinion, held it was not to be considered. In writing to affirm, Judge Beck does not substantially *523 differ from the original proposed panel decision by Tamilia,, J., which was guided by Sonder v. Sonder, 378 Pa.Super. 474 , 549 A.2d 155 (1988), as is the en banc Opinion. Having decided the basis upon which certification was granted is not reviewable, the only recourse is to return the case to the panel, with instructions, and find that en banc review was improvidently granted.

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.