# D'Huy v. D'Huy

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 23, 1990 · 390 Pa. Super. 509

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706035

## Case

- **Full name:** Polly Ann D’HUY, Appellee, v. Gerard J. D’HUY, Appellant; Gerald J. D’HUY, Appellant, v. Polly Ann D’HUY, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 23, 1990
- **Citations:** 390 Pa. Super. 509; 568 A.2d 1289; 1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 80
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Tamilia
- **Judges:** Cirillo, Cavanaugh, Brosky, Rowley, Montemuro, Beck, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson, Johnson'S
- **Cited by:** 29 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/9706035

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706035. Public record. Not legal advice.