Opinion

Lyall v. Lyall

  • 240 Pa. Super. 649
  • 361 A.2d 367
  • 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1913
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Mar 29, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Voort
On the bench
Spaeth, Van Voort, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth
Cited by
8 cases

The opinion

*656 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Van der Voort, J.:

While I concur in the Opinion of the majority remanding the case, and agree that the instant factual situation calls for application of 23 P.S. §48, I dissent to the within disposition. Since 23 P.S. §48 was not considered below, I would not rely upon the stipulation as grounds for a current support order. Rather, I would vacate the decree in divorce upon the condition that appellant file an application under 23 P.S. §48 for permanent support, and engage in a hearing. The purpose of this hearing would be to allow the lower court to determine whether or not an allowance for appellant’s support shall be decreed and then whether or not a decree in divorce shall be re-issued and if re-issued, it should stand affirmed. In the event that such application for alimony be not made within thirty days, the order granting the decree in divorce would be reinstated and affirmed.

CERCONE, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

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.