# Commonwealth Ex Rel. Tokach v. Tokach

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 2, 1984 · 326 Pa. Super. 359

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754628

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Nancy A. TOKACH, Appellant, v. John P. TOKACH
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 2, 1984
- **Citations:** 326 Pa. Super. 359; 474 A.2d 41; 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4071
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cavanaugh
- **Judges:** Cavanaugh, Johnson, Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part by D'Huy v. D'Huy, 390 Pa. Super. 509 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754628

## Opinion text

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. The contractual provision in question is as follows:
Husband has agreed, or is about to agree, to a consent amount, based upon his net earnings being approximately $1200.00 per month and such arrangements are being made through the Domestic Relations Office of Washington County, Pennsylvania, for $350.00 per month for two (2) children, with payroll deductions being made in the amount of $175.00 from two (2) pays each month.
Clearly, by stating that the basis of the $350.00 per month figure was husband’s $1,200.00 per month income, the parties evidenced their intent that changes in economic status might precipitate changes in husband’s support obligation. To construe this provision otherwise would be to treat the $1,200.00 reference as mere surplusage. Since I feel the contract itself is modifiable, I see no need to decide whether it was made modifiable by the subsequent reference to it in the divorce decree.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754628. Public record. Not legal advice.