BOBBI J. BALICKI v. JEFFREY B. BALICKI

BOBBI J. BALICKI v. JEFFREY B. BALICKI No. 1148 , 1559 WDA 2009 and 69 WDA 2010 2010 PA Super 134 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/30/2010
	Appeals from the Decree entered August 17, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family, at No. FD05-03297-001.
Before: ALLEN, COLVILLE and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
In these consolidated cross-appeals, Jeffrey B. Balicki (“Husband”) and Bobbi Balicki (“Wife”) challenge the trial court’s award of alimony to Wife and its equitable distribution of the marital estate in the divorce proceedings between the parties. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

BOBBI J. BALICKI v. JEFFREY B. BALICKI

BOBBI J. BALICKI v. JEFFREY B. BALICKI No. 1148 , 1559 WDA 2009 and 69 WDA 2010 2010 PA Super 134 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/30/2010
	Appeals from the Decree entered August 17, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family, at No. FD05-03297-001.
Before: ALLEN, COLVILLE and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
In these consolidated cross-appeals, Jeffrey B. Balicki (“Husband”) and Bobbi Balicki (“Wife”) challenge the trial court’s award of alimony to Wife and its equitable distribution of the marital estate in the divorce proceedings between the parties. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANGEL L. VALLE-VELEZ

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANGEL L. VALLE-VELEZ No. 1151 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 99 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/27/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000137-2008 CR-0000552-07
Before: SHOGAN, OLSON, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the trial court’s order entered June 4, 2009, sustaining Appellee’s motion in limine, and finding that the spousal competency privilege set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5913 applies to Appellee’s wife, where the couple has separated and filed for divorce, but remain legally married. We were surprised to find that consideration of the privilege within such circumstances is an issue of first impression and commend the trial court on a thorough and well reasoned consideration of this new issue. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

LISA GABOURY v. CHRISTOPHER GABOURY

LISA GABOURY v. CHRISTOPHER GABOURY No. 1603 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 251 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/23/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered August 29, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil Division, at No. 20103 of 2008.
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Lisa Gaboury (“Wife”) appeals from the August 29, 2008 order granting her divorce from Christopher Gaboury (“Husband”). On June 3, 2008, the trial court dismissed all economic claims against Husband, determining that it had jurisdiction to dissolve the parties’ marriage but lacked the necessary personal jurisdiction over Husband to adjudicate related economic claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

VALERIE H. MILLER v. WILLIAM R. MILLER and UPPER ST. CLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT and UPPER ST. CLAIR TOWNSHIP v. WILLIAM R. MILLER and VALERIE H. MILLER

VALERIE H. MILLER v. WILLIAM R. MILLER and UPPER ST. CLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT and UPPER ST. CLAIR TOWNSHIP v. WILLIAM R. MILLER and VALERIE H. MILLER APPEAL OF: WILLIAM R. MILLER No. 752 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 197 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 10/9/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered on April 3, 2008 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family Court Division, No. FD-93-12111-006
Before: MUSMANNO, DONOHUE and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
William R. Miller (hereinafter “Husband”) appeals, pro se, from the Order granting the Motion for summary judgment filed by his ex-wife, Valerie H. Miller (hereinafter “Wife”). We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR. v. KELLY BINGAMAN

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR. v. KELLY BINGAMAN No. 1644 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 172 Atlantic: 980 A.2d 155 Filed: 8/31/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered August 14, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No. 05-1200 CIVIL TERM
Before: ORIE MELVIN, GANTMAN AND CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Kelly Bingaman (Wife) appeals the trial court’s order entered August 14, 2008 denying her Motion to Strike and/or Re-Open Decree in Divorce. After careful review, we hold the trial court should have vacated that portion of the divorce decree that held it did not retain jurisdiction over the alimony claim. The trial court should have done so because a fatal defect appears on the face of the record. We reverse and remand.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

TRACY L. BIESE v. LEE C. BIESE

TRACY L. BIESE v. LEE C. BIESE No. 1797 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 142 Atlantic: 979 A.2d 892 Filed: 7/21/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered September 17, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Civil, at No. 06-12474.
Before: ALLEN, FREEDBERG, and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Lee C. Biese (“Husband”) appeals from the order entered by the trial court which resolved the economic claims between Husband and Tracy L. Biese (“Wife”) in their divorce proceedings. We affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - JEFFREY W. FRANTZ v. CAROL ANN FRANTZ APPEAL OF: PAUL J. McARDLE

JEFFREY W. FRANTZ v. CAROL ANN FRANTZ APPEAL OF: PAUL J. McARDLE No. 567 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 68 Atlantic: 972 A.2d 525 Filed: 4/14/2009
	Appeal from the Order of March 25, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No. FD 07 7499-002
Before: MUSMANNO, SHOGAN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: COLVILLE, J.
Paul J. McArdle, Esq. (“Appellant”) appeals the order striking his judgment lien that he claims had attached to certain realty. The trial court struck the lien because the court found the realty was held under the jurisdiction of the court during certain divorce proceedings and, being under the court’s jurisdiction, the realty could not be attached by a lien such as Appellant’s. The court’s reasoning was based primarily on Klebach v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 565 A.2d 448 (Pa. Super. 1989), discussed more fully infra. Appellant, however, claims the court was without authority to strike the lien because it attached by operation of law as a combined result of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3507(a) (division of entireties property between divorced persons), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(a) (effect of judgments and orders as liens), and Pa.R.C.P. 3023 (judgment, lien, duration). Primarily, he claims Pa.R.C.P. 3023 essentially abrogated Klebach. We affirm the order.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - ANDREW P. GATES v. NANCY J. REED GATES

ANDREW P. GATES v. NANCY J. REED GATES No. 763, 1023 and 1026 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 40 Atlantic: 967 A.2d 1024 Filed: 3/10/2009
	Appeal from the Orderd Entered April 8, 2008 and May 16, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Civil Division, at No. 05-1250 C.D.
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
In these consolidated appeals Nancy Gates (“Mother”) appeals (1) an April 8, 2008 order, wherein the trial court, inter alia, directed her to execute a consent to release records of her psychiatric treatment to Andrew Gates (“Father”); and (2) a May 16, 2008 order finding Mother in contempt for failing to comply with the April 8, 2008 order and summarily suspending her custodial rights to the parties’ son, Jonathan. Upon review, we reverse the April 8, 2008 order in part, and we vacate the May 16, 2008 order.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - JOHN Y. GEROW, III v. CLARINDA M. GEROW

JOHN Y. GEROW, III v. CLARINDA M. GEROW No. 91 MDA 2008 2008 PA Super 277 Atlantic: 962 A.2d 1206 Filed: 12/4/2008
	Appeal from the Order entered December 6, 2007, in the Court Of Common Pleas of Berks County, Civil No(s): 01-12822 # 1
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Amy Hutchinson (“Appellant”) as executrix of the estate of John Y. Gerow, III (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s December 6, 2007 order denying Appellant’s motion to substitute personal representative and determine economic rights pursuant to the Divorce Code at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(d)(1).

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 4/16/08 - RICHARD A. DANZ v. CINDY L. DANZ

RICHARD A. DANZ v. CINDY L. DANZ
No. 1506 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 70 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/16/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Civil Division, No. 2007-97
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Cindy L. Danz appeals the July 18, 2007, Order denying her Motion to Vacate or Open a Decree of Divorce.


On October 8, 2007, the trial court issued an Opinion wherein it concluded wife had waived her challenge to improper venue by failing to file preliminary objections. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1920.1(b), Definitions. Conformity to Civil Action, which states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedure in [a divorce] action shall be in accordance with the rules relating to a civil action.” The trial court also relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e), Venue. Change of Venue, which provides in pertinent part: “Improper venue shall be raised by preliminary objection and if not so raised shall be waived.”

Our standard of review over an order denying a motion to open or vacate a divorce decree requires us to determine whether an abuse of discretion has been committed. Egan, supra at 407, quoting Foley v. Foley, 572 A.2d 6, 9 (Pa.Super. 1990) (additional citation omitted). A motion requesting that a divorce decree be opened or vacated lies when the motion alleges the decree suffers from a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record, was procured by either intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, should be voided in light of newly discovered evidence, or was entered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3332, Opening or vacating decrees.

Superior Court 3/26/08 - DONNA M. ANNECHINO v. KENNETH M. JOIRE

DONNA M. ANNECHINO v. KENNETH M. JOIRE
No. 466 and 467 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 50 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/26/2008
Appeal from the Order entered January 25, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,Civil, No. 01-01305
Before: LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Donna M. Annechino (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s order granting Kenneth M. Joire’s (Husband’s) petition to enforce a Property Settlement Agreement that was filed on May 15, 2001. After reviewing the cogent opinion of the distinguished trial judge, the Honorable Phyllis R. Streitel, we affirm.


"In this case, the parties entered into a Marital Property Settlement Agreement prior to the entry of the divorce decree in Chester County and did not incorporate or merge that agreement into the final divorce decree. Essentially, Wife claims that since the agreement was not incorporated and the pleadings did not include a count for equitable distribution, the Chester County court does not have the authority to enforce the Property Settlement Agreement and Husband’s only remedy is a separate civil action in equity.

We agree with Judge Streitel that the matter is controlled by the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3105(a)"