index to the pennsylvania family lawyer volumes 1-32 compiled by ...

INDEXTO THEPENNSYLVANIA FAMILY LAWYERVOLUMES 1-32(1980-2010)COMPILED BYJOEL FISHMAN, PH.D.ASST. DIRECTOR FOR LAWYER SERVICESDUQUESNE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR LEGAL INFORMATIONALLEGHENY COUNTY LAW LIBRARYPITTSBURGH: PBA FAMILY LAW SECTION, 2011

Copyright: 2011, Joel Fishman

TABLE OF CONTENTSPreface .................................................. ix1. Chair's Column ............................................ 12. Editor's Column ............................................ 13. Digest of Case Notes ........................................ 2A. Case Digests by Author.................................... 2B. Case Digests by Title..................................... 18C. Case Digests by Subject .................................. 61Abuse ............................................. 61Adoption .......................................... 61Annulment ......................................... 62Antenuptial/Prenuptial/Postnuptial Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Appellate Procedure.................................. 63Attorney Fees ....................................... 64Bankruptcy......................................... 64Bigamy............................................ 64Common Law Marriage ............................... 64Contempt .......................................... 64Costs.............................................. 65Counsel Fees ....................................... 65Criminal Law ....................................... 65Custody ........................................... 65Custody-Relocation .................................. 70Custody–UCCJA .................................... 70Dependency ........................................ 71Discovery .......................................... 71Divorce............................................ 71Divorce–Actions In More Than One County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Divorce–Alimony.................................... 73Divorce–Alimony Pendente Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Divorce–Application to Proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Divorce–Bankruptcy Actions........................... 75Divorce–Bifurcation.................................. 75Divorce–Cohabitation ................................ 76Divorce-Constitutionality.............................. 76Divorce–Death of Party ............................... 76Divorce–Domicile ................................... 76iii

Divorce–Foreign Decree .............................. 77Divorce–Grounds.................................... 77Divorce–Injunctive Relief ............................. 77Divorce–Marital Property ............................. 77Divorce–Pending Actions ............................. 79Divorce–Post Separation .............................. 79Divorce–Procedure................................... 80Divorce–Relocation .................................. 80Divorce–Residence .................................. 80Divorce–Separate and Apart ........................... 80Divorce–Taxation ................................... 81Divorce–Third Parties ................................ 81Emancipated Minors ................................. 81Equitable Distribution ................................ 81Equitable Distribution–Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Equitable Distribution–Good Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Equitable Distribution–Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Equitable Distribution–Pensions and Retirement Plans . . . . . . 85Equitable Distribution-Stock Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Equitable Distribution–Wage Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Evidence........................................... 87Grandparents ....................................... 88Guardianship ....................................... 88Incompetency....................................... 88Ineffective Counsel .................................. 88Legal Malpractice.................................... 88Mailbox Rule ....................................... 88Name Changes ...................................... 88Palimony .......................................... 88Partition ........................................... 89Paternity ........................................... 89Protection from Abuse Act ............................ 90Replevin ........................................... 91Res Judicata ........................................ 91Sanction ........................................... 91Separation Agreements ............................... 91Settlement Agreements ............................... 91Slayer’s Act ........................................ 92Support............................................ 92Support–Education................................... 98iv

Support–Guidelines .................................. 99Support-Income .................................... 100Support–Jurisdiction ................................ 100Support-Spousal.................................... 101Support-Stock Options............................... 101Support–Taxation................................... 101Taxation .......................................... 101Testimonial Privileges ............................... 101Visitation ......................................... 1014. Table of Cases Reported ................................... 1035. Articles & Comments ..................................... 127A. Index by Author ....................................... 127B. Index by Title ......................................... 140C. Index by Subject ....................................... 149Adoption ......................................... 149Adultery .......................................... 149Alimony .......................................... 149Alternative Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Amendments to the Divorce Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Antenuptial/Prenuptial/Postnuptial Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . 149Appellate Practice .................................. 149Bankruptcy........................................ 150Bibliography....................................... 150Child Abuse ....................................... 150Common Law Marriage .............................. 150Computer Programs/Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150Counsel Fees ...................................... 150Courts............................................ 150Criminal Law ...................................... 150Custody .......................................... 151Custody–Relocation................................. 151Divorce........................................... 152Divorce-Business ................................... 152Divorce-International ................................ 152Divorce-Marital Property............................. 152Divorce-Pensions and Retirement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Divorce-Taxation ................................... 153Discovery ......................................... 153Equitable Distribution ............................... 153v

Equitable Distribution-Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154Equitable Distribution-Goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154Equitable Distribution–Pensions & Retirement Plans . . . . . . . 154Equitable Distribution-Stock Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155Equitable Distribution–Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155Estate Planning..................................... 156Ethics ............................................ 156Evidence.......................................... 156Foreign Judgments .................................. 156Labor Law ........................................ 156Legal Clinics ...................................... 156Marriage.......................................... 156Maxims .......................................... 156Passports ......................................... 156Paternity .......................................... 156Practice of Law .................................... 157Protection From Abuse .............................. 157Separate Property ................................... 157Social Security ..................................... 157Support........................................... 157Support-Education .................................. 158Support-Guidelines ................................. 158Support–Paternity................................... 158Surrogacy ......................................... 158Taxation .......................................... 158Women........................................... 1596. Military Corner .......................................... 1607. Book Reviews ........................................... 160A. Author Index .......................................... 160B. Title Index ............................................ 161C. Reviewer Index ........................................ 1618. Ethics Corner ............................................ 1629. Technology Corner........................................ 162A. Author Index .......................................... 16210. Legislative Update ........................................ 16311. Poetry & Other Miscellaneous Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164A. Cartoons ............................................. 164B. Letters to the Editor..................................... 164C. Poetry................................................ 164D. Miscellany............................................ 16512. Section News ............................................... 166vi

13. Sidebar .................................................... 16914. PBA News ................................................. 17015. Indexes .................................................... 170vii

PREFACEIt has been eleven years since I first published the Index to the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer Volumes1-18 (1980-1998) and its subsequent three three-year supplements (1999-2001, 2002-2004, 2005-2007) in thePennsylvania Family Lawyer. This present volume then is an updated version combining all four indexes plusvolumes 30 and 31 into one comprehensive index that will be updated annually online.I wish to thank my friend, David Pollock, Esq., Editor in Chief of the Pennsylvania Family Lawyerfor these past fifteen years and the multiple colleagues whom I know through the Family Law Section of theAllegheny County Bar Association. In attending their monthly Council meetings, I understand how difficultit is to be a family law practitioner. It is hoped that this work will continue to provide guidance and assistancein finding family law materials necessary for them to conduct their work.I wish to thank the Family Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association for its financialassistance to compile this Index. I look forward to providing annual updates to the Index and hope allpractitioners throughout the state will use this Index satisfactorily.Joel Fishman, B.A., M.A., M.L.S., Ph.D.Assistant Director for Lawyer ServicesDuquesne University Center for Legal Information/Allegheny County Law LibraryFebruary 6, 2011ix

PREFACEPeriodicals serve an important service to its readership because they provide current information forthe reader. As Jack Rounick, first editor of the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer, stated in the first issue: “FamilyLaw, the stepchild of the Courts, probably represents the fastest changing area of law before us today.” Thepassage of the Divorce Act of 1980 and its subsequent amendments resulted in major changes in family law,especially in divorce, where for the first time the principle of equitable distribution was introduced to benchand bar of the Commonwealth. Having published the early cases of the Court of Common Pleas of AlleghenyCounty, i.e., Allegheny County Divorce Decisions, I can certainly appreciate Rounick’s above-quotedstatement. Now twenty years later, the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer has served the members of the practicingbar as an excellent publication. Providing summaries of new court decisions and analytical comments by theeditors (Rounick, Bertin, etc.), articles by leading practitioners, and shorter pieces concerning ongoinglegislation and other events, the section has received an important tool to keep abreast of recent developments.David Pollock, your esteemed editor, approached me about providing an index the PennsylvaniaFamily Lawyer. He understood that there was no index of the periodical and that one was needed. As a lawlibrarian I have been working on various bibliographical projects (Bibliography of PennsylvaniaLaw:Secondary Sources (1993), an Index to Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, in preparation) andthought such a project worthwhile in my attempt to create ongoing bibliographies and resources for thepracticing bar and would provide me with additional citations from an important source towards publishinga larger bibliography of Pennsylvania legal periodical literature. David has proved to be an excellent advocatefor the Section and has provided great assistance to me in the preparation of this bibliography. He has reviewedthe outline of topics, suggested changes in the placement of some notes and articles, though he is notresponsible for any errors in the final bibliography.In compiling this work, I have tried to make this bibliography useful to the readership by providingan author, title, and subject listing for the case notes and articles. Titles of the case notes also have citationsto all cases reported and these cases are given with complete citations for all cases rather than the original slipopinions. A table of cases provides the volume and specific page reference to the case cited. I wish to thankJordana Greenfield, student intern from the University of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Department, for herassistance in checking an early draft of a portion of the bibliography. I have reviewed all citations, but anyerrors are of course my own fault.I hope that this bibliography serves the Section well. David has already expressed his approval of theproject by asking me to continue updating the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer on an annual basis and, of course,I agreed.Joel Fishman, B.A., M.A., M.L.S., Ph.D.Asst. Director for Lawyer ServicesDuquesne University Center for Legal Information/Allegheny County Law LibraryPittsburgh, PA 15219November 14, 2001x

1. FROM THE CHAIRBeck, James L. .................................................. 24:67-69, 24:95-96, 25:1-2Behers, Carol A....................................... 30:145-46, 201-02; 31:1-2, 54-55, 86-87Blechman, Jay A. ................................................. 27:49-50, 109-10; 28:1-2Byrne, Harry M., Jr. ................................................ 25:61-62, 93-94; 26:1-2Cognetti, Maria P. ................................................. 26:37-38, 101-2; 27:1-2Dischell, Mark B. ................................................ 23:53-54; 24:1-2, 24:29-31Doherty, Mary Cushing ...................................... 21:69-70; 109-110, 22:1-3; 29-31Goldsmith, Howard M.......................................... 19:49-50, 73-74; 20:1-2, 33-34Gruener, Harry J. ............................................18(3):1-2, (4):1-2, 19:1-2, 26-27Hark, Ned .................................................. 29:78-80, 121-22; 30:1-2, 73-74Howett, John C., Jr. ..................................................... 18(1):1-2, (2):1-2Ladov, David ..............................................................29:1-2, 45-47Ladov, David L., From the Immediate Past President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29:80-81Mahood, James E. ............................................ 20:53-54, 85-86; 21:1-3, 33-34Pollock, David S. ...........................................................23:1-2, 29-32Williams, Jeffrey M....................................... 31:86-87, 153-54; 32:1-2, 65-66, 135Young, Cheryl L. .......................................................32:133-34, 185-862. EDITOR'S COLUMNBertin, Emanuel A. 9-11:1, 11, 19, 31, 43, 63, 75, 87, 99, 109, 117, 129, 141,153, 169, 181, 193;12(1):1, 12(2):1, 12(3):1, 12(4):1, 12(5):1, 12(6):1, 13(1):1, 13(2):1, 13(3):1, 13(4):1, 13(5):1, 13(6):1,14(1):1, 14(2):1, 14(3):1, 14(4):1, 14(5):1, 14(6):1, 15(1):1, 15(2):1, 15(3):1, 16(4):1, 16(5):1, 17(1):1.Fred Cohen: A Tribute ............................................................. 81-85Robert I. Whitelaw, 81; Albert Momjian, 82; Mark B. Dischell, 82-83; Mary Cushing Doherty, 83; JoelBernbaum, 83; Michael E. Fingerman, 84; Jack A. Rounick, 84; Steven S. Hurvitz, 84; Bob Matthews, 84;Michael Shatto, 84-85.Mallory, Marcy C. “Eulogy for a Friend [Angie Orndorff]” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27:110-12Pollock, David S. ........................................ 18(1):2, (2):2-3, 17,(3):2-3; (4):2-3;19:2-3, 27-28, 51-52, 74-75; 20:2-3; 34-35, 55-56, 86-87; 21:3-4; 34; 70-71; 110-111, 22:3, 32-33, 57-58;23:1-2, 29-32, 54-55; 24:2-3, 31, 69, 96-97, 25:3, 62-63, 94-95; 26:2-3, 39, 103-4; 27:2-3, 50-51, 110-12;28:2, 49, 94-95; 29:2-3, 47, 80 [Fred Cohen], 122-23; 30:2-3, 74-75, 146-47, 202-3; 31:3-4, 54-55, 88, 155-56; 32:3-4, 67, 136, 187.Rounick, Jack ...............................................1, 13, 21, 33, 45, 61, 77, 89, 97,113, 129, 137, 153,165 177, 189, 201, 213, 233,245, 261, 277, 289, 301, 313, 333, 345, 357, 373, 388, 404,416, 428, 440, 452, 464, 480, 492, 504, 502 [i.e., 515], 527, 539, 551, 563, 575, 587, 599, 611, 623, 635, 647,6591

3. CASE DIGESTSLadov, David L, Editor. Case Notes . . . . . . . . . . . 21:4-10, 35-42, 71-78, 111-120; 22:3-11, 33-38, 59-65;23:2-15, 32-39, 55-62; 24:3-13, 32-40, 97-106, 25:4-13, 63-78, 95-104; 26:4-11, 40-49, 105-11;27:3-12Ladov, David L., Editor; Lori Shemtob, Co-Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27:51-62, 112-21:28:3-16, 96-108,29:3-22,48-55, 85-101, 29:123-28; 30:3-11, 76-90, 148-63, 203-20; 31:4-20, 89-105, 157-66; 32:5-24, 68-82, 137-45, 188-96.3A. CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORAsher, Aaron P. 19-Year-Old Adult Child WithMedical Conditions not Considered Emancipated.[Kotzbauer v. Kotzbauer, 937 A.2d 487 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. 30:5-7.Asher, Aaron P. Gates V. Gates: Alimony AwardLinked to Emancipation of Child Improper. [Gatesv. Gates, 933 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2007)].29:127-28.Ashton, Mark R. Frey and Separation: A Principlein Search of a Standard. [Frey v. Frey, 821 A.2d623 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. 25:65-66.Attiani, John P. Once Jurisdiction Attaches, aCourt Should Dispose of All Issues and QuestionsRelating to the Matter Before It. [In Re: I.L.P. andI.L.P., Joint Petition on Assisted Conception BirthRegistration; Appeal of: C.-H.L. and T.J.P., G.S.and B.S., 965 A.2d. 251 (Pa. Super. 2009)].31:99-100.Attiani, John P. Where No Petition to Modify wasFiled, the Trial Court Dismissal of the PFA Orderwas Improper. [Stamus v. Dutcavich, 938 A.2d1098 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 30:84-86.Auerbach, Julie A. Child Support ObligationsTerminates Upon Death. [Benson v. Pastterson,782 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. 23:55-56.Auerbach, Julie A. and William E. Ehrich.Significance of Retirement Date in PensionValuation. [DeMarco v. DeMarco, 787 A.2d 1072(Pa. Super. 2001)]. 24:8-9Auerbach, Julie. Wife’s Business Interest Intendedto be Her Asset/ Husband’s Business Valuationnot Based Upon Intent of Partnership Agreement.[Brody v. Brody, 758 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super.2000)]. 23:7-8.Bacine, Stephanie H. Party PrejudicefromIntroducing Evidence as a JustifiableDiscovery Sanction. [Hein v. Hein, 717 A.2d 1053(Pa. Super. 1998)]. 21:4-5.Badali, Christian V. Child Support and Paternityby Estoppel. [Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. 29:97-98.Badali, Christian V. Child Support Where Fatherwas Sperm Donor and Determined to be anIndispensable Party in Mother’s Action to ObtainChild Support fromFormer Same-Sex Partner.[Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob-Jacob & Frampton, 923A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:48-49.Badali, Christian V. Grandmother Custody notEnough in Dependency Hearing Wheere It is aSham. [In Re J.C., 5 A.3d 284 (Pa. Super. 2010)].32:189-90.Barton-Rhea, Kilbreth E. Bankruptcy Discharge ofProperty Settlement Agreement EquitableDistribution Obligations Confirmed by the StateCourt. [Hogg v. Hogg, 816 A.2d 314 (Pa Super.2003)]. 25:68-69.Beam, Lesley J. Administrative Error ThatResulted in Premature Termination of a ChildSupport Order May be Corrected Administrativelyas Well. [Castaldi v. Castaldi-Veloric, 993 A.2d903 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:76-78.Beckert, Susan J. Berrington Held Applicable toDefined Benefit Plan in Immediate OffsetCase–Early Retirement Incentives Offered Post-2

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSSeparation Excluded fromMarital Estate. [Gordonv. Gordon, 545 Pa. 391, 681 A.2d 732 (1996)].18(4):10-12.Behers, Carol A. and Elizabeth Lacy. HomewardBound: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets StricterJurisdictional Standards in Custody Cases. [Dincerv. Dincer, 549 Pa. 309, 701 A.2d 210 (1997))].20:4-6.Bennington, Elisabeth. Parental KidnappingPrevention Act Controls Interstate Custody Case.[Skomo v. Skomo, 844 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super.2004)]. 26:40-41Bennington, Elisabeth. Typical Support CaseClarifies Law Regarding Earning Capacity,Employee Perquisites, Bonuses, 401(K)Contributions, Employer Matches, Exemptionsand Child Care Expenses. [Portugal v. Portugal,798 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. 24:97-99.Bernstein, Cindy Trellis. The Presumption ofLegitimacy? Its Foundation is Crumbling and ItsSubstance is Coming Apart. [Brinkley v. King,549 Pa.241, 701 A.2d 176 (1997)]. 20:6-8.Bertin, Emanuel A. Agreement on Child SupportBinding. [Bell v. Bell, 390 Pa. Super. 526, 568A.2d 1297 (1990)]. 11:133.Bertin, Emanuel A. Custodial Mother DeniedRight to Move Child from Pennsylvania. [Lozinakv. Lozinak, 390 Pa. Super. 597, 569 A.2d 353 3(1990)]. 11:133-34.Bertin, Emanuel A. Estrangement is aConsideration in Awarding College Support.[Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177, 556 A.2d854 (1989)]. 10:88-89.Bertin, Emanuel A. Husband Estopped fromAsserting Invalidity of Foreign Divorce Decree.[Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 396 Pa. Super.531, 579 A.2d 377 (1990)]. 11:154-55.Bertin, Emanuel A. Law Partnership AgreementBinding on Court in Divorce Case. [McCabe v.McCabe, 525 Pa. 25, 575 A.2d 85 (1990)].11:142-43.Bertin, Emanuel A. Marital Funds Cannot be Usedto Pay Post-Separation Debts. [Grandovic v.Grandovic, 387 Pa. Super. 617, 564 A.2d 960(1989)]. 10:121.Bertin, Emanuel A. The Meaning of the 1988Divorce Code Amendments Clarified. [Woodingsv. Woodings, 411 Pa. Super. 406, 601 A.2d 854(1992)]. 13(1):2.Bertin, Emanuel A. Religious Restriction inCustody Order Struck Down. [Zummo v. Zummo,394 Pa. Super. 30, 574 A.2d 1130 (1990)].11:143.Bertin, Emanuel A. Third Party Standing Clarifiedin Child Custody Cases. [Gradwell v. Strausser,416 Pa. Super. 118, 610 A.2d 999 (1992)].13(3):2.Bertin, Emanuel A. Trial Court Reversed forFailure to Apply Important Child CustodyProcedures. [Cyran v. Cyran, 389 Pa. Super. 128,566 A.2d 878 (1989)]. 11:134-35.Bertin, Michael E. Balicki: Tax Ramifications andCosts in Equitable Distribution. [Balicki v.Balicki, 4 A.3d 654 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:195-96.Bertin, Michael E. Best Interest of the ChildParamount in Denial of Interstate RelocationPetition. [Speck v. Spadafore, 895 A.2d. 606 (Pa.Super. 2006)]. 28:98-99.Bertin, Michael E. Child Support ModificationRetroactive to Date of Misrepresentation. [Krebsv. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:79-81.Bertin, Michael E. Child Support: SupplementalNeeds Trust Distributions Considered Income.[Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super.2007)]. 29:134-36.Bertin, Michael E. Court Enforces RulesRegarding In Camera Interviews With Childrenand Expert Reports. [Ottolini v. Barrett, 954 A.2d610 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:217-19.Bertin, Michael E. Enforcing Mortgage Payment3

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSProvision in Postnuptial Agreement. [Miller v.Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 32:7-8.Bertin, Michael E. First Impression: BifurcationUnder the Amended Divorce Code. [Bonawits v.Bonawits, 907 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 2006)].29:98-100.Bertin, Michael E. Non-Biological GrandparentsGranted Standing in Child Custody Case. [Petersv. Costello 891 A.2d 705 (Pa. Super. 2005)].28:13-15.Bertin, Michael, E. PA Child Custody JurisdictionLost Despite Parent Remaining in PA. [Billhime v.Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2008)].31:95-96.Bertin, Michael E. Sensitivity is Paramount inFight Over Child’s Remains. [Kulp v. Kulp, 920A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:49-51.Bertin, Michael E. Sexual Assault Alone Does notEstablish Standing in Protection from AbuseCases. [Scott v. Shay, 928 A.2d. 312 (Pa. Super.2007)]. 29:137-39.Bertin, Michael E. Stress but No Duress:Agreement Valid. [Adams v. Adams, 848 A.2d991 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 26:45-46.Bertin, Michael E. Sunny Florida: RelocationGranted. [Billhime v. Billhime, 869 A.2d 1031(Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:59-61.Bertin, Michael E. Superior Court Says No toNetherlands Child Relocation Request. [Fuehrer v.Fuehrer, 906 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:6-8.Bertin, Michael E. Two Cases on Standing: Case1: Third Party Asserting Paternity has No Standingin a Partial Custody Case Against an Intact FamilyUnit. [CW v. LV and GV, 788 A.2d 1002 (Pa.Super. 2001)]; Case: Former Same-Sex Partnerhas Standing in Partial Custody Case. [T.B. v.L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa.2001)]. 24:3-5.Billies, Elizabeth J. Parent’s Progress TowardReunification not Enough to Overcome Petitionfor Goal Change and Termination. [In the Interestof R.M.G., a Minor; Appeal of: York CountyChildren and Youth Services, 997 A.2d 339 (Pa.Super. 2010)]. 32:193-94.Billies, Elizabeth J. Supreme Court Finds ThatReasonableness Must be Implied WhenDetermining an Award of Contractual CounselFees. [McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 769 (Pa.2009)]. 32:18-20.Billies, Elizabeth. Voluntary Resignation fromEmployment Does not Justify Reduction ofAlimony Pursuant to Post-Nuptial Agreement.[Williams v. Williams, 108 PDDRR 87 p.321].30:219-20.Blechman, Jay A. The Presumption of LegitimacyStill Lives. [Cozad v. Amrhein, 714 A.2d 409 (Pa.Super. 1998); Martin v. Martin, 710 A.2d 61 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. 20:57-59.Blessing, Maribeth. Supreme Court DifferentiatesBetween Postnuptial and Separation Agreements[Vaccarello v. Vaccarello, 563 Pa. 93, 757 A.2d909 (2000)]. 23:4-8.Bononi, Michele G. Custody Agreements will notOnly be Upheld Where All of the Terms areKnown by the Litigants. [Yates v. Yates, 936 A.2d1191 (Pa. Super 2007)]. 30:9-10.Bononi, Michele G. Paren[t]. Who AlreadyLocated has Burden to Show Best Interests OfChildren Served by Remaining with That Parent.[Klos v. Klos, 934 A2.d 724 (Pa. Super 2007)].29:131-32.Bononi, Michele G. Trial Court had Jurisdiction toEnforce Marital Property Settlement Agreementunder Divorce Code Where Agreement had notbeen Merged or Incorporated into Final DivorceDecree. [Annechino v. Joire, 946 A.2d 121 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 30:82-83.Boyd, Melissa M. Equal Amenities at BothParents’ Houses not the Standard for ChildSupport in High Income Cases in Pennsylvania.[Rich v. Rich, 967 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super. 2009)].31:18-19.4

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSBrandt, Jennifer A. Emancipated Child MayIntervene in Enforcement Proceedings to Litigateand Receive Retroactive Child Support. [Chen v.Chen, 840 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. 26:5-6.Brandt, Jennifer A. Interlocutory Order forAPL/Spousal Support is Unappealable Within 30Days of the Entry of the Final Decree in Divorceor Annulment. [Costlow v. Costlow, 914 A.2d 440(Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:14-15.Bravacos, Linda K. Workers’ CompensationCommutation Award is Marital Property. Status ofDisability Pensions Called Into Question. [Drakev. Drake, 555 Pa. 481, 725 A.2d 717 (1999)].21:40-42.Brennan, Patricia T. Courts May Attach Pensionas Contempt Sanction. [Richardson v. Richardson,774 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. 23:60-62.Bunde, Robb B. Supreme Court Allows LegalMalpractice Claim Where Settlement was Enteredin Divorce. [McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124, 688A.2d 1179 (1997)]. 19:33-34.Bunde, Robb D. Voluntary Retirement at Age 52to Take Pension Warranted Imposition of anEarning Capacity for Child Support Purposes.[Smedley v. Lowman, 2 A.3d 1226 (Pa. Super.2010). 32:188-89.Burchik, Mary H. Superior Court Affirms TrialCourt’s Dismissal of Father’s Petition forModification of Child Support. [McClain v.McClain, 872 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 2005)].27:115-17.Burkett, Loreen M. Business Valuation–Increasein Value of Nonmarital Asset–Are We ComparingApples to Oranges? [(Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860A.2d 1056 (2004)]. 27:11-12.Burkett, Loreen M. A Disability Pension orDistrict Disability Portion of a Pension is aNonmarital Asset and not Subject to EquitableDistribution. [Cioffi v. Cioffi, 885 A.2d 45 (Pa.Super. 2005)]. 28:5-7.Burkett, Loreen M. Paternity by Estoppel notRecognized to Establish Maternity. [Bahl v.Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d 534 (Pa. 2003)].25:63-65.Burkett, Loreen M. Pennsylvania Supreme CourtEstablishes the “No Justification” Rule to PrecludeIncarcerated Parent fromModifying orTerminating Child Support Based UponModification of Child Support. [Yerkes v. Yerkes,824 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2003)]. 26:4-5.Byrne, Harry M. Jr. Court Decides Shared LegalCustody / Religious Dispute. [Shepp v. Shepp, 821A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. 25:76-78.Cantor, Debra Denison. Pa. Courts Empowered toAllocate Dependency Exemptions. [Miller v.Miller, 744 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. 22:3-5.Cappella, Kerri Lee. Till Death do Us Part?Grounds for Divorce Must be Established toAvoid the Abatement of a Divorce Action: 23Pa.C.S.A. §3323(d.1). [Gerow v. Gerow, 962 A.2d1206 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 31:11-13.Cappella, Kerri Lee. Two Wrongs did not Make ItRight: Defects on the Face of the Record 23Pa.C.S.A. §3332. [Bingaman, Jr. v. Bingaman 980A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:162-63.Cardozo, Cathy M. Award of Primary Custody toNon-biological Mother of Former Lesbian Couple.[Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2005)].28:7-8.Carlson, Kathryn G. The Presumption of PaternityLives. [Strauser v. Stahr, 556 Pa. 83, 726 A.2d1052 (1999)]. 21:73-75.Cepparulo, Elizabeth H. Gruber Test notControlling Where Children Relocated PursuantTo Earlier Order. [R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 32:22-23.Cillo, Julie M. Prenuptial Agreements: TheSimeone Standard and Beyond. [Porreco vPorreco, 811 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2002)]. 25:5-7.Clifford, Daniel J. Cornbleth Exceptions.[McClain v. McClain, 693 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super.5

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORS1997)]. 19:57-58.Clifford, Daniel J. Earning Capacity vs. EarningHistory: If a Party has been a Farmer for TenYears; He is a Farmer. [Dennis v. Whitney, 844A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 26:44-45.Clifford, Daniel J. Second Parent Adoption:Supreme Court puts end to “Absurdity.” [In Re:Adoption of R.B.F. and R.C.F., Appeal of B.A.F.and C.H.F. (Lancaster County), 803 A.2d 1195(Pa. 2002), In Re: Adoption of C.C.G. and Z.C.G.,Appeal of J.C.G and J.J.G. (Erie County), 803A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002)]. 24:105-6.Cognetti, Maria P. Post-Separation RetirementBenefits–After Berrington. [Brown v. Brown, 447Pa. Super. 424, 669 A.2d 969 (1995)]. 18(2):11-13.Conmy, Joanna K. Child Support Calculations:Ongoing Private School Tuition Contributions arein; One-Time Stock Options, Payments TowardPerks and Withdrawal Penalties on EmployerContributions to 401(k) Plans are Out,. [Murphy v.McDermott, 979 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 2009)].31:159-62.Conmy, Joanna K. A Thin Line DistinguishingBillhime: What Constitutes Enough Evidence toEstablish a Child’s “Significant Connection” withPennsylvania to Maintain Jurisdiction Over aCustody Matter? [Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d1217 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:141-44.Cooper, Karl D. The Presumption of Paternity andthe Doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel Revisited.[Hamilton v. Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super.2002), T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super.2002)]. 24:35-36.Cusick, Charles S. Jr. Neither IVF, Nor aPreconception Oral Agreement Nor the Mother’sIntentional Deception Bars a Sperm Donor’sAdjudication as the Child’s Legal FatherObligated to Pay Child Support. [Ferguson v.McKiernan, 855 A.2d 121 (Pa Super. 2004)].26:109-10.Daley, Kathleen Carey. Presumption of PaternityRebutted and Paternity by Estoppel Inapplicable.[Green v. Good, 704 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1998)].20:40-42.Davis, Sandra E. Full-Time Job in Support Cases.[Haselrig v. Haselrig, 840 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super.2003)]. 26:8-9.Davis, Sandra E. Mortgage Adjustment in ChildSupport Case After Decree in Divorce. [Isralsky v.Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 (Pa Super. 2003)]. 25:69-72.Davis Anderson, Liane. Appellant’s Failure toComply With Trial Court’s Order to Furnish A1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of onAppeal in a Timely Manner While Also Violatingthe New Procedural Rules Outlined in1925(a)(2)(i) Constitutes a Waiver of Objectionsto the Lower Court’s Order. [J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d904 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:80-82.Dawson, Michelle S. Failure to State Issues inStatement of Matters Complained of On AppealConstitutes Waiver of Issues First Raised byAppellant in Superior Court Brief. [Kelly v.Mueller, 912 A.2d 202 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:19-20.DeMatteo, Christina M. The Application of theDoctrine of In Custodia Legis to Protect MaritalProperty fromTax Sale During the Pendency ofEquitable Distribution. [City of Easton v. Marra,862 A.2d 170 (Pa. Commw. 2004)]. 27:8-9.DeMatteo, Christina M. Dependency by Omission:Trial Court’s Finding That a Child is WithoutProper Parental Care Supports an Adjudication ofDependency. [In Re: R.P., 2008 Pa. Super. 196(August 21, 2008), 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super.2008)]. 30:213-15.Dobbins, Susan N. Shared Custody Order Vacatedfor Infant. [Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. 21:6-8.Draganosky, David J. Getting Sirious.[Sirio v.Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:159-63.6

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSDraganosky, David J. Pa. Supreme Court Createsa Per Se Rule for the Expungement of CertainProtection from Abuse Records.[Carlacci v.Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2002)]. 24:99-101.Draganosky, David J. The Parenting CoordinatorCometh. [Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 31:15-18.Draganosky, David J. Ruling fromPA SuperiorCourt Determines When Stock Options ConstituteMarital Property. [MacAleer v. MacAleer, 725A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. 21:38-40.Faigenbaum, Bernard D. Superior Court GrantsStanding to a Lesbian Partner to Seek PartialCustody. [J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa. Super. 78, 682A.2d 1314 (1996)]. 18(4):3-6.Famous, Natalie. Courts may not Divide SocialSecurity Benefits in Support. [Silver v. Pinskey,not reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 902715 (Pa.Super. April 4, 2008), rearg. En banc granted May30, 2008]. 30:86-87.Farabaugh, Erin. Mass Media Expert not an Expertto Make Physical and Psychological Conclusionsfrom Frequent Visits to Pornography InternetSites. [A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d 744 (Pa. Super.2008)]. 30:88-90.Feinman, Sarinia M. Pennsylvania’s BeneficiaryRe-Designation Statute–Does ERISA Preempt? [InRe Estate of Paul J. Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265(Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:91-92.Fineman, Elizabeth J. Equitable Defense toEquitable Distribution Rental Credit Claim. [Leev. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:103-5.Fisher, Lise A. Two Agreements–TwoEnforcement Cases One Success-One Failure.[Thomson v. Rose, 698 A.2d 1321 (Pa. Super.1997); Gaster v. Gaster, 703 A.2d 513 (1997)].19:79-81.Fleming, Linda Rovder. Prospective AdoptiveParents did not have Standing to Intervene inCustody Case. [B.A. and A.A. v. E.E. v., D. andC., 559 Pa. 545, 741 A.2d 1227 (1999)]. 22:8-11.Freeman, Julie K. Bifurcation of DivorceUpheld–Trial Court Properly Engaged in aSystematic and On-The-Record Inquiry atHearing. [Savage v. Savage, 736 A.2d 633 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. 21:116-18.Friedlander, Gary J. Early Retirement IncentiveBenefits. [Meyer v. Meyer, 561 Pa. 225, 749 A.2d917 (2000)]. 22:63-65.Friedlander, Gary J. PostNuptial AgreementSubject to Simeone Requirements. [Mormello v.Mormello, 452 Pa. Super. 590, 682 A.2d 824(1996)]. 19:6-8.Fuehrer, J. Alan. Superior Court Applies “SpecificHarm” Standard to Prevent Mother’s Request toBaptize Child. [Hicks v. Hicks, 868 A.2d 1245(Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:54-55.Funge, Ann M. Grandparent Visitation StatuteRegarding Children of Separated or DivorcedParents is Constitutional, Does not Violate EqualProtection Rights. [Schmehl v. Schmehl, 927 A.2d 183 (Pa. 2007)]. 29:91-92.Funge, Ann M. Superior Court Affirms Decisionto Decline Jurisdiction Under UCCJEA After FullCustody Hearing Where One Parent Remains inJurisdiction and Underlying Custody OrderOstensibly Retains Jurisdiction. [A.D. v. M.A.B.,989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:68-70.Funge, Ann M. Superior Court RecognizesPrecedential Power of Commonwealth Court’sAbolition of Common Law Marriage and Limit ItsProspective Application to Common LawMarriages Entered After September 13, 2003.[Stackhouse v. Stackhouse, 862 A.2d 102 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. 27:9-10.Funge, Ann M. Superior Court Rules No DueProcess Violation in a Paternity Matter Where anAcknowledged Father did not Receive Notice Nora Timely Hearing When Mother Filed for ChildSupport Against a Third Party. [Wieland v.Wieland, 948 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2008)].30:154-56.7

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSFunge, Ann M. Superior Court Rules ThatRelevant Valuation Date for Closely-HeldBusiness Interest Controlled Exclusively by OneParty Post-Separation is Date of Distribution.[Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006)].28:96-97.Funge, Ann M. Unauthorized Appeal Results inRuling that Parent with De Jure, But not De Facto,Custody has Standing to Seek Child Support.[Seder v. Seder, 841 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Super.2004)]. 26:9-11.Gale, Christine. Marriage Settlement AgreementUpheld When Spouse of Business Owner FullyEngaged in Couple’s Financial Affairs andInvolved in Business. [Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d1061 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:120-21.Gale, Christine. Reasonable Counsel FeesAwarded as a Sanction for FraudulentConcealment of Income in a Child SupportProceeding Should be Awarded in Full. [Krebs v.Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:93-94.Gale, Christine. Seizing of Personal SettlementProceeds Permitted for Child SupportEnforcement. [Campbell v. Walker; Appeal of:Department of Public Welfare, 982 A.2d 1013(Pa. Super. 2009)]. 32:5-7.Gale, Christine. Strict Adherence is RequiredConcerning Venue in the Issue of DivorceDecrees. [Danz v. Danz, 947 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super.2008)]. 30:150-51.Galzerano, Mark R. Home State Jurisdiction inCustody Cases and Test of SignificantConnections. [Zimbicki v. Zimbicki, 810 A.2d 168(Pa. Super. 2002)]. 25:7-8.Ganz, Julie E. Minor’s Brother GrantedCustody–Not Father–When Mother Died.[Chambers v. Chambers, 105 PDDRR 69 (BucksCounty, 2005)]. 27:114-15.Gavlick, Jean Gilroy. Superior Court FindsCondonation is an Adequate Defense to Adulteryas it Precludes Spousal Support. [Hoffman v.Hoffman, 762 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. 23:9-10.Gibbons, Maria Etzrodt. Pre-Retirement MilitaryVoluntary Separation Pay not Subject to PropertySettlement Agreement Division of Retirement Pay.[Horner v. Horner, 560 Pa. 559, 747 A.2d 337(1997)]. 20:42-43.Gill, Maris J.W. Pre-Separation VoluntaryReduction of Income Unpersuasive–Prior EarningCapacity Prevails. [Neil v. Neil, 731 A.2d 156 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. 21:114-15.Grossman, Rochelle. Equitable Distribution/Validity of Waiver in Agreement. [Holz v. Holz,850 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 26:42-43.Grossman, Rochelle B. Retroactivity of APL andChild Support Orders Prior to Filing is GainingMomentum: Standard of Review on AppealHeightening. [Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d221 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 21:37-38.Grossman, Rochelle B. Spousal Support OrderEntered During Pending Divorce CaseUnappealable. [Leister v. Lesiter, 453 Pa. Super.576, 684 A.2d 192 (1996)]. 19:3-5.Grossman, Rochelle B. Spousal Support Shall beBased Upon Reasonable Needs in High IncomeCases, not Guideline Formula. [Mascaro v,Mascaro, 764 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2000)].23:13-15.Grunfeld, David I. ERISA Trumps State Law.[Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 149 L.Ed.2d264, 121 S. Ct. 1322 (2001)]. 23:37-38.Grunfeld, David I. Failure to Inform EmployerRE: Divorce Subjects Employee to Liability forPost-Divorce Health Benefits Paid When NoHealth Insurance Premiums Paid. [Trustees of theAFTRA Health Fund v. Biondi, 303 F.2d 765 (7 thCir. 2002)]. 24:106.Grunfeld, David I. Non-Debtor Spouse’sUnliquidated E. D. Claim Discharged in Spouse’sBankruptcy. [Schorr v. Schorr, 299 B.R. 97,(Bankr. W.D. Pa., 2003)]. 25:100-1.8

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSGrunfeld, David I. Prevailing Party in ContractEnforcement Case not Entitled to Attorney’s FeesUpon Settlement. [Profit Wize Marketing v.Weist, 812 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. 25:8-9.Grunfeld, David I. Subsequent Mortgage TakesPriority Over Unrevived Equitable DistributionJudgment. [Mid-State Bank & Trust Co. v.Globalnet International, Inc., 557 Pa. 555, 735A.2d 79 (1999)]. 21:75-76.Henning, Teri L. Grandparents have AutomaticStanding to Bring Custody Actions. [R.M. v.Baxter ex rel T.M., 565 Pa. 619, 777 A.2d 446(2001)]. 23:59-60.Hodge, Mindi J. and Randi J. Silverman. Terms ofSettlement Agreement Override Case LawRegarding Pension Valuation Date. [Bianchi v.Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 26:108-9.Hoffman, Jonathan T. Social Security DerivativeBenefits can be Subject to Legal Process Under 42U.S.C.A. § 659. [Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284(Pa. Super. 2009)]. 32:23-25.Holst, Darren J. Evidence Sufficient for ProtectionfromAbuse Order Despite Absence of PhysicalInjury. [Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 30:211-13.Holst, Darren J. Post-Separation Act 9Enhancements to Marital State EmployeeRetirement System Benefits Found not toConstitute Marital Property Under new Section3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code. [Smith v. Smith,881 A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 28:3-5.Holst, Darren J. Procedural Due Process RightsCannot Succumb to the Equitable Aims of theDivorce Code. [Mayer v. Garman, 590 Pa. 268,912 A.2d 762 ( 2006)]. 28:100-2.Holst, Darren J. Satisfaction of Proven ReasonableNeeds, not Equalization of Income, Is Polestar forDetermining Monthly Alimony Amount.[Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super.2006)]. 29:51-52.Holst, Darren J. Self-Created Economic HardshipSabotages Colonna Support Deviation Request.[Saunders v. Saunders, 908 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super.2006)]. 29:3-5.Holst, Darren J. Value of Employee BenefitsPackage and Undistributed Annuity Interest Mustbe Included as Income Available for ChildSupport Purposes. [Arbet v. Arbet, 803 A.2d 34(Pa. Super. 2004)]. 27:4-7.Horoho, Kenneth J., Jr. Supreme Court Declaresthat Standing in Child Support Cases Determinedby Custody Order? Legislature Responds with DeFacto Custody Statute. [Larson v. Diveglia, 549Pa. 118, 700 A.2d 931 (1997)]. 20:8-9.Humphrey, Kristen M. Pennsylvania Court LackedSubject Matter Jurisdiction to Terminate ParentalRights When Parent Still Resided in State thatIssued Custody Order. [In re: Adoption of N.M.B.564 Pa. 117, 764 A.2d 1042 (2000)]. 23:2-4.Hurvitz, Steven S. APL Included in AntenuptialWaiver of Alimony or Support. [Musko v. Musko,697 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super. 1997)]. 19:75-76.Jablon, Stephanie L. Death Prevents Entry ofPosthumous Divorce Decree Even ThoughEquitable Distribution Proceeds. [Yelenic v.Clark, 922 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:53-54.Keenan, James G. Testamentary Appointment ofa Guardian for a Minor Child is Controlling andnot Merely Directory. [In re: Slaughter, 738 A.2d1013 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. 22:5-7.Kerns, Linda A. Explanatory Comments toRevised Rule 1910.19(f) Prevent Arrears to beRemitted During Obligor’s Incarceration. [Nash v.Herbster, 932 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 2007)].29:125-26.Kleiman, Michael L. Gruber Factors Applied toIntrastate Custody Relocation Case. [Perrott v.Perrott, 713 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:59-61.Komar, Candice L. Gruber Factors are Only a Partof a Best Interest Analysis When Court Makes9

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSInitial Custody Determination in a RelocationSituation. [Hurley v. Hurley, 754 A.2d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2000)]. 22:62-63.Krentzman, Cheryl B. Superior Court ReaffirmsTrial Court’s Discretion to Apply Gruber toIntrastate Relocations, Reject theRecommendation of a Custody Evaluator, andIncrease the Custodial Time of the Non-Petitioning Parent. [Masser v. Miller, 909 A.2d846 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:15-17.Krentzman, Cheryl B. Termination of ChildSupport Order Pursuant to Rule. [1]910.19(e)Does not Automatically Bar a Later Claim forPost-Majority Support. [Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d403 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:208-11.Krentzman, Cheryl B. Trial Court did notImproperly Modify Custody Order in ContemptProceeding by Failing to Impose Sanction ofReturn of Child to Jurisdiction, but Failure toImpose any Sanctions for Contempt andPronouncement Regarding Future JurisdictionConstituted Errors. [Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d1230 (Pa. Super. 2009)] 32:9-12.Ladov, David L. Buy/Sell Provisions ofShareholders' Agreement not Binding onValuation in Terms of Agreement do not ActuallyReflect Current Value. [Butler v. Butler, 541 Pa.364, 663 A.2d 148 (1995)]. 18(1):7,18-20.Ladov, David L. Guidelines Deviation in SupportCases Must be Substantiated. [Anzalone v.Anzalone, 449 Pa. Super. 201, 673 A.2d 377(1996)]. 18(3):3-5.Ladov, David L. Post-Separation Increases inValue of Nonmarital Assets: The Line GrowsBrighter. [Litmans v. Litmans, 449 Pa. Super. 209,673 A.2d 382 (1996)]. 18(3):7-8.Ladov, David L. Postseparation Interest andDividends Earned on Nonmarital Bequest is not inMarital Pot. [Ling v. Ling, 442 Pa. Super. 106,659 A.2d 805 (1995)]. 18(1):7.Ladov, David L. Prenuptial Agreement: ExpressWaiver of Alimony or Support does not ConstituteWaiver of Alimony Pendente Lite. [Musko v.Musko, 447 Pa. Super. 150, 668 A.2d 561(1995)]. 18(1):20.Ladov, David L. Relocation: Gruber is Alive andWell. [Gancas v. Schultz, 453 Pa. Super. 324, 683A.2d 1207 (1996)]. 19:8-10.Ladov, David L. Superior Court Declares NoRetroactive Credit for Child Support on Behalf ofEmancipated Minor. [Holcomb v. Holcomb, 448Pa. Super. 154, 670 A.2d 1155 (1996)]. 18(3):5-6.Ladov, David L. Third Parties may be on EqualFooting, But do They Have Equal Standing? [InRe: G.C., 449 Pa. Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932(1996)]. 18(3):8-11.Ladov, David L. Third Parties Now on EqualFooting in Custody Cases–Supreme CourtApparently Overrules Presumption in Favor ofParents. [Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pa. Super. 443,668 A.2d. 126 (1995)]. 18(1):6-7.Laffey-Ferry, Marion. When Local Court’sReasoning is not Evident from Record Failure toFile Rule 1925(a) Opinion Caused Reversal andRemand. [Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super.2007)]. 30:3-5.LeComte, Samatha R. In Loco Parentis Requiredfor Standing in Custody Cases. [Argenio v.Fenton, 703 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:38-40.Levin, Ann V. Presumption of Paternity andDoctrine of Estoppel Explained. [Fish v. Behers,559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d 721 (1999)]. 22:7-8.Levine, Scott L.Temporary Institutionalizationdoes not Constitute Permanent Challenge inCircumstances. [R.C. v. J.S., 957 A.2d 759 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 30:215-16.Liechty, Linda C. Trial Court's InadvertentDelayed Filing of Reconsidered EquitableDistribution Order Causes Appeal to Fail.[Weinzetl v. Weinzetl, 452 Pa. Super. 271, 681A.2d 813 (1996)]. 19:5-6.10

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSLittle, Stephanie E. Nunc Pro Tunc Relief notGranted Where There is No Proof of Fraud.[Woods v. Cicierski, 937 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super.2007)]. 30:7-8.Litzke, Kimberly. The Broad Discretion of theCourt to Effectuate Economic Justice Meant theCourt Could Appoint an Equitable DistributionMaster Within 30 Days of the Final DecreeDespite the Lack of a Properly Raised Claim.[Lowers v. Lowers, 911 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super.2006)]. 29:12-13.Lucas, Margaret T. and H. William White, III.Same Sex Domestic Partner’s in Loco ParentisStanding Carries a Child Support Obligation.[L.S.K. v. H.A.N., 813 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super.2002)]. 25:12-13.Lucas, Margaret. Termination of RelationshipWith Paramour Prior to Trial will not PrecludeFinding of Cohabitation. [Moran v. Moran, 839A.2d 1091 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. 26:6-7.Mahood, James E. Horner vs Horner, ASubsequent Case Note. 20:43-44.Male, Theresa B. Lesbian Partner in ExclusiveRelationship With Artificially Inseminated Motherhas Standing to Bring Partial Custody Case. [T.B.v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000)].22:61-62.Margle, Stanley J. Homosexual Partners are notSpouses Qualified Under Pa. Adoption Act. [In re:Adoption of R.B.F. and R.C.F., 762 A.2d 739 (Pa.Super. 2000)]. and. [In re: Adoption of C.C.G. andZ. C. G. 762 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. 23:8-9.Marino, Carla. ERISA Preempts PennsylvaniaLaw When It Comes to Employer Sponsored PlansDesignating Ex-Spouses as Beneficiaries. [In ReEstate of Paul J. Sauers, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. 30:148-50.Marino, Carla. Pennsylvania Superior CourtApplies a Strict Standard for the Showing of GoodCause When a Petition Requests the Opening ofAdoption Records. [In Re: Adoption of S.B., 979A.2d 925 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:157-58.Martone, Joseph P. Parochial School is PrivateSchool Under PA Supreme Court SupportGuidelines. [Teresa Lynn Knapp vs. John GordonKnapp, 756 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. 23:11.Martone, Joseph P. Stock Options are Income forSupport Purposes. [Mackinly v. Messerschmidt,814 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super 2002)]. 25:9-10.Martone, Joseph P. The Tender Years Act. [Fidlerv. Cunningham-Small, 871 A.2d 231 (Pa. Super.2005)]. 27:56-57.McCall, Elizabeth J. Custody Action Filed WhileJuvenile Proceedings are Pending is anUnwarranted Waste of Judicial Resources. [P.T. &K.T. v. M.H., 953 A.2d 814 (Pa. Super. 2008)].31:6-7.McCall, Elizabeth J. Mailbox Rule Applied toDomestic Relation Hearing Notices. [Murphy v.Murphy, 988 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:70-71.McCarthy, Carol S. Mills. The Guidelines are theGuidelines are the Guidelines. [Terpak v. Terpak,697 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super. 1997)]. 19:77-79.McCarthy, Carol S. Mills. The Supreme CourtConsiders Deprecation in the Calculation ofIncome Available for Support. [Labar v. Labar,557 Pa. 54, 731 A.2d 1252 (1999)]. 21:76-78.McDonnell, Kate E. Domicile Governs DivorceJurisdiction. [Sinha v. Sinha, 834 A.2d 600 (Pa.Super. 2003)]. 26:43-44.McEnroe, Jennifer M. Workers’ CompensationAward held in Escrow to Pay Alimony. [Dudas v.Pietrzykowski, 813 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002)].25:10-12.McFadden, Catherine. Post-Divorce Increase inPension Subject to Division. [Smith v. Boulding,938 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 30:76-79.McFadden, Catherine M. PSA Prevents Reductionof Wife’s Share of Military Pension. [Adams v.Adams, 725 A.2d 824 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. 21:71-73.11

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSMcKillop, Donna M. The Mature Minor DoctrineNo Defense to Involuntary Manslaughter of Childnot Provided Medical Treatment. [Com. v. Nixon,563 Pa. 425, 761 A.2d 1151 (2000)]. 23:11-13.McKillop, Donna Trial Court may not InfusePersonal Beliefs Opposing Shared PhysicalCustody. [B.C.S. v. J.A.S., 994 A.2d 600 (Pa.Super. 2010)]. 32:137-38.Mervan, Lorraine W. Clarification for Those Pre-1998 Support Agreements. [Nicholson v. Combs,550 Pa. 23, 703 A.2d 407 (1997)]. 20:3-4.Meyer, Charles J. A Finding of Criminal Contemptis Immediately Appealable. [Diamond v.Diamond, 715 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 1998)].20:90-92.Michaelson, Sarinia A. In Loco Parentis StatusProvides Same Rights as a Parent in JuvenileDependency Proceedings. [In re D.K. & W.K.,922 A.2d 929 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:100-01.Michaelson, Sarinia A. Equitable ReimbursementWhen Marital Assets Just are not Enough. [Wangv. Feng, 888 A.2d. 882 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 28:15-16.Miles, Patricia A. Sole Proprietorship can haveEnterprise Goodwill Under Facts of Some Cases(But not This One). [Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d1368 (1997)]. 19:51-54.Miller, Sally R. Best Interests Control in CustodyRelocation Cases. [Tripathi v. Tripathi, 787 A.2d436 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. 24:39-40.Miller, Sally R. Goodwill Valuation of VeterinaryPractice. [Baker v. Baker, 861 A.2d 298 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. 27:7-8.Miller, Sally R. Grant of Counsel Fees forContinuing Conduct in Custody Case. [Holler v.Smith, 928 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super 2007)]. 29:123-24.Miller, Sally R. Statutory Standing in GrandparentCustody Cases. [Martinez v. Baxter, 725 A.2d 775(Pa. Super. 1999)]. 21:35-36.Mirabile, Carolyn R. Best Interest StandardSupports Trial Court’s Holding That a PriorCriminal Record Does not Bar Someone as aKinship Provider. [In Re: J.P.; Appeal ofDepartment of Human Services, 998 A.2d 984(Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:144-45.Mirabile, Carolyn R. Paternity by Estoppel: If OneWaits, It may be Too Late! [Ellison v. Lopez, 959A. 2d 295 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 31:7-8.Mirabile, Carolyn R. Pennsylvania Superior CourtAbolishes Evidentiary Presumption Relating toSame-Sex Relationships in Custody and Affirmsthe Best Interest Standard. [M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:20-21.Mirabile, Carolyn R. Supreme Court AdmitsParole Evidence to Define the Term ofCohabitation in a Property Settlement Agreement.[Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 2004)].26:41-42.Molnar, Elisabeth W. Protection of Mental HealthRecords as it Applies to a Custody Case inPennsylvania. [Gates v. Gates, 967 A.2d 1024 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. 31:97-99.Moonay, Hillary J. Superior Court ConstruesPrenuptial Agreement Waiving TestamentaryRights to Also Waive Divorce Code Rights inAbsence of Express Language. [Stackhouse v.Zaretsky, 900A.2d. 383 (Pa. Super. 2006)].28:106-8.Moore, Richard I. Continuing Jurisdiction–“TheSignificant Connections Analysis”. [Kriebel v.Kriebel, 766 A.2d 854 (Pa. Super. 2000) andFavacchia v. Favacchia, 769 A.2d 531 (Pa. Super2001)]. 23:38-39.Moore, Richard I. Paternity Testing–Let theGames Begin. [Cable v. Anthou, 499 Pa. 553, 674A.2d 732 (1997)]. 19:76-77.Morrisey, Caren E. Divorce Decree Insufficient toDivest Beneficiary of ERISA Pension Plan inAbsence of Change of Beneficiary According toPlan Documents. [Kennedy, Executrix of theEstate of Kennedy, Deceased v. Plan12

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSAdministrator for Dupont Savings and InvestmentPlan et al. 129 S. Ct. 865, 172 L.Ed.2d 662(2009)]. 31:4-5.Morrissey, Caren E. Does the Nurturing ParentDoctrine Still Exist in Pennsylvania? [Doherty v.Doherty, 859 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. 2004)].26:107-8.Morrissey, Caren E. Paternity: Recent Opinions bythe Superior Court. [McConnell v. Berkheimer,781 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2001), Tregoningv.Wiltsheck and Perez 782 A.2d 1001 ( Pa. Super.2001), and B.S. and R.S. v T.M., 782 A.2d 1031(Pa. Super. 2001)]. 23:56-58.Morton, Kim Denise. Failure to Transcribe InCamera Interview of Minor Child not Fatal toTrial Court Decision When Some Facts WereElicited from Multiple Other Witnesses. [N.H.M.v. P.O.T., 947 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2008)].30:152-54.Morton, Kim Denise. Father Whose ParentalRights Were Terminated had No Standing toPetition for Custody. [Morgan v. Weisner, 923A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:85-86.Moyer, Jessica, F. Pennsylvania Superior CourtExtends Contractual Child Support After Death ofObligor. [In Re: Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433(Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:89-91.Murphy, Stephanie E., Orphans’ Court’s Revisionof Prior Order and Interpretation of PrenuptialAgreement Upheld,. [Estate of Kendall, Deceased,982 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:165-66.Neary, Colleen M. Involuntary Termination ofParental Rights of Parents Unable or Unwilling toFulfill CYS Conditions for Improving ParentingSkills. [In re: J.E., a minor and E.E., a minor, 745A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. 22:34-36.O’Brien, Christine M. Realty Awarded to Husbandnot Subject to Attachment by the Former Wife’sAttorney for Unpaid Legal Fees JudgmentObtained Against Wife Prior to Realty Transfer toHusband. [Frantz v. Frantz, 972 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. 31:102-3.Oglesby, Darren. Payments from Special NeedsTrust Considered Income for Support Purposes.[Mencer v. Ruch 928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007)].29:95-96.Orsatti, Benjamin E. ‘Continuing Contract Natureof Marital Settlement Agreement Tolls Statute ofLimitations; Deviation from Rules of AppellateProcedure Results in Waiver. [Crispo v. Crispo,909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:10-11.Orsatti, Benjamin E. Trial Court Must Set ForthRationale for Bifurcation on the Record Prior tothe Entry of a Decree in Divorce. [Brian v. Brian,872 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:62.Park, Joo Y. PA Superior Court Reiterates theRules of Law Regarding Oral Agreements onCollege Expenses, Definition of Earning Capacityand Net Income Calculations. [Mackay v. Mackay,984 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 32:14-16.Paul, Sophie P. In Re: G.C. Focuses Attention onStanding Issues. [In Interest of G.C., 449 Pa.Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932 (1996)]. 18(3):11-12.Paul, Sophie P. and Shoemaker, Gerald L.Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Treatment ofUnvested Stock Options. [Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa.586, 769 A.2d 1165 (2001)]. 23:32-34.Paul, Sophia Paige. Rule 1910.19(f) PermitsSuspension of Support Order and Remission ofArrears When There is No Reasonable Prospect ofRecovery. [Plunkard v. Mcconnell, 962 A.2d1227(Pa. Super. 2008)]. 31:13-14.Phillips, Amy J. Court Imposes ReasonablenessStandard on Attorney's Fees Provision in PropertySettlement Agreement. [McMullen v. Kutz, 925A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:88-91.Phillips, Amy J. Father’s Failure to ExerciseCustody Does not Excuse Mother’s Failure toFollow Parties’ Custody Order. [Hopkins v. Byes,954 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:205-8.Phillips, Amy J. Limited Testimony of SocialWorker Allowed Over Mother’s Objection. [In theMatter of L.F., Appeal of L.W., 995 A.2d 356 (Pa.13

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSSuper. 2010)]. 32:139-41.Pollock, David S. Allocation of APL and ChildSupport–Split Custody–Complex Support CaseWith Compounding Complexities. [Holland v.Holland, 444 Pa. Super. 251, 663 A.2d 768(1995)]. 18(2):7-9.Pollock, David S. Bifurcated Divorce Decree is aFinal Appealable Order. [Curran v. Curran, 446Pa. Super. 633, 667 A.2d 1155 (1995)]. 18(2):6-7.Pollock, David S. Equitable Distribution by theInch. [Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (PaSuper. 2003)]. 25:96-99.Pollock, David S. Gruber Analysis Applied toInter-County Case. [Bednarek v. Velazquez, 830A.2d 1267 (Pa Super.2003)]. 25:99-100.Ponzio, Sarah N. Reunification vs. Adoption–Whose Interests are Really Served? [In the Interestof R.J.T., Minor; Appeal of: Allegheny CountyOffice of Children, Youth and Families. In ReR.J.T. 990 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:72-75.Pride, Elisabeth. Inheritance does not Equate toIncome for Support Purposes. [Humphries v.DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281 (Pa. 2002)]. 32-34.Pritchard, Jessica A. Mother Maintained PrimaryCustody Despite Her Placement of Child inPrivate Boarding School. [A.O. v. M.O., 856 A.2d1204 (2004)]. 26:110-11.Purdy, Pamela L. Father Convicted of First DegreeMurder and Serving Life Term Entitled toEvaluation and Treatment to Custody Case.[Cramer v. Zgela, 969 A.2d. 621 (Pa. Super.2009)]. 31:100-1.Purdy, Pamela L. Interim Custody Order andStatus Quo not Control Subsequent School YearSchool District Determination. [Fox v. Garzilli,875 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:118-20.Purdy, Pamela L. Prior Support HearingStipulation as to Earning Capacity not Binding inNew Petition for Modification. [Baehr v. Baehr,889A.2d.1240 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 28:10-13.Rains, Robert E. Adding Uncertainty toUncertainty About Common Law Marriage. [PNCBank Corp. v. W.C.A.B (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269(Pa Cmwlth. 2003)]. 25:101-4.Rains, Robert E. Intrastate Custody Relocation inAbsence of Prior Custody Order. [Beers v. Beers,710 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:35-38.Redic, Geraldine M. Noncustodial Father WithoutStanding to Receive Accounting of TrustEstablished with Marital Funds Prior toSeparation. [Rock v. Pile, 720 A.2d 137 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. 21:8-10.Revelant, Angelica L. Lower Court Reversed forFailure to Relinquish Jurisdiction Pursuant toUCCJEA: Remand for Consideration of §5422(B).[Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super.2008)]. 30:158.Richardson, James H. Lump Sum Personal InjurySettlement Constitutes Income for SupportCalculations. [Darby v. Darby, 455 Pa. Super. 63,686 A.2d 1346 (1996)]. 19:29-31.Ronca, Daniel G. Custody Modification–The TrialCourt Must Assess the Potential Harm ofDisturbing Existing Custody Arrangements. [Johnsv. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. 27:53-54.Rothey, Melanie S. Is ‘Home State’ Under theUCCJEA Decided by Which Judge Speaks FirstDuring a Two-State Judicial TelephoneConference? [Bouzos-Reilly v. Reilly, 980 A.2d.643 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. 31:164-65.Rothy, Melaine Shannon. An Attorney Held inContempt and Directed to Return AppointmentFees Prevails on Appeal. [In the Matter of C. W.,960 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 31:8-10.Sattin, Cheryl. Mother by Estoppel v. In LocoParentis Status. [S.A. v. C.G.R., 856 A.2d 1248(Pa. Super. 2004)]. 27:3-4.Schanbacher, David C. Superior Court ImposesContractual Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealingin Performance and Enforcement on Parties to a14

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSMarriage Settlement Agreement. [Herzog v.Herzog, 887 A 2d. 313 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 28:8-10.Schanbacher, David C. A Severance Payment andDistribution of an Accural Account Income forSupport or Assets for Equitable Distribution?[Berry v. Berry 898 A.2d. 1100 (Pa. Super.2006)]. 28:102-4.Schorr, Gerald J. Alimony not Terminable forSame-Sex Cohabitation. [Kripp v. Kripp, 784A.2d 158 (Pa. Super 2001)]. 21:6-8.Schorr, Gerald J. Corpus of Inheritance Includedas Income in Calculating Child Support.[Humphreys v. DeRoss, 737 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super.1999)]. 21:111-14.Schultz, Selina J. Supreme Court Rejects theTheory that Marriage and Spousal Loans areSeparate Transactions for Purposes of theBankruptcy Recoupment Doctrine. [Cohen v.Goldberg, 554 Pa. 201, 720 A.2d 1028 (1998)].21:5-6.Schwartz, Steven B. The Child SupportImplications of the Second Family. [Frankenfieldv. Fesser, 449 Pa. Super. 47, 672 A.2d 1347(1996); Elias v. Spencer, 449 Pa. Super. 359, 673A.2d 982 (1996)]. 18(4):6-7.Schwartz, Steven B. Computing Income for aBusiness Owner Pursuant to Melzer. [Calabrese v.Calabrese, 448 Pa. Super. 166, 670 A.2d 1161(1996); Kessler v. Helmick, 449 Pa. Super. 113,672 A.2d 1380 (1996), Calabrese v. Calabrese,452 Pa. Super. 497, 682 A.2d 393 (1996)].18(4):7-10.Seaton, Lynnore K. Failure to Adhere to thePennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure canPreclude Review of an Appellant’s Arguments. [InRe K.T.E.L, 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009)].32:12-14.Shemtob, Lori K. No Child Support Duty afterDeath. [Benson ex rel. Patterson v. Patterson, 830A.2d 966 (Pa 2003)]. 25:95-96.Shemtob, Lori K. Custody Relocation StandardPrior to Initial Custody Order. [Marshall v.Marshall, 814 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. 25:4-5.Shemtob, Al. Current Standard of Living andChild’s Needs Controlling in Private SchoolTuition Case Where Child did not Attend PrivateSchool Prior to Separation. [Gibbons v. Kugle,908 A.2d 916 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:9.Shemtob, Lori K. An Accurate Inventory Prior toTrial may not Be. [Anderson v. Anderson, 822A.2d 824 (Pa Super 2003)]. 25-66-67.Shemtob, Lori K. Proceeds of EquitableDistribution are not Income for Support Purposes.[Miller v. Miller, 783 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super.2001)]. 24:10-11.Shemtob, Albert. U.S. Court of Appeals UpheldTax Court Ruling That Unallocated Pendente LiteSupport Award was Properly Deductible asAlimony to Payor and Income to Payee. [PatriciaKean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue;Robert W. Kean v. Commissioner of InternalrdRevenue, 407 F.3d 186 (3 Cir. 2005)]. 27:117-18.Shoemaker, Gerald L. Father’s Paternal RightsTerminated in Favor of Maternal Grandfather. [InRe Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super.2010)]. 32:79-80.Shoemaker, Gerald L. No Presumption that PublicSchool is Superior to Home Schooling. [Staub v.Staub, 960 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 31:20-21.Shoemaker, Gerald L. Jr. Rule 1910.16-4(E)Spousal Support Calculations When Obligor is thePrimary Custodian. [Diament v. Diament, 816A.2d 256 (Pa Super.2003)]. 25:73-76.Shoemaker, Gerald L., Jr. A Primary CustodialParent is not Obligated to Pay Child Support.[Colonna v. Colonna, 791 A.2d 353 (Pa. Super.2001)]. 11-13.Shoemaker, Gerald L., Jr. A Noncustodial Parentis Obliged to Pay Child Support Until a Child15

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSReaches Age 18 or Graduates from High School,Whichever Occurs Later in Time. [Robinson-Austin v. Robinson-Austin, 921 A.2d 1246 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. 29:55.Shoemaker, Gerald L., Jr. A Primary CustodialParent may be Required to Pay Child Support.[Colonna v. Colonna, 853 A.2d 359 (Pa. 2004)].26:47-49.Shoemaker, Gerald L., Jr. Trial Court MustAppoint a Qualified Professional to ProvideCounselling to Parent Who has been Convicted ofCertain Crimes and Must Hear from ThatProfessional at the Time of Trial. [Ramer v.Ramer, 914 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:20-21.Spizer, Howard M. Military Pensions Revisitedwith Respect to Personal Jurisdiction. [Wagner v.Wagner, 564 Pa. 448, 768A.2d 1112 (2001)].23:34-37.Schwartz, Steven B. Going Concern Value asDistinguished from Goodwill of ProfessionalPractice is Marital Property. [Gaydos v. Gaydos,143 P.L.J. 224 (1995)]. 18(2):9-11.Schwartz, Steven B. When is a Custody OrderFinal and Appealable? not When it is an InterimOrder Intended to be an InterimMeasure–"Complete Resolution Test." [G.B. v.M.M.B., 448 Pa. Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714(1996)]. 18(2):4-5.Steerman, David J. Superior Court Upholds ChildSupport Award Based on Presumptive MinimumUniform Guidelines Even Though Child's ActualExpenses Were One-Fifth of the PresumptiveMimimum Amount. [Gowdy v. Kesserling, 455Pa. Super. 57, 686 A.2d 1343 (1996)]. 19:31-33.Swain, Julia. Child’s Special Needs DisabilityTrust is not Factor to be Considered for Deviatingfrom Support Guidelines. [Ricco v. Novitski, 874A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. 27:112-14.Swain, Julia. Future Social Security Earnings canOffset the Value of Civil Service Pensions. [Rimelv. Rimel, 913 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:17-18.Swain, Julia. Husband’s Proceeds from a Workers’Compensation Compromise and ReleaseAgreement Approved Post Separation (for a Pre-Separation Injury) were not Marital PropertySubject to Equitable Distribution. [Pudlish v.Pudlish, 796 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. 36-38.Swain, Julia. Melzer Calculation not Affected byShared Custody. [Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:129-30.Taylor, Andrew D. Evidence of Alleged PriorAbuse Admissible in Current PFA Action.[Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A. 2d 1260 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 31:10-11.Taylor, Andrew D. Father Given Second ChanceAfter Running Afoul of Children’s Fast-TrackRules, But Loses on Appeal. [J.M.R. v. J.M., 1A.3d 902 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. 32:191-92.Taylor, Andrew D. PFA Statute Applies to AbuseBetween Child’s Mother and Paternal Grandfather.[DeBoer v. Slusser, 985 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super.2009)]. 32:17.Verber, Ann G. Adoptive Parents have Standing toBring Custody Case. [Silfies V. Webster, 713A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:61-63.Vertz, Brian C. Berrington & Brown in a Nutshell.[Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa. Super. 393, 633A.2d 589 (1993); Brown v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super.424, 669 A.2d 969 (1995)]. 18(2):13-14.Weiner, Ellen Goldberg. Common Law MarriageA Doctrine Whose Time has Come and Gone?[Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 714A.2d 1016 (1998)]. 20:92-94.Weiner, Maris J. Forfeiture of Marital Interest inPension Too Harsh a Remedy for Failure toSatisfy Court’s QDRO Requirements. [Prol v.Prol, 935 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:133-34.Wilder, Bruce L. Sperm Donor not Liable forChild Support. [Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d1236 (Pa. 2007)]. 30:10-11.16

Winegrad, Stephanie H. Attachment of PersonalInjury/Workers’ Compensation Awards to SatisfySupport Arrears. [Faust v. Walker, 945 A.2d 212(Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:83-84.CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSWinegrad, Stephanie H. Paternity by Estoppel.[B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K., 954 A.2d 630 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 30:203-5.Winegrad, Stephanie H. Transfer of PrimaryPhysical Custody as a Sanction for Contempt of aCustody Order without a Pending Petition forModification and Hearing thereon is notPermitted. [Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d303 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. 24:38-39.Wolf, Dagmar W. Doctrine of Presumption ofPaternity is Alive but not Kicking. [Miscovich v.Miscovich, 455 Pa. Super. 437, 688 A.2d 726(1997); Fish v. Behers, 456 Pa. Super. 398, 690A.2d 1171 (1997)]. 19:27-29.Young, Cheryl L. Superior Court Inadvertent Useof Two Valuations Methods for Pension andSurvivor Annuity Creates Financial Chilling Effectupon Interim Survivor Annuity Designations andEquitable Distribution. [Palladino v. Palladino,713 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:64-65.Zofcin, Jennifer. In Custody Relocation Cases,When can the Court Assign an Earning Capacityfor Purposes of Determining Economic Benefit tothe Child? [Hogrelius v. Martin, 950 A.2d 345(Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:156-57.17

3 B. CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE19-Year-Old Adult Child With MedicalConditions not Considered Emancipated.[Kotzbauer v. Kotzbauer, 937 A.2d 487 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. Aaron P. Asher. 30:5-7.50/50 is not an Appropriate Starting Point. [Ruthv. Ruth, 67 Lancaster L. Rev. 461 (1981)]. 3:274-76.The 50/50 Starting Point. [Labuda v. Labuda, 349Pa. Super. 524, 503 A.2d 971 (1986)]. 7:808-10.201(d) Divorce–Separation Must be Related toMarital Discord. [Spitzkopf v. Spitzkopf, 3A.C.D.D. 42 (Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 3:337-38.Abatement of Divorce Action on Death. [Myers v.Myers, 379 Pa. Super. 450, 580 A.2d 384 (1990)].11:197.Absent Existing Pennsylvania Custody Order,Virginia Court had Jurisdiction Over Action byParent Who Failed to Return Child from Vacation.[Boudwin v. Boudwin, 419 Pa. Super. 570, 615A.2d 786 (1992)]. 14(2):10-11.An Accurate Inventory Prior to Trial may not Be.[Anderson v. Anderson, 822 A.2d 824 (Pa Super2003)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25-66-67Act 62 is Applied Retroactively, the SuperiorCourt Declares. [Hecker v. O'Connell, 427 Pa.Super. 608, 629 A.2d 1036 (1993)]. 14(4):2.Adding Uncertainty to Uncertainty AboutCommon Law Marriage. [PNC Bank Corp. V.W.C.A.B (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa Cmwlth.2003)]. Robert E. Rains. 25:101-4.Administrative Error That Resulted in PrematureTermination of a Child Support Order May beCorrected Administratively as Well. [Castaldi v.Castaldi-Veloric, 993 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super.2010)]. Lesley J. Beam. 32:76-78.Affirmative Showing Required to have AdultChild Declared Incompetent. [In Re Estate ofHaertsch v. Haertsch, 415 Pa. Super. 598, 609A.2d 1384 (1992)]. 13(4):9-10.Agreed Support in Conjunction with PropertySettlement Agreement not Modifiable. [Nessa v.Nessa, 399 Pa. Super. 59, 581 A.2d 674 (1990)].11:194.Agreement on Child Support Binding. [Bell v.Bell, 390 Pa. Super. 526, 568 A.2d 1297 (1990)].Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:133.Agreement to Pay Post-Secondary EducationalExpenses is Valid & Binding. [Goss v. Timblin,424 Pa. Super. 216, 622 A.2d 347 (1993)].14(3):3-4.Agreements Which are Incorporated, But notMerged, are Non-Modifiable. [McGough v.McGough, 361 Pa. Super. 391, 522 A.2d 638(1987)]. 8:958-59.Alimony–Husband Ordered to Pay Wife Alimonyfor Indefinite Period of Time. [Orange v. Orange,Westmoreland Co., 5949 Civil 1980 (1981)].2:205-6.Alimony–Provisions of §501 are to be Read inConjunction With One Another. [Hess v. Hess,327 Pa. Super. 279, 475 A.2d 796 (1984)]. 5:576-579.Alimony–Section 501 Provisions to be Read inConjunction With One Another. [Bickley v.Bickley, 301 Pa. Super. 396, 447 A.2d 1025(1982)]. 3:302-306.Alimony Award and Standard of Living.[Edelstein v. Edelstein, 399 Pa. Super. 536, 582A.2d 1074 (1990)]. 12(1):2.Alimony Award Upheld to Effectuate 50-50Equitable Distribution Split. [Uhler v. Uhler, 406Pa. Super. 414, 594 A.2d 688 (1991)]. 12(5):5.Alimony in Accordance With Standard of Living.[Kutzer v. Kutzer, Montg. Co., No. 79-396(1982)]. 3:262-65.18

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEAlimony is Income to Non-Custodial Parent forChild Support Purposes, Divided Panel Declares.[Hyde v. Hyde, 421 Pa. Super. 415, 618 A.2d 406(1992)]. 14(1):4-5.Alimony Modification due to VoluntaryRetirement. [McFadden v. McFadden, 386 Pa.Super. 506, 563 A.2d 180 (1989)]. 10(4):111-12.Alimony not Terminable for Same-SexCohabitation. [Kripp v. Kripp, 784 A.2d 158 (Pa.Super. 2001)]. Gerald J. Schorr. 24:6-8.Alimony Pendente Lite. [McKelvey v. McKelvey,16 D.&C.3d 611 (Armstrong Co. 1980); Thoma v.Thoma, 284 Pa. Super. 249, 425 A.2d 797(1981)]. 2:132-134.Alimony Pendente Lite and Support–Court RulesParty may Maintain Actions for Both. [Remick v.Remick, 310 Pa. Super. 23, 456 A.2d 163 (1983)].4:429-32.Alimony Pendente Lite Case. [Sands v. Sands, 112Montg. Co. L.R. 287 (1983)]. 4:469-71.Alimony Provisions in Separation AgreementReduced to Court Order are Non-Modifiable.[Blackson v. Blackson, Mercer Co., 39 EQ 1978(1981)]. 3:341-42.Alimony Terminates upon Obligated Party'sDeath. [Chaney v. Chaney, 343 Pa. Super. 77, 493A.2d 1382 (1985)]. 6:740-43.Alimony vs. Property Settlement Payable inInstallments. [Goninen, Jr. v. Commissioner, 47TCM 49,698 (1983) and Lewis v. Commissioner,47 TCM 49,699 (1983)]. 5:528.Allocation of APL and Child Support–SplitCustody–Complex Support Case WithCompounding Complexities. [Holland v. Holland,444 Pa. Super. 251, 663 A.2d 768 (1995)]. DavidS. Pollock. 18(2):7-9.Analysis of Cases Under “Protection from AbuseAct.”. [Boyle v. Boyle, 12 D.&C.3d 767 (1979);Cipolla v. Cipolla, 264 Pa. Super. 53, 398 A.2d1053 (1979); Com. v. Allen (Lebanon Co., No.328 of 1980 (1980); Wagner v. Wagner, 15D.&C.3d 148 (1980); Smittle v. Smittle, 2D.&C.3d 476 (1977); Knisely v. Knisely, 295 Pa.Super. 240, 441 A.2d 438 (1982)]. 3:319-22.Analysis of Grandparent Visitation Rights.[Johnson v. Diesinger, 404 Pa. Super. 41, 589A.2d 1160 (1991)]. 12(4):8-9.Ancillary Appeals: Divorce Decree Reinstated.[Rosen v. Rosen, 520 Pa. 19, 549 A.2d 561(1988)]. 9:44-45.Antenuptial Agreement–Support Rights Waived.[Hamilton v. Hamilton, 404 Pa. Super. 316, 591A.2d 720 (1991)]. 12(4):6.Antenuptial Agreement Deemed Valid DespiteProvisions of Divorce Code. [Fox v. Fox, Montg.Co., No. 83-10430 (1984)]. 5:540-42.APL Included in Antenuptial Waiver of Alimonyor Support. [Musko v. Musko, 697 A.2d 255 (Pa.Super. 1997)]. Steven S. Hurvitz. 19:75-76.Appeal from Order Granting or Denying InterimRelief Stays All Proceedings. [Prozzoly v.Prozzoly, 327 Pa. Super. 326, 475 A.2d 820(1984)]. 5:579-81.Appeal of Distribution Order Doesn't EntitleSpouse to Alimony Pendente Lite. [Spink v.Spink, 422 Pa. Super. 126, 619 A.2d 277 (1992)].14(2):5-6.Appealability of CYS' Adoption Goal. [In Re: Inthe Interest of M.B., K.B., J.B., L.B., 388 Pa.Super. 381, 565 A.2d 804 (1989)]. 11:135-36.Appellant Ordered to Pay Damages for Violatingthe Provision to Return Property Pursuant to aProtection from Abuse Order. [Gerace v. Gerace,429 Pa. Super. 203, 631 A.2d 1360 (1993)].15(1):8-9.Appellant’s Failure to Comply With Trial Court’sOrder to Furnish a 1925(b) Statement of MattersComplained of on Appeal in a Timely MannerWhile Also Violating the New Procedural RulesOutlined in 1925(a)(2)(i) Constitutes a Waiver of19

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEObjections to the Lower Court’s Order. [J.P. v.S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. LianeDavis Anderson. 32:80-82.The Application of the Doctrine of In CustodiaLegis to Protect Marital Property fromTax SaleDuring the Pendency of Equitable Distribution.[City of Easton v. Marra, 862 A.2d 170 (Pa.Commw. 2004)]. Christina M. DeMatteo. 27:8-9.Application to Proceed Under New Code–To GiveNo Recognition to a Counterclaim Filed Prior tothe Entry of a Divorce Decree Gives to theOpposing Party a Windfall that has NoRelationship to the Goals and Objectives of the1980 Code. [Conley v. Conley, 1 A.C.D.D. 162(Allegh. Co., 1981); Newby v. Newby, (MercerCo., 1135 C. D. 1980 (1981)]. 2:190-94.Attachment of Personal Injury/Workers’Compensation Awards to Satisfy Support Arrears.[Faust v. Walker, 945 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Stephanie H. Winegrad. 30:83-84.Attachment of School Teacher's Pension. [Millickv. Millick, 140 Pa. Cmwlth. 252, 592 A.2d 788(1991)]. 12(4):3-4.Attachment of Wages: An Analysis. [Wilcox v.Wilcox, 394 Pa. Super. 119, 575 A.2d 127(1990)]. 11:159-60.An Attorney Held in Contempt and Directed toReturn Appointment Fees Prevails on Appeal.Melaine Shannon Rothey. 31:8-10.Attorney's Lien on Marital Residence. [Jaywork v.Jaywork, 378 Pa. Super. 89, 548 A.2d 290(1988)]. 9:51.Attorney's Counsel Fee Claim. [Damiano v.Damiano, 378 Pa. Super. 106, 548 A.2d 298(1988)]. 9:50-51.Award of Preliminary Counsel Fees and Expensesis Interlocutory. [Grippo v. Grippo, No. 3360 of1978 consolidated at No. 177 of 1980 (1984)].4:468-69.Award of Primary Custody to Non-biologicalMother of Former Lesbian Couple. [Jones v.Jones, 884 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Cathy M.Cardozo. 28:7-8.Award of Specific Performance: UniqueCircumstances Only. [Lower v. Lower, 401 Pa.Super. 158, 584 A.2d 1028 (1991)]. 12(2):3.Balicki: Tax Ramifications and Costs in EquitableDistribution. [Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654 (Pa.Super. 2010)]. Michael E. Bertin. 32:195-96.Bankruptcy: Non-Dischargeability of SupportObligation. [Deichert v. Deichert, 402 Pa. Super.415, 587 A.2d 319 (1991)]. 12(3):2-4.Bankruptcy Discharge of Property SettlementAgreement Equitable Distribution ObligationsConfirmed by the State Court. [Hogg v. Hogg, 816A.2d 314 (Pa Super.2003)]. Kilbreth E. Barton-Rhea. 25:68-69.Base All Orders for Support on Specific IncomeFindings. [Dalessandro v. Dalessandro, 366 Pa.Super. 479, 531 A.2d 518 (1987]. 9(1):4.The Battle of the County SupportGuidelines–Which County Should be Used?[Szillery v. Wheaton, 382 Pa. Super. 394, 555A.2d 237 (1989)]. 10(2):80.Berrington Held Applicable to Defined BenefitPlan in Immediate offset Case–Early RetirementIncentives Offered Post-Separation Excluded fromMarital Estate. [Gordon v. Gordon, 545 Pa. 391,681 A.2d 732 (1996)]. Susan J. Beckert. 18(4):10-12.Berrington v. Berrington and Katzenberger v.Katzenberger. [Berrington v. Berrington, 409 Pa.Super. 355, 598 A.2d 31 (1991); Katzenberger v.Katzenberger, 534 Pa. 419, 633 A.2d 602 (1991)].12(5):2-3.Berrington & Brown in a Nutshell. [Berrington v.Berrington, 534 Pa. Super. 393, 633 A.2d 589(1993); Brown v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super. 424, 669A.2d 969 (1995)]. Brian C. Vertz. 18(2):13-14.Best Interest of the Child Paramount in Denial of20

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEInterstate Relocation Petition. [Speck v.Spadafore, 895 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Michael E. Bertin. 28:98-99.Best Interest Standard Supports Trial Court’sHolding That a Prior Criminal Record Does notBar Someone as a Kinship Provider. [In Re: J.P.;Appeal of Department of Human Services, 998A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile.32:144-45.Best Interests Control in Custody RelocationCases. [Tripathi v. Tripathi, 787 A.2d 436 (Pa.Super. 2001)]. Sally R. Miller. 24:39-40.A Bifurcated Divorce Case and the Entry of theDivorce Decree does not Terminate AlimonyPendente Lite and Support. [Klein v. Klein, 1A.C.D.D. 205 (Allegh. Co., 1980)]. 2:183-84.Bifurcated Divorce Decree is a Final AppealableOrder. [Curran v. Curran, 446 Pa. Super. 633, 667A.2d 1155 (1995)]. David S. Pollock. 18(2):6-7.Bifurcation of Divorce Upheld–Trial CourtProperly Engaged in a Systematic and On-The-Record Inquiry at Hearing. [Savage v. Savage, 736A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. Julie K. Freeman.21:116-18.Bifurcation Under the New Divorce Code–Yes orNo. [[Simpkins v. Dodolak, Clearfield Co., 79-751-CD (1980)]. 2:131.Bigamy and Pension Benefits. [Board of PensionsAnd Retirement, City of Philadelphia v. Boelter,132 Pa. Cmwlth. 336, 573 A.2d 867 (1990)].11:148-49.Bill of Particulars does not Apply to No-FaultDivorce. [Jakstys v. Jakstys, 326 Pa. Super. 367,474 A.2d 45 (1984)]. 5:608-9.Binding Effect of Agreement's Intentions andInteresting Pension Issues. [Lyons v. Lyons, 401Pa. Super. 271, 585 A.2d 42 (1991)]. 12(3):4-6.Blood Tests Ordered Only When Paternity is aRelevant Issue. [Wachter v. Ascero, 379 Pa.Super. 618, 550 A.2d 1019 (1988)]. 10:67.Bonds Purchased With Proceeds fromSale of GiftBecome Marital Property When Placed in JointNames. [Madden v. Madden, 336 Pa. Super. 552,486 A.2d 951 (1984)]. 6:673-75.Bonuses: A Proper Consideration for SupportOrders. [Fichthorn v. Fichthorn, 368 Pa. Super.305, 533 A.2d 1388 (1987)]. 9:2.A Brief History of the Law of College Support inPennsylvania. [Colantoni v. Colantoni, 220 Pa.Super. 46, 281 A. 2d 662 (1971); Grallnick v.Grallnick, 279 Pa. Super. 347, 421 A.2d 232(1980); Ross v. Ross, 167 N. J. Super. 441, 400 A.2d 1233 (1979)]. 1:62-64.[Brief Synopsis of Recent Pending Action Cases.].[Kaufman v. Kaufman, 68 Del. Co. Rep. 326(1980); Sclocchini v. Sclocchini, 68 Del. Co. Rep.307 (1980); Reifsneider v. Reifsneider, 108Montg. Co. Rep. 257 (1981); Toll v. Toll, No. 73-8806 ]. 2:163.The Broad Discretion of the Court to EffectuateEconomic Justice Meant the Court Could Appointan Equitable Distribution Master Within 30 Daysof the Final Decree Despite the Lack of a ProperlyRaised Claim. [Lowers v. Lowers, 911 A.2d 553(Pa. Super. 2006)]. Kimberly Litzke. 29:12-13.Burden of Proof for Support Petition: LegalCause. [Clendenning v. Clendenning, 392 Pa.Super. 33, 572 A.2d 18 (1990)]. 11:161-62.Business Valuation–Increase in Value ofNonmarital Asset–Are We Comparing Apples toOranges? [(Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860 A.2d1056 (2004)]. Loreen M. Burkett. 27:11-12.Buy/Sell Provisions of Shareholders' Agreementnot Binding on Valuation in Terms of Agreementdo not Actually Reflect Current Value. [Butler v.Butler, 541 Pa. 364, 663 A.2d 148 (1995)]. DavidL. Ladov. 18(1):7, 18-20.Buy-Out is Only Ordered Where Distribution ofAssets is Economically Unwise. [Barletta v.Barletta, 506 Pa. 404, 485 A.2d 752 (1984)].6:704-5.21

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEBuy-Out Remedy: Equitable Distribution ofMarital Residence. [Brojack v. Brojack, 385 Pa.Super. 502, 561 A.2d 788 (1989)]. 10(4):102.Case Law on Bifurcation Under the New DivorceCode. [Casey v. Casey, 1 A.C.D.D. 14, 18D.&C.3d 24 (1980); Tose v. Tose, 63 Del. Co. R.309 (1981); Smolinsky v. Smolinsky, PhiladelphiaCo., FD 3347 of 1980 (1981); Carney v. Carney,Erie Co., Civ. Div. No. 8420-A 1980, (1981)].2:166-71.Case Law on the Availability of Injunctive ReliefUnder the New Divorce Code. [Holub v. Holub, 1A.C.D.D. 31 (Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:172-76.A Challenge to the Constitutionality of the 1980Divorce Code. [Nuttall v. Nuttall, 386 Pa. Super.148, 562 A.2d 841 (1989)]. 10:126-27.Change in Beneficiary did not Violate OrderEnjoining Husband from Disposing of MaritalProperty. [Lindsey v. Lindsey, 342 Pa. Super. 72,492 A.2d 396 (1985)]. 7:826-28.Change in Domicile Must be Proven by Clear andConvincing Evidence. [Bell v. Bell, 326 Pa. Super.237, 473 A.2d 1069 (1984)]. 5:555-59."Changed Circumstances" Abolished in ChildCustody Cases in Pennsylvania? [Martin v.Martin, 385 Pa. Super. 554, 561 A.2d 1231(1989)]. 10(4):100-1.Child Custody–Court Considers Several KeyIssues in Determining Custody. [In Re: Custody ofTemos, 304 Pa. Super. 82, 450 A.2d 111 (1982)].3:346-56.Child Support–Two Kids: Separate Households.[Blaisure v. Blaisure, 395 Pa. Super. 473, 577A.2d 640 (1990)]. 11:173-74.Child Support Agreement Between Parents: Is itBinding? [Roberts v. Furst, 385 Pa. Super. 530,561 A.2d 805 (1989)]. 10(4):103.Child Support and Paternity by Estoppel. [Barr v.Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super 2007)].Christian V. Badali. 29:97-98.Child Support Award Based on Earning CapacityHeld to be Applicable only in Cases Where Thereis a Pre-Existing Court Order. [Klahold v. Kroh,437 Pa. Super. 150, 649 A.2d 701 (1994)].17(1):7-8.Child Support Calculations: Ongoing PrivateSchool Tuition Contributions are in; One-TimeStock Options, Payments Toward Perks andWithdrawal Penalties on Employer Contributionsto 401(k) Plans are Out,. [Murphy v. McDermott,979 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Joanna K.Conmy. 31:159-62.Child Support Case. [Groner v. Groner, 328 Pa.Super. 191, 476 A.2d 957 (1984)]. 5:594-96.Child Support Complaint Barred Based on ResJudicata, Superior Court Declares. [Scott v.Mershon, 394 Pa. Super. 411, 576 A.2d 67(1995)]. 17(4):6.The Child Support Implications of the SecondFamily. [Frankenfield v. Fesser, 449 Pa. Super. 47,672 A.2d 1347 (1996); Elias v. Spencer, 449 Pa.Super. 359, 673 A.2d 982 (1996)]. Steven B.Schwartz. 18(4):6-7.Child Support Modification Retroactive to Date ofMisrepresentation. [Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768(Pa. Super. 2008)]. Michael E. Bertin. 30:79-81.Child Support Obligations Terminates UponDeath. [Benson v. Pastterson, 782 A.2d 553 (Pa.Super. 2001)]. Julie A. Auerbach. 23:55-56.Child Support Order Vacated Due to Trial Court'sFailure to Follow Melzer Formula. [Weckerly v.Weckerly, 357 Pa. Super. 644, 513 A.2d 1182(1986)]. 7:864.Child Support: Supplemental Needs TrustDistributions Considered Income. [Mencer v.Ruch, 928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. MichaelE. Bertin. 29:134-36.Child Support Where Father was Sperm Donorand Determined to be an Indispensable Party inMother’s Action to Obtain Child SupportfromFormer Same-Sex Partner. [Jacob v. Shultz-22

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEJacob-Jacob & Frampton, 923 A.2d 473 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. Christian V. Badali. 29:48-49.Child Victim Exception in the Hearsay Rule. [InThe Interest of Tina K. v. Montgomery CountyOffice of Children and Youth, 390 Pa. Super. 94,568 A.2d 210 (1990)]. 11:137.Child's Illness Warrants Continuation of Alimonyto Mother. [Soncini v. Soncini, 417 Pa. Super.393, 612 A.2d 998 (1992)]. 13(4):6-7.The Child's Preference is Given Weight inCustody Determination. [McMillen v. McMillen,529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d 845 (1992)]. 13(2):8-9.Child’s Special Needs Disability Trust is notFactor to be Considered for DeviatingfromSupport Guidelines. [Ricco v. Novitski, 874A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Julia Swain. 27:112-14.Civil Contempt: Standard of Review. [Baum v.Baum, 395 Pa. Super. 182, 576 A.2d 1104(1990)]. 11:179.Clarification for Those Pre-1988 SupportAgreements. [Nicholson v. Combs, 550 Pa. 23,703 A.2d 407 (1997). Lorraine W. Mervan. 20:3.Closure of Divorce Proceedings. [Katz v. Katz,356 Pa. Super. 461, 514 A.2d 1374 (1986)].7:912-16.College Education: A Basic Necessity. [Milne v.Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177, 556 A.2d 854 (1987)].9:3-4.College Education: Estrangement. [In the Matterof Fager v. Fatta, 395 Pa. Super. 152, 576 A.2d1089 (1990)]. 11:174-75.College Expenses: Father's Obligation.[Schumacker v. Hanna, 377 Pa. Super. 301, 547A.2d 379 (1988)]. 9(5):49.College Support–Weighing All Factors. [Pharoahv. Lapes, 391 Pa. Super. 585, 571 A.2d 1070(1990)]. 11:143-44.College Support Allowed for Children Over 23and Children Who have Become Parents. [Griffinv. Griffin, 384 Pa. Super. 210, 558 A.2d 86(1988)]. 9:36-37.College Support Award. [Monsky v. Sacks, 403Pa. Super. 40, 588 A.2d 19 (1990)]. 12(2):3-4.College Support: Estrangement and UndueHardship. [Bedford v. Bedford, 386 Pa. Super.349, 563 A.2d 102 (1989)]. 10(4):101.College Support: Need and Undue Hardship.[Chesonis v. Chesonis, 372 Pa. Super. 113, 538A.2d 1376 (1988)]. 9(2):13.College Support Ordered Since No Funding ofWillful Estrangements, Superior Court Declares.[McGettigan v. McGettigan, 433 Pa. Super. 102,639 A.2d 1231 (1994)]. 15(2):4-5.College Support Takes Backseat to Minor Child'sSupport. [Horst v. Horst, 406 Pa. Super. 188, 593A.2d 1299 (1991)]. 12(4):11.Commencement of Second Divorce Action inAnother County Violative of Spirit of DivorceCode. [Gantz v. Gantz, 338 Pa. Super. 528, 448A.2d 17 (1985)]. 6:696-97.Common Law Marriage A Doctrine Whose Timehas Come and Gone? [Staudenmayer v.Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 714 A.2d 1016(1998)]. Ellen Goldberg Weiner. 20:92-94.Commonwealth Court Upholds GovernmentalImmunity Defense in Case Against CYS forMisrepresentation of Adopted Child's Health andBackground. [Zernhelt v. Lehigh County Office ofCYS, 659 A.2d 89 (1994)]. 17(4):3-4.Computing Income for a Business Owner Pursuantto Melzer. [Calabrese v. Calabrese, 448 Pa. Super.166, 670 A.2d 1161 (1996); Kessler v. Helmick,449 Pa. Super. 113, 672 A.2d 1380 (1996),Calabrese v. Calabrese, 452 Pa. Super. 497, 682A.2d 393 (1996)]. Steven B. Schwartz. 18(4):7-10.Conciliation Conference Agreements are notOrders Until the Parties and Court Say So,23

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLESuperior Court Declares. [Moran v. Moran, 417Pa. Super. 549, 612 A.2d 1075 (1992)]. 13(6):2.[Constitutionality of Equitable Distribution].[Bacchetta v. Bacchetta, 29 Chester Co. L. Rep.167 (1981)]. 2:154-55.Constructive Trust may Attach to Non-DisclosedMarital Assets Regardless of Withholder's Intent.[Creeks v. Creeks, 422 Pa. Super. 432, 619 A.2d754 (1993)]. 14(3):8-9.Contempt Powers Available to Enforce CounselFee Order. [Motheral v. Motheral, 7 A.C.D.D.103, 133 P.L.J. 116 (Allegh. Co., 1984)]. 5:655-56.‘Continuing Contract’ Nature of MaritalSettlement Agreement Tolls Statute of Limitations;Deviation fromRules of Appellate ProcedureResults in Waiver. [Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d308 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Benjamin E. Orsatti.29:10-11.Continuing Jurisdiction–“The SignificantConnections Analysis”. [Kriebel v. Kriebel, 766A.2d 854 (Pa. Super. 2000) and Favacchia v.Favacchia, 769 A.2d 531 (Pa. Super 2001)].Richard I. Moore. 23:38-39.Cornbleth has Exceptions. [McClain v. McClain,693 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super. 1997)]. Daniel J.Clifford. 19:57-58.Costs can be Awarded upon Final Disposition.[Fried v. Fried, 326 Pa. Super. 271, 473 A.2d1087 (1984)]. 5:567-68.Corpus of Inheritance Included as Income inCalculating Child Support. [Humphreys v.DeRoss, 737 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. GeraldJ. Schorr. 21:111-14.Counsel Fees–Factor of Who CommencedDivorce Action not Relevant. [Lawrence v.Lawrence, 347 Pa. Super. 57, 500 A.2d 154(1985)]. 7:811-13.Counsel Fees Awarded In Unfounded SexualAbuse Complaint. [M.C. v. R.W., 398 Pa. Super.183, 580 A.2d 1124 (1990)]. 12(1):7-8.Court Addresses Issue of Validity of PalimonyActions. [Knauer v. Knauer, Jr., 323 Pa. Super.206, 470 A.2d 553 (1984)]. 5:530-36.Court Analyzes Tax Benefits in Determining TrueCost of Alimony Pendente Lite to Payor. [Hovis v.Hovis, 6 A.C.D.D. 197 (Allegh. Co., 1984)].5:619-21.Court Annuls 24 Year Marriage on Grounds ofImpotency. [Manbeck v. Manbeck, 339 Pa. Super.493, 489 A.2d 748 (1985)]. 6:728-32 (June, 1985)Court Awards Value at Date of Marriage of Pre-Marital Home to Party Who Brought to Marriage.[Durham v. Durham, 6 A.C.D.D. 300 (Allegh. Co.,1984)]. 5:636-37.Court Awards Wife Alimony of UnlimitedDuration. [Pacella v. Pacella, 342 Pa. Super. 178,492 A.2d 707 (1985)]. 7:835-37.Court Awards Wife Exclusive Possession of HomeUntil Child Completes High School. [Simpson v.Simpson, Westmoreland Co., 268 of 1982-D(1983)]. 5:552-54.Court Awards Wife Permanent Alimony. [Pacellav. Pacella, Allegheny County, No 517 of 1979(1982)]. 4:441-44.Court Cannot Dismiss Divorce Complaint SuaSponte Without Affording Plaintiff Prior Notice.[Hoffman v. Hoffman, 350 Pa. Super. 1280, 504A.2d 356 (1986)]. 7:838.Court Correctly Concludes Marital Residence asMarital Property Notwithstanding SeparationAgreement. [Barnhart v. Barnhart, 343 Pa. Super.234, 494 A.2d 443 (1985)]. 6:767-69.Court Creates Constructive Trust. [Brasile v.Estate of Louis Brasile, 354 Pa. Super. 400, 512A.2d 10 (1986)]. 7:877-78.Court Decides Shared Legal Custody / ReligiousDispute. [Shepp v. Shepp, 821 A.2d 635 (Pa.Super. 2003)]. Harry M. Byrne, Jr. 25:76-78.24

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLECourt Defines "Cohabitation.". [Soby v. Soby, 113Montg. Co. L. Rep. 406 (1983)]. 5:596-97.Court Defines Cohabitation for Purposes of §507.[Miller v. Miller, 353 Pa. Super. 194, 509 A.2d291 (1986)]. 7:856-58.Court Enforces Rules Regarding In CameraInterviews With Children and Expert Reports.[Ottolini v. Barrett, 954 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Michael E. Bertin. 30:217-19.Court Establishes Formula for Child Support.[Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991(1984)]. 5:588-91.Court Finds Child has a Right to be Supported inVocational School. [Maurer v. Maurer, 382 Pa.Super. 468, 555 A.2d 1294 (1989)]. 10(2):77-78.Court Finds Father Obligated to Support SonAttending Law School. [Brown v. Brown, 8A.C.D.D. 199 (Allegh. Co., 1983)]. 4:438-39.Court Finds Mortgage Payments Together WithResulting Appreciation on Pre-Owned Property isMarital. [Ball v. Ball, 5 A.C.D.D. 174 (Allegh.Co., 1983)]. 4:512-14.Court Finds No Obligation to SupportEmancipated Child in Professional School.[Brown v. Brown, 327 Pa. Super. 51, 474 A.2d1168 (1984)]. 5:581-582.Court Holds Law Practice does not have Goodwill.[Beasley v. Beasley, 115 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 99(1984)]. 5:612-14.Court Imposes Reasonableness Standard onAttorney's Fees Provision in Property SettlementAgreement. [McMullen v. Kutz, 925 A.2d 832(Pa. Super. 2007)]. Amy J. Phillips. 29:88-91.Court May Consider Fault Grounds, Even WhenNo-Fault Grounds have been Established. [Restifov. Restifo, 339 Pa. Super. 352, 489 A.2d 196(1985)]. 6:675-76.Court Reviews "Separate and Apart" Standard.[Pangallo v. Pangallo, 329 Pa. 25, 477 A.2d 885(1984)]. 5:600-2.Court Rules that Parties' Ante-Nuptial AgreementPrecluded Wife's Claims for Ancillary Relief.[Laub v. Laub, 351 Pa. Super. 110, 505 A.2d 290(1986)]. 7:851-52.Court Sets Aside Divorce due to Wife's Failure toFollow Rules of Procedure. [Crookes v. Crookes,346 Pa. Super. 315, 499 A.2d 626 (1985)]. 6:781-83.Court Sets Forth Charges Permitted as Part ofAdoption Proceedings. [In Re: Baby Girl D., 512Pa. 449, 517 A.2d 925 (1986)]. 8:946-50.Court Sets Forth Factors to be Used in MakingAlimony Pendente Lite Award. [Orr v. Orr, 110Montg. Co. L.R. 273 (1982)]. 3:298-300.Court Sets Forth Procedures to be Followed AfterEntry of a Divorce Decree and EquitableDistribution Order. [Colagioia v. Colagioia, 362Pa. Super. 213, 523 A.2d 1158 (1987)]. 8:959-60.Court Upholds Validity of Antenuptial Agreement.[In Re: Estate of George W. Geyer, 338 Pa. Super.157, 487 A.2d 901 (1985)]. 6:724-28.Court Utilizes Equitable Powers to ImposeConstructive Trust on Insurance Proceeds.[Beamer v. Beamer, 330 Pa. Super. 154, 479 A.2d485 (1984)]. 5:603-5.Court Vacates Divorce Decree upon FindingExtrinsic Fraud. [Fenstermaker v. Fenstermaker,348 Pa. Super. 237, 502 A.2d 185 (1985)]. 7:813-16.Court's Equitable Distribution Order DividingState Pension Held Valid. [Graham v. Graham,416 Pa. Super. 118, 610 A.2d 999 (1990)].11:182.Court's Equitable Distribution of Property is notthat Equitable. [Rudick v. Rudick, LackawannaCo., 80 CW 4753 (1981)]. 2:207-10.Court's Ignoring a Petition for ReconsiderationDoesn't Make Wife Less "Appealing" on Merits.25

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE[Waddington v. Waddington, 425 Pa. Super. 241,624 A.2d 657 (1993)]. 14(4):10-11.Courts Have Equitable Power to Appoint Trusteein Receivership. [Mayhue v. Mayhue, 336 Pa.Super. 188, 485 A.2d 494 (1984)]. 6:754-56.Courts Have Equitable Powers Under Section401(c) to Award Reimbursement Alimony.[Lehmicke v. Lehmicke, 339 Pa. Super. 559, 489A.2d 782 (1985)]. 6:692-96.Courts Imposes Sanctions for Failure to Complywith Discovery. [Scott v. Scott, 190 N. J. Super.189, 462 A.2d 614 (1983)]. 4:502-3.Courts May Attach Pension as Contempt Sanction.[Richardson v. Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267 (Pa.Super. 2001)]. Patricia T. Brennan. 23:60-62.Courts may not Divide Social Security Benefits inSupport. [Silver v. Pinskey, not reported in A.2d,2008 WL 902715 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2008),rearg. En banc granted May 30, 2008]. NatalieFamous. 30:86-87.Current Standard of Living and Child’s NeedsControlling in Private School Tuition Case WhereChild did not Attend Private School Prior toSeparation. [Gibbons v. Kugle, 908 A.2d 916 (Pa.Super. 2006)]. Al Shemtob. 29:9.Custodial Mother Denied Right to Move Childfrom Pennsylvania. [Lozinak v. Lozinak, 390 Pa.Super. 597, 569 A.2d 353 3 (1990)]. Emanuel A.Bertin. 11:133-34.Custody Action Filed While Juvenile ProceedingsAre Pending Is An Unwarranted Waste of JudicialResources. Elizabeth J. McCall. 31:6-7.Custody–Agreed Consent Order vs. Custody Order(Subsequent to Judicial Determination)–Change ofCircumstances Need not be Shown to ModifyCustody. [Vivian B. v. Raymond B., 129 P.L.J.410 (1981)]. 2:227-29.Custody Agreements will not Only be UpheldWhere All of the Terms are Known by theLitigants. [Yates v. Yates, 936 A.2d 1191 (Pa.Super 2007). Michele G. Bononi. 30:9-10.Custody Battle: A Mockery of the System.[Lambert v. Lambert, 409 Pa. Super. 552, 598A.2d 561 (1991)]. 12(6):7-9.Custody: Best Interest of Child is Paramount.[Baumhor v. Baumhor, 407 Pa. Super. 276, 595A.2d 1147 (1991)]. 12(6):10-11.Custody–Importance of Religious TrainingRevisited. [In The Matter of Boylan v. Boylan,395 Pa. Super. 380, 577 A.2d 218 (1990)].11:178.Custody Modification: Due Notice Required.[Choplosky v. Choplosky, 400 Pa. Super. 590, 584A.2d 340 (1990)]. 12(2):4-5.Custody Modification–The Trial Court MustAssess the Potential Harm of Disturbing ExistingCustody Arrangements. [Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d931 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Daniel G. Ronca. 27:53-54.Custody of Child Granted to Aunt Over Mother'sObjections. [Vicki N. v. Josephine N., 437 Pa.Super. 166, 649 A.2d 709 (1994)]. 17(1):5-6.Custody of Child Granted to Father and Denied toGrandmother. [Dorsey v. Freeman, 438 Pa. Super.26, 652 A.2d 352 (1994)]. 17(2):6-7.Custody of Child not Factor for Purposes ofEquitable Distribution. [Bold v. Bold, 358 Pa.Super. 7, 516 A.2d 741 (1986)]. 8:934-36.Custody Relocation Standard Prior to InitialCustody Order. [Marshall v. Marshall, 814 A.2d1226 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25:4-5.Custody–Standard for Review is Gross Abuse ofDiscretion. [Com. ex rel. Robinson v. Robinson,505 Pa. 226, 478 A.2d 800 (1984)]. 5:591-93.Custody: Superior Court Determines Best Interestsof Child. [Fisher v. Fisher, 370 Pa. Super. 87, 535A.2d 1163 (1988)]. 9(2):13-14.Danger to Children Permits Exercise of26

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEJurisdiction Under UCCJA Despite Pending Outof-StateAction. [Baines v. Williams, 431 Pa.Super. 72, 635 A.2d 1077 (1993)]. 15(2):11-12.Daughter's Needs Outweigh Dinners Out. [Opie v.Richart, 410 Pa. Super. 380, 599 A.2d 1348(1991)]. 13(1):7.De Facto Award of Custody to Third PartyOverturned. [Hockenberry v. Thompson, 428 Pa.Super. 403, 631 A.2d 204 (1993)]. 14(5):5-6.Dead Spouse can Tell No Tales Regarding Intentof Pre-Nuptial Agreements. [Cooper v. Oakes, 427Pa. Super. 430, 629 A.2d 144 (1993)]. 14(4):4-5.Death Abates Equitable Distribution Proceedings.[Geraghty v. Geraghty, 411 Pa. Super. 53, 600A.2d 1261 (1991)]. 13(1):3-4.Death, Depression, Delays Expand CollegeSupport Obligation. [McCabe v. Krupinski, 413Pa. Super. 59, 604 A.2d 732(1992)]. 13(3) 5-6.Death of Parties Abates Claim for EquitableDistribution. [Drumheller v. Marcello, 351 Pa.Super. 139, 505 A.2d 305 (1986)]. 7:860-61.Death of Party in a Divorce Proceeding AbatesAction. [Haviland v. Haviland, 481 A.2d 1355(1984)]. 5:652-53.Death Prevents Entry of Posthumous DivorceDecree Even Though Equitable DistributionProceeds. [Yelenic v. Clark, 922 A.2d 935 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. Stephanie L. Jablon. 29:53-54.Deceased Parent's Estate not Required to PayChild Support, Superior Court Rules. [Garney v.Estate of Hain, 439 Pa. Super. 42, 653 A.2d 21(1995)]. 17(2):2-3.Decision to Bifurcate Based on Review of Facts.[Wolk v. Wolk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 464 A.2d1359]. 4:460-62.Decision to Bifurcate is Discretionary. [Hall v.Hall, 333 Pa. Super. 483, 482 A.2d 974 (1984)].5:650-52.The Decision to Bifurcate is Within the Decisionof the Court. [Tose v. Tose, 297 Pa. Super. 592,441 A.2d 790 1 (1982)]. 3:257-58.Decree Entered Prior to Code Cannot be Affectedby Code. [Ewiak v. Ewiak, 328 Pa. Super. 83, 476A.2d 464 (1984)]. 5:602.Defendants are not Required to Execute §201(c)Affidavit of Consents Against Will. [Hulek v.Hulek, 6 A.C.D.D. 294 (Allegh. Co., 1984)].6:699.Denial of Child Support as a Result of theDoctrine of Judicial Immunity. [Clodgo v.Bowman, 411 Pa. Super. 267, 601 A.2d 342(1992)]. 13(2):6-7.Dependency by Omission: Trial Court’s FindingThat a Child is Without Proper Parental CareSupports an Adjudication of Dependency. [In Re:R.P., 2008 Pa. Super. 196 (August 21, 2008), 957A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Christina M.DeMatteo. 30:213-15.Direct Payment to Public Assistance Recipient ofChild Support Arrearages gets No Credit fromDPW, Commonwealth Court Rules. [Long v.Thomas, 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 416, 619 A.2d 394(1992)]. 14(1):8.Directly or Indirectly, Parents Cannot AvoidSupport Obligations by Contract. [Miesen v.Frank, 361 Pa. Super. 204, 522 A.2d 85 (1987)].9:7-8.Disability Pension Subject to EquitableDistribution, Superior Court Declares. [Haywardv. Hayward, 428 Pa. Super. 332, 630 A.2d 1275(1993)]. 15(1):15-16.Discovery in Family Law Cases the Last of thePerry Mason Courts. [Com. ex rel. Swank v.Swank, 266 Pa. Super. 94, 403 A. 2d 109 (1979);Drummond v. Drummond, Montg. Co., Equity No.28, April Term 1960 (1979); McCann v. McCann,19 D.&C.3d 234 (Chester Co. 1981); Roussos v.Roussos, 7 Family L. R. 2157 (1981)]. 2:138-50.[Discussion of Issues which Arise Where27

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEIrretrievable Breakdown has been Alleged asGrounds for Divorce in Complaint.]. [Rueckert v.Rueckert, 1 A.C.D.D. 55, 20 D.&C.3d 191(Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:161-63.Distinction Between Spousal Support andAlimony Pendente Lite. [Horn v. Horn, 388 Pa.Super. 46, 564 A.2d 995 (1989)]. 10:123.Distribution Order Giving Wife the MiningEquipment and "The Shaft" Must be Revised.[Beener v. Beener, 422 Pa. Super. 351, 619 A.2d713 (1992)]. 14(2):13-15.Division of Marital Property: Factors Considered.[Powell v. Powell, 395 Pa. Super. 345, 577 A.2d576 (1990)]. 11:171-73.Divorce Decree does not Automatically TerminateRight of Party as Beneficiary. [Stowell v. Stowell,3d Cir., No. 84-1037 (Oct. 26, 1984)]. 5:656-58.Divorce Decree Insufficient to Divest Beneficiaryof ERISA Pension Plan In Absence of Change ofBeneficiary According to Plan Document.Kennedy, Executrix of the Estate of Kennedy,Deceased v. Plan Administrator for DupontSavings and Investment Plan et al. 129 S. Ct. 865,172 L.Ed.2d 662 (2009)]. Caren E. Morrissey.31:4-5.Divorce–Simultaneous Actions in Two Counties.[Bem v. Bem, 30 Chester Co. Rep. 276 (1982)].3:340.Divorce–Two Cases can be Pending in TwoCounties Until Appellate Courts Rule Otherwise.[Ravetz v. Ravetz, Montg. Co., No. 80-10116(1981)]. 2:186-87.Doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel Examined. [Inthe Matter of Green v. McCoy, 437 Pa. Super.606, 577 A.2d 1341 (1994)]. 17(1):2-3.Doctrine of Presumption of Paternity is Alive butnot Kicking. [Miscovich v. Miscovich, 455 Pa.Super. 437, 688 A.2d 726 (1997); Ruth F. v.Robert B., Jr. (listed as Fish v. Behers)], 456 Pa.Super. 398, 690 A.2d 1171 (1997)]. Dagmar W.Wolf. 19:27-29.Does the Nurturing Parent Doctrine Still Exist inPennsylvania? [Doherty v. Doherty, 859 A.2d 811(Pa. Super. 2004)]. Caren E. Morrissey. 26:107-8.Domestic Relations Subpoena Approved For Useat Support Hearing. [Knight v. Northwest SavingsBank, et al., 747 A.2d 384 (Pa. Super. 2000)].Jeffrey M. Williams. 22:38.Domicile Governs Divorce Jurisdiction. [Sinha v.Sinha, 834 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. Kate E.McDonnell. 26:43-44."Domino Effect" of Grandparent's Visits onMother's Depression and her Treatment of ChildBars Them from Visitation. [Norris v. Tearney,422 Pa. Super. 246, 619 A.2d 339 (1993)].14(3):12-13.Early Retirement Incentive Benefits. [Meyer v.Meyer, 561 Pa. 225, 749 A.2d 917 (2000)]. GaryJ. Friedlander. 22:63-65.Earning Capacity and Nurturing Parent Doctrine inSupport Cases. [Kelly v. Kelly, 430 Pa. Super. 31,633 A.2d 218 (1993)]. 14(5):3-4.Earning Capacity vs. Earning History: If a Partyhas been a Farmer for Ten Years; He is a Farmer.[Dennis v. Whitney, 844 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super.2004)]. Daniel J. Clifford. 26:44-45.Educational Support Case Remanded, Where TrialCourt Incorrectly Considered Items such asPersonal Expenses, Clothing and Travel Expenses,and Where Court Proceeded in the Absence of aCritical Child Witness. [Grieve v. Mankey, 443Pa. Super. 101, 660 A.2d 1367 (1995)]. 17(5):4.Effect of 401.1(b) on Pre-1988 PropertySettlement Agreements. [Brangs v. Brangs, 407Pa. Super. 43, 595 A.2d 115 (1991)]. 12(4):4-5.Effect of Bankruptcy Action on DivorceProceeding. [In Re Murray v. Murray and Ganz,31 B.R. 499 (1983)]. 4:473.Effect of Cohabitation on Alimony Agreement.[Vankirk v. Vankirk, 336 Pa. Super. 502, 485A.2d 1194 (1984)]. 5:654-55.28

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEEffect of Death of Party on a Divorce Action.[Chappell v. Chappell, 21 D.&C.3d 44 (1981)].3:342-43.Effect of Death on Bifurcated Divorce. [Delehantyv. Wozman, 7 A.C.D.D. 141, 133 P.L.J. 263(1985)]. 6:743-44.Effect of Divorced Party's Death on AncillaryClaims–The Action Lives on. [Pastuszek v.Pastuszek, 346 Pa. Super. 416, 499 A.2d 1069(1985)]. 6:777-79.Effect of Foreign Decree on Rights to EquitableDistribution and Counsel Fees. [Coleman v.Coleman, 361 Pa. Super. 446, 522 A.2d 1115(1987)]. 8:964-70.Effect of Party's Death on Pre-Divorce EquitableDistribution. [Reese v. Reese, 351 Pa. Super. 521,506 A.2d 471 (1986)]. 7:847-49.Effectiveness of Varying State Child SupportOrders Evaluated. [Com. ex rel. Brendel v.Brendel, 429 Pa. Super. 319, 632 A.2d 876(1993)]. 15(1):9-10.Eight Years' Failure to Cooperate with AgencyResults in Termination of Parental Rights. [In Re:Adoption of Steven S., 417 Pa. Super. 247, 612A.2d 465 (1992)]. 13(4):11-13.Emancipated Child May Intervene in EnforcementProceedings to Litigate and Receive RetroactiveChild Support. [Chen v. Chen, 840 A.2d 355 (Pa.Super. 2003)]. Jennifer A. Brandt. 26:5-6.Emancipation and the Troubled Child. [Trosky v.Mann, 398 Pa. Super. 369, 581 A.2d 177 (1990)].11:198-99.Enforceability of Agreement Incorporated intoDivorce Decree. [Kasloff v. Kasloff, Montg. Co.,No. 81-5390 in Equity (1982)]. 4:401-3.Enforceability of Antenuptial Agreement.[Karkaria v. Karkaria, 405 Pa. Super. 176, 592A.2d 64 (1991)]. 12(4):6-8.Enforcement of Equitable Distribution: No WageAttachment. [Laughlin v. Laughlin, 372 Pa. Super.24, 538 A.2d 927 (1988)]. 9:21.Enforcement of Foreign Decree in Pennsylvania.[Kramer v. Kramer, 21 D.&C.3d 94 (Lehigh,1981)]. 3:323-324.Enforcement Procedure of Pre-1988 UnmergedProperty Settlement Agreement. [Jackson v. Culp,400 Pa. Super. 519, 583 A.2d 1236 (1990)].12(2):2.Enforcing Mortgage Payment Provision inPostnuptial Agreement. [Miller v. Miller, 983A.2d 736 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Michael E. Bertin.32:7-8.“Entitlement" Still an Issue in Spousal SupportCases. [Myers v. Myers, 405 Pa. Super. 290, 592A.2d 339 (1991)]. 12(5):3-4.Entrepreneur Wife too Active for PermanentAlimony. [O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 530 Pa.176, 607 A.2d 735 (1992)]. 13(4):8.Entry of Divorce Decree Prerequisite to AncillaryRelief Order. [Dech v. Dech, 342 Pa. Super. 17,492 A.2d 41 (1985)]. 7:803-4.Entry Into Pre-Divorce Code Agreement Resultsin Wife's Waiver of Equitable Distribution. [Wolfev. Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 491 A.2d 291(1985)]. 6:763-64.Equal Amenities at Both Parents’ Houses not theStandard for Child Support in High Income Casesin Pennsylvania. [Rich v. Rich, A.2d (Pa. Super.2009)]. Melissa M. Boyd. 31:18-19.Equitable Defense to Equitable Distribution RentalCredit Claim. [Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa.Super. 2009]. Elizabeth J. Fineman. 31:103-5.Equitable Distribution by the Inch. [Anzalone v.Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa Super. 2003)]. DavidS. Pollock. 25:96-99.Equitable Distribution, Alimony, AlimonyPendente Lite, Counsel Fees and Costs. [Tonetti v.Tonetti, 39 Lehigh Law J. 535 (1982)]. 3:294-98.29

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEEquitable Distribution, Alimony and Counsel FeeCase. [Romeo v. Romeo, 42 Bucks Co. L. R. 39(1983)]. 4:487-89.Equitable Distribution and Alimony Award. [Regliv. Regli, 111 Montg. Co. L.R. 119 (1982)]. 3:362-66.Equitable Distribution and Alimony–WifeAwarded 65% of Marital Estate. [Stanton v.Stanton, 112 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 234 (1983)].4:484-87.Equitable Distribution Applies to Small LawPractice, Superior Court Declares. [Naddeo v.Naddeo, 426 Pa. Super. 131, 626 A.2d 608(1993)]. 14(4):3-4.Equitable Distribution–Assets Valued as of DateHearing. [Treasure v. Treasure, 2 A.C.D.D. 170(Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 3:306.Equitable Distribution Award Case. [Pangallo v.Pangallo, Westmoreland Co., No. 8650 of 1979(1983)]. 4:444-47.Equitable Distribution: Buy-Out Remedy. [Ryan v.Ryan, 391 Pa. Super. 327, 571 A.2d 392 (1990)].11:130-31.Equitable Distribution Case. [Ruth v. Ruth, 316Pa. Super. 282, 462 A.2d 1351 (1983)]. 4:453-58.Equitable Distribution Case. [Benner v. Benner,42 Bucks Co. L. R. 99 (1983)]. 4:474-78.Equitable Distribution Case. [Wichers v. Wichers,6 A.C.D.D. 67, 132 P.L.J. 146 (1984)]. 5:546-49.Equitable Distribution Case–Date of ValuationAnd Classification as Martial Property. [Diamondv. Diamond, 360 Pa. Super. 101, 519 A.2d 1012(1987)]. 8:980-84.Equitable Distribution, Counsel Fees and Costs.[Baraff v. Baraff, 4 A.C.D.D. 1 (Allegh. Co.,1983)]. 4:409-13.Equitable Distribution–Grounds for Divorce mustExist Before Court can Decide. [Oliver v. Oliver,39 Bucks Co. L.R. 130 (1982)]. 3:341.Equitable Distribution is Constitutional. [Bank v.Bank, Philadelphia Co., Nov. Term 1980 No.2993 (1981); Kline v. Kline, Lancaster Co., No.166 Oct. 1979 (1981)]. 2:178-81.Equitable Distribution is Constitutional. [Schwartzv. Schwartz, Montg. Co., 81-3684 In Divorce,A.V.M. (1981)]. 2:210-12.Equitable Distribution is Constitutional.[Bacchetta v. Bacchetta, 498 Pa. 227, 445 A.2d1194 (1982)]. 3:290-93.Equitable Distribution of Police Pension. [Endy v.Endy, 412 Pa. Super. 398, 603 A.2d 641 (1992)].13(2):2-3.Equitable Distribution of Property–OutrightAward of Marital Home to Husband. [Hovey v.Hovey, Warren Co., No. 417 of 1980 (1981)].2:181-82.Equitable Distribution: Possibility of Inheritancenot Included. [Gruver v. Gruver, 372 Pa. Super.194, 539 A.2d 395 (1988)]. 9(2):14.Equitable Distribution–Pensions. [Kikkert v.Kikkert, 177 N. J. Super. 471, 427 A.2d 76(1981)]. 2:218-20.Equitable Distribution/Validity of Waiver inAgreement. [Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. Rochelle Grossman. 26:42-43.Equitable Distribution (W/80%, H/20%)–AnAward Made by the Court Rehabilitative Alimony,Counsel Fees (75%). [Reese v. Reese, Montg. Co.No. 80-21492 (1981)]. 2:222-23.Equitable Distribution (W/100%, H/0%)–AnAward Made by the Court Rehabilitative Alimony,Counsel Fees. [Kiesel v. Kiesel, 19 D.&C.3d 792(Montg. Co. 1981)]. 2:220-22.Equitable Distribution–Wife Awarded Interest inHusband's Pension. [Dean v. Dean, 2 A.C.D.D.227 (Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 4:447-49.30

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEEquitable Estoppel Doctrine: Child Support byStepparents. [DeNomme v. DeNomme, 375 Pa.Super. 212, 544 A.2d 63 (1988)]. 9:35.Equitable Powers of the Court to Modify anEquitable Distribution Order More Than 30 DaysFollowing the Entry of a Divorce Decree.[Johnson v. Johnson, 864 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super.2004)]. Stephanie H. Winegrad. 27:51-52.Equitable Provisions of Divorce Code GoverningDisposition of Property, not Applicable toTransfers of Property Made Prior to EffectiveDate of Code. [Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 503 Pa.373, 469 A.2d 987 (1983)]. 4:505-9.Equitable Reimbursement Camouflaged asAlimony. [Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa. Super. 113, 576A.2d 1000 (1990)]. 11:156-57.Equitable Reimbursement When Marital AssetsJust are not Enough. [Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d.882 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Sarinia A.Michaelson.28:15-16.ERISA Preempts Pennsylvania Law When ItComes to Employer Sponsored Plans DesignatingEx-Spouses as Beneficiaries. [In Re Estate of PaulJ. Sauers, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. CarlaMarino. 30:148-50.ERISA Trumps State Law. [Egelhoff v. Egelhoff,532 U.S 141, 149 L.Ed.2d 264, 121 S. Ct. 1322(2001)]. David I. Grunfeld. 23:37-38.Estrangement Defense Held Inapplicable in HigherEducation Support Case, Where Estrangement wasnot Proven to be Unilateral on the Part of theChild. [Rudick v. Rudick, 441 Pa. Super. 558, 657A.2d 1307 (1995)]. 17(5):4.Estrangement is a Consideration in AwardingCollege Support. [Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super.177, 556 A.2d 854 (1989)]. Emanuel A. Bertin.10:88-89.Estrangement is a Two-Way Street for FatherSeeking to Avoid Child's College Tuition. [Reif v.Reif, 426 Pa. Super. 14, 626 A.2d 169 (1993)].14(4):13-14.Even Non-Dependent Spouses may ReceiveAlimony Pendente Lite to Defray Costs ofMaintaining Divorce Action. [Powers v. Powers,419 Pa. Super. 464, 615 A.2d 459 (1992)].14(1):6.Even "Worthless" Stock Still Subject to "Buy-Out" Valuation for Equitable Distribution.[Harasym v. Harasym, 418 Pa. Super. 486, 614A.2d 742 (1992)]. 13(6):3-4.Evidence Sufficient for Protection fromAbuseOrder Despite Absence of Physical Injury.[Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Darren J. Holst. 30:211-13.Expectancies are Relevant Factors to beConsidered in Equitable Distribution. [Moritz v.Moritz, Allegh. Co., FD 82-07811 (1984)]. 5:630-32.Expectancies not Relevant in EquitableDistribution Cases. [Hutnik v. Hutnik, 369 Pa.Super. 263, 535 A.2d 151 (1987)]. 9:2-3.Explanatory Comments to Revised Rule1910.19(f) Prevent Arrears to be Remitted DuringObligor’s Incarceration. [Nash v. Herbster, 932A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Linda A. Kerns.29:125-6.Extrinsic Fraud: Petition to Vacate DivorceDecree. [Foley v. Foley, 392 Pa. Super. 9, 572A.2d 6 (1990)]. 11:144-45.Factors Relied on in Expunging Sexual AbuseReport. [J.S. v. Com., 528 Pa. 243, 596 A.2d 1114(1991)]. 12(6):4-5.Factors to be Considered in Determining ifGoodwill Exists. [Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa.Super. 483, 516 A.2d 363 (1986)]. 7:908-12.Failure to Adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules ofAppellate Procedure can Preclude Review of anAppellant’s Arguments. [In Re K.T.E.L, 983 A.2d745 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Lynnore K. Seaton. 32:12-14.Failure to Inform Employer RE: Divorce Subjects31

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEEmployee to Liability for Post-Divorce HealthBenefits Paid when No Health InsurancePremiums Paid. [Trustees of the AFTRA HealththFund v. Biondi, 303 F.2d 765 (7 Cir. 2002)].David I. Grunfeld. 24:106.Failure to State Issues in Statement of MattersComplained of On Appeal Constitutes Waiver ofIssues First Raised by Appellant in Superior CourtBrief. [Kelly v. Mueller, 912 A.2d 202 (Pa. Super.2006)]. Michelle S. Dawson. 29:19-20.Failure to Transcribe In Camera Interview ofMinor Child not Fatal to Trial Court DecisionWhen Some Facts Were Elicited fromMultipleOther Witnesses. [N.H.M. v. P.O.T., 947 A.2d1268 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Kim Denise Morton.30:152-54.Failure to Value a Marital Asset. [Ratarsky v.Ratarsky, 383 Pa. Super. 445, 557 A.2d 83(1989)]. 10:90-91.Father Convicted of First Degree Murder andServing Life Term Entitled to Evaluation andTreatment to Custody Case. [Cramer v. Zgela, 969A.2d. 621 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Pamela L. Purdy.31:100-1.Father Denied Visitation Rights WithIncapacitated 25-Year Old Daughter Pursuant toher Wishes. [Estate of Haertsch, Appeal of:Haertsch Sr., 415 Pa. Super. 598, 609 A.2d 1384(1994)]. 17(1):4.Father Given Second Chance After Running Afoulof Children’s Fast-Track Rules, But Loses onAppeal. [J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 A.3d 902 (Pa. Super.2010)]. Andrew D. Taylor. 32:191-92.Father Imprisoned for His Child's Mother'sMurder is "Barred" from Visiting Child. [Green v.Sneeringer, 431 Pa. Super. 66, 635 A.2d 1074(1993)]. 15(1):13-14.Father Ordered to Contribute Toward Tuition forPrivate School for Emotionally DisturbedDaughter. [Stredny v. Gray, 353 Pa. Super. 376,510 A.2d 359 (1986)]. 7:879-81.Father Ordered to Pay More Than $200,000 inSupport Arrearages Dating Back to the 1950's.[Bullock v. Bullock, 432 Pa. Super. 643, 639 A.2d826 (1994)]. 15(3):9-10.Father Whose Parental Rights Were Terminatedhad No Standing to Petition for Custody. [Morganv. Weisner, 923 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2007)].Kim Denise Morton. 29:85-86.Father’s Failure to Exercise Custody Does notExcuse Mother’s Failure to Follow Parties’Custody Order. [Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654(Pa. Super. 2008)]. Amy J. Phillips. 30:205-8.Father’s Paternal Rights Terminated in Favor OfMaternal Grandfather.[In Re Adoption of J.M.,991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Gerald L.Shoemaker. 32:79-80.Federal Law Held not to Preempt Provisions ofMarital Property Settlement Agreement. [Eonda v.Affinito, 427 Pa. Super. 317, 629 A.2d 119(1993)]. 14(5):6-8.A Finding of of Criminal Contempt is ImmediatelyAppealable. [Diamond v. Diamond, 715 A.2d1190 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Charles J. Meyer. 20:90-92.First Impression: Bifurcation Under the AmendedDivorce Code. [Bonawits v. Bonawits, 907 A.2d611 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin.29:98-100.Forfeiture of Marital Interest in Pension TooHarsh a Remedy for Failure to Satisfy Court’sQDRO Requirements. [Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547(Pa. Super. 2007)]. Maris J. Weiner. 29:133-34.Foreign Guardianship Order not Entitled toRecognition in Pennsylvania. [Hilkmann v.Hilkmann, 858 A.2d 58 (Pa. 2004)]. Brian C.Vertz. 26:105-6.Forum Non Conveniens Analyzed in Adoption/Custody Proceedings. [In Re:Adoption of K.S.,399 Pa. Super. 29, 581 A.2d 659 (1990)].12(1):10-12.32

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEFoster Parents may not Adopt Over CYSObjection: Superior Court Refuses to ExtendSupreme Court's Decision In Re: Adoption of Hessto Foster Parents. [Chester County Children andYouth Services v. Cunningham, 431 Pa. Super.421, 636 A.2d 1157 (1994)]. 15(2):7-8.Frey and Separation: A Principle in Search of aStandard. [Frey v. Frey, 821 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super.2003)]. Mark R. Ashton. 25:65-66.Future Social Security Earnings can Offset theValue of Civil Service Pensions. [Rimel v. Rimel,913 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Julia Swain.29:17-18.Garnish Gross, not Net, Wages for AlimonyArrearages, Superior Court Declares. [Goodsteinv. Goodstein, 422 Pa. Super. 331, 619 A.2d 703(1992)]. 14(2):6-8.Gates v. Gates: Alimony Award Linked toEmancipation of Child Improper. [Gates v. Gates,933 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Aaron P. Asher.29:127-28.Getting Sirious.[Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. David J. Draganosky. 30:159-63.Given a Conflict Between a Fault and No-FaultGround, No-Fault will Prevail. [Barbara B. S. v. S.Allen S., Allegheny Co., 876 Oct. 1977 (1982)].3:273-74.Going Concern Value as Distinguished fromGoodwill of Professional Practice is MaritalProperty. [Gaydos v. Gaydos, 143 P.L.J. 224(1995)]. Steven B. Schwartz. 18(2):9-11.Good Will has No Present Value for EquitableDistribution Purposes. [DeMasi v. DeMasi, 366Pa. Super. 19, 530 A.2d 871 (1987)]. 8:988-95.Goodwill in a Closely Held Corporation. [Ullomv. Ullom, 384 Pa. Super. 514, 559 A.2d555(1989)]. 10:90.Goodwill of Accounting Practice Subject toEquitable Distribution, Superior Court Rules.[Butler v. Butler, 423 Pa. Super. 530, 621 A.2d659 (1993)]. 14(3):4-6.Goodwill not Marital Property Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Beasley v. Beasley, 348Pa. Super. 124, 501 A.2d 679 (1985)]. 6:760-63.Goodwill Revisited–Dental Practice. [Fexa v.Fexa, 396 Pa. Super. 481, 578 A.2d 1314 (1990)].11:184.Goodwill Valuation of Veterinary Practice. [Bakerv. Baker, 861 A.2d 298 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. SallyR. Miller. 27:7-8.Grandmother Custody not Enough in DependencyHearing Wheere It is a Sham. [In Re J.C., 5 A.3d284 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Christian V. Badali.32:189-90.Grandparent Visitation Statute Regarding Childrenof Separated or Divorced Parents is Constitutional,Does not Violate Equal Protection Rights.[Schmehl v. Schmehl, 927 A. 2d 183 (Pa. 2007)].Ann M. Funge.29:91-92.Grandparents Action for Visitation DismissedWhere Both Parents are Alive. [Herron v. Seizak,321 Pa. Super. 466, 468 A.2d 803 (1983)]. 5:560-61.Grandparents have Automatic Standing to BringCustody Actions. [R.M. v. Baxter ex rel T.M., 565Pa. 619, 777 A.2d 446 (2001)]. Teri L. Henning.23:59-60.Grandparents Visitation Act Interpreted. [Bishopv. Piller, 536 Pa. 41, 637 A.2d 976 (1994)].15(2):2-3.Grandparent's Visitation Rights. [Bishop v. Piller,399 Pa. Super. 52, 581 A.2d 670 (1990)]. 12(1):9-10.Gross Abuse of Discretion Standard ChildCustody Cases Re-Emphasized by Supreme Court.[Lombardo v. Lombardo, 515 Pa. 139, 527 A.2d525 (1987)]. 9:5.Grant of Counsel Fees for Continuing Conduct InCustody Case. [Holler v. Smith, 928 A.2d 330 (Pa.33

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLESuper. 2007)]. Sally R. Miller. 29:123-24.Gruber Analysis Applied to Inter-County Case.[Bednarek v. Velazquez, 830 A.2d 1267 (PaSuper. 2003)]. David S. Pollock. 25:99-100.Gruber Applied to Shared Custody Case aComponent of Best Interests. [Thomas v. Thomas,739 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. Cheryl L.Young. 21:119-20.Gruber Factors Applied to Intrastate CustodyRelocation Case. [Perrott v. Perrott, 713 A.2d 666(Pa. Super. 1998)]. Michael L. Kleiman. 20:59-61.Gruber Factors are Only a Part of a Best InterestAnalysis When Court Makes Initial CustodyDetermination in a Relocation Situation. [Hurleyv. Hurley, 754 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2000)].Candice L. Komar. 22:62-63.Gruber Test not Controlling Where ChildrenRelocated Pursuant to Earlier Order. [R.M.G., Jr.v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Elizabeth H. Cepparulo. 32:22-23.The Guidelines are the Guidelines are theGuidelines. [Terpak v. Terpak, 697 A.2d 1006(Pa. Super. 1997)]. Carol S. Mills McCarthy.19:77-79.Guidelines Deviation in Support Cases Must beSubstantiated. [Anzalone v. Anzalone, 449 Pa.Super. 201, 673 A.2d 377 (1996)]. David L.Ladov. 18(3):3-5.Guidelines for Relocation Custody Disputes. [Leev. Fontine, 406 Pa. Super. 487, 594 A.2d 724(1991)]. 12(4):9-10.Half a Credit is Better Than Whole in AwardingRental Value of Marital Residence toDispossessed Spouse. [Trembach v. Trembach,419 Pa. Super. 80, 615 A.2d 33 (1992)]. 13(6):8.He Who Hesitates in Establishing Paternity is LostWith Respect to Visitation, Panel Declares.[Everett v. Anglemeyer, 425 Pa. Super. 587, 625A.2d 1252 (1993)]. 14(4):15-16.Hearsay Exception: Unavailability for Trial. [Corlv. Kacmar, 391 Pa. Super. 376, 571 A.2d 417(1990)]. 11:145.Hearsay Statements in Sexual Abuse Case.[Philadelphia County Department of HumanServices, Division of Children And Youth v. Com.of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare,135 Pa. Cmwlth. 542, 581 A.2d 704 (1990)].12(1):8-9.Heart Balm Act Held Inapplicable to Causes ofAction for Fraud And Negligent Representation,Arising Out of A Bigamous Marriage. [Lampus v.Lampus, 541 Pa. 67, 660 A.2d 1308 (1995)].17(5):6.Home State Jurisdiction in Custody Cases andTest of Significant Connections. [Zimbicki v.Zimbicki, 810 A.2d 168 (Pa. Super. 2002)].MarkR. Galzerano. 25:7-8.Homeward Bound: Pennsylvania Supreme CourtSets Stricter Jurisdictional Standards in CustodyCases. [Dincer v. Dincer, 549 Pa. 309, 701 A.2d210 (1997)]. Carol A. Behers and Elizabeth Lacy.20:4-6.Homosexual Partners are not Spouses QualifiedUnder Pa. Adoption Act. [In re: Adoption ofR.B.F. and R.C.F., 762 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super.2000)]. and. [In re: Adoption of C.C.G. and Z. C.G. 762 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Stanley J.Margle. 23:8-9.Homosexuality is Relevant Factor in CustodyDecision. [Constant A. v. Paul C. A., 344 Pa.Super. 49, 496 A.2d 1 (1985)]. 6:748-54.Horner v. Horner, A Subsequent Case Note.James E. Mahood. 20:43-44.Husband Estopped from Asserting Invalidity ofForeign Divorce Decree. [Lowenschuss v.Lowenschuss, 396 Pa. Super. 531, 579 A.2d 377(1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:154-55.Husband Found in Contempt of Support Order.[Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 323 Pa. Super.381, 470 A.2d 970 (1983)]. 5:543-46.34

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEHusband Receives No Credit for Direct Payments.[Wertz v. Anderson, 508 Pa. 1218, 352 A.2d 572(1986)]. 7:858-60.Husband's "Guilt Trip" Against Well-InformedWife Won't Visciate Separation Agreement.[Adams v. Adams, 414 Pa. Super. 634, 607 A.2d1116 (1992)]. 13(4):8-9.Husband's Payments for Purchase of SolelyOwned Business Held not Deductible fromIncomein Spousal Support Case. [Lehman v. Lehman, 431Pa. Super. 450, 636 A.2d 1172 (1994)]. 15(2):9-10.Husband's Pension Valuation is No Sweeter theSecond Time Around, the Superior Court JudgesDeclare. [Miller v. Miller, 421 Pa. Super. 23, 617A.2d 375 (1992)]. 14(2):4-5.Husband's Police Pension is Subject toAttachment. [Young v. Young, 507 Pa. 40, 488A.2d 264 (1985)]. 6:700-1.Husband’s Proceeds from a Workers’Compensation Compromise and ReleaseAgreement Approved Post Separation (for a Pre-Separation Injury) were not Marital PropertySubject to Equitable Distribution. [Pudlish v.Pudlish, 796 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. JuliaSwain. 24:36-38.The "I's" Have It: Infidelity, Insufficient toInvalidate, Indignities to the "Injured andInnocent." [Schuback v. Schuback, 412 Pa. Super.233, 603 A.2d 194 (1992)]. 13(3):6-7.If Adult Child's Handicap Prevents IndependentLiving, Parent's Support Obligation Continues.[Hanson v. Hanson, 425 Pa. Super. 508, 625 A.2d1212 (1993)]. 14(4):14-15.Important Criteria in Child Support Orders. [Funkv. Funk, 376 Pa. Super. 76, 545 A.2d 326 (1988)].9:33-35.Imprisonment and Child Support Payment.[Leasure v. Leasure, 378 Pa. Super. 613, 549 A.2d225 (1988)]. 9(5):50.Imputed Income fromSecond Full-Time Job inSupport Cases. [Haselrig v. Haselrig, 840 A.2d338 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. Sandra E. Davis. 26:8-9.In Custody Relocation Cases, When can the CourtAssign an Earning Capacity for Purposes ofDetermining Economic Benefit to the Child?[Hogrelius v. Martin, 950 A.2d 345 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Jennifer Zofcin. 30:156-57.In Loco Parentis Required for Standing inCustody Cases. [Argenio v. Fenton, 703 A.2d1042 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Samatha R. LeComte.20:38-40.In Loco Parentis Status Provides Same Rights asa Parent in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings. [Inre D.K. & W.K., 922 A.2d 929 (Pa. Super. 2007)].Sarinia A. Michaelson. 29:100-01.In Personam Jurisdiction–When does It Exists?[Textor v. Textor, 9 A.C.D.D. 116 (Allegh. Co.,1987)]. 8:1008-9.In Re: G.C. Focuses Attention on Standing Issues.[In Interest of G.C., 449 Pa. Super. 258, 673 A.2d932 (1996)]. Sophie P. Paul. 18(3):11-12.In Support Action, Party's Domicile ContinuesUntil New Domicile is Affirmatively Proven.[McLarin v. McLarin, 350 Pa. Super. 153, 504A.2d 291 (1986)]. 7:824-26.Inapplicability of Use of Writ of Habeas Corpusand Writ of Prohibition in Custody Case.[Mayercheck v. Wood, 526 Pa. 477, 587 A.2d 696(1991)]. 12(3):9-10.Incorporation or Merger: Modification ofAgreement. [Ballestrino v. Ballestrino, 400 Pa.Super. 237, 583 A.2d 474 (1990)]. 12(1):4-5.Increase in Value of Medical Degree Held to beMarital Property, as well as Future Earnings MadePossible by Degree, Due to Contributions ofWorking Spouse. Also a Factor for Alimony.[Millili v. Millili, 24 D.&C.3d 479 (Montg. Co.1982)]. 3:270-73.Increase in Value of Pre-Marital Attributable to35

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEEither Party's Contributions is Marital Property.[Pascoe v. Pascoe, 7 A.C.D.D. 51 (Allegh. Co.,1984)]. 6:719-22.Increase in Value of Premarital Property is MaritalProperty. [Anthony v. Anthony, Tompkins v.Tompkins, 355 Pa. Super. 589, 514 A.2d 91 2(1986)]. 7:884-92.Increase in Value of Separate PropertyAttributable to Marital Contributions is MaritalProperty. [Birkel v. Birkel, 3 A.C.D.D. 230(Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 4:436-38.Increased Earnings Capacity is Neither Real NorPersonal Property. [Hodge v. Hodge, 327 Pa.Super. 151, 486 A.2d 401 (1984)]. 6:668-73.Indemnification Provision for Child SupportLiability is Unenforceable and Against PublicPolicy. [Frank v. Miesen, 361 Pa. Super. 204, 522A.2d 85 (1987)]. 8:957-58.Indigency: Trial Transcript Expense. [Morrison v.Miller, 397 Pa. Super. 153, 579 A.2d 976 (1990)].11:187-88.Ineffectiveness of Counsel: Dependency Hearing.[In The Matter of Jonna Price, 393 Pa. Super. 1,573 A.2d 1057 (1990)]. 11:146-47.Inheritance does not Equate to Income for SupportPurposes. [Humphries v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281(Pa. 2002)]. Elisabeth Pride. 24:32-34.Injunctive Relief Under Section 401(c) of theDivorce Code. [Lazovitz v. Lazovitz, 307 Pa.Super. 341, 453 A.2d 615 (1982)]. 4:391-93.Inmate's Right to Attend Bifurcation Hearing.[Salemo v. Salemo, 381 Pa. Super. 632, 554 A.2d563 (1989)]. 10(2):80-81.An Interim Award of Counsel Fees is HeldInterlocutory and Therefore not Appealable. [Lanev. Lane, Montg. Co., No. 80-11175, In Divorce,A.V.M., (August 14, 1981); Walters v. Walters,109 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 466 (1981)]. 3:265-69.Interim Custody Order and Status Quo not ControlSubsequent School Year School DistrictDetermination. [Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104(Pa. Super. 2005)]. Pamela L. Purdy. 27:118-20.Interlocutory Order for APL/Spousal Support isUnappealable Within 30 Days of the Entry of theFinal Decree in Divorce or Annulment. [Costlowv. Costlow, 914 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Jennifer A. Brandt. 29:14-15.Interplay: PKPA and UCCJA. [Barndt v. Barndt,397 Pa. Super. 321, 580 A.2d 320 (1990)].11:185-87.Interpretation of the Barletta Decision. [Ryan v.Ryan, 528 Pa. 186, 596 A.2d 140 (1991)].12(6):3-4.Interspousal Gifts are Marital Property. [Semasekv. Semasek, 331 Pa. Super. 1, 479 A.2d 1047(1984)]. 5:624-30.Interspousal Gifts are not Marital Property.[Semasek v. Semasek, 509 Pa. 282, 502 A.2d 109(1984)]. 6:775-77.Intrastate Custody Relocation in Absence of PriorCustody Order. [Beers v. Beers, 710 A.2d 1206(Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:35-38.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights: CourtAdopts "Clear And Convincing Evidence"Standard. [Petition for Involuntary Termination ofParental Rights, Appeal of G.J.A, 304 Pa. Super.21, 450 A.2d 80 (1982)]. 3:361-62.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights DeniedWhen Natural Parent Maintains Substantial AndContinuing Contact Prior to the Filed Petition,Superior Court Declares. [T.J.B. v. E.C., 438 Pa.Super. 529, 652 A.2d 936 (1995); In Re: Adoptionof M.J.C., 438 Pa. Super. 529, 652 A.2d 936(1995)]. 17(2):9-12.Involuntary Termination of ParentalRights–Father's Attempt to Overcome. [InRe:Baby Boy H., 401 Pa. Super. 530, 585 A.2d1054 (1991)]. 12(3):10-11.Is 50/50 an Appropriate Starting Point? Wife36

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEAwarded Share of Husband's Pension. [Martin B.v. Jane B., 1 A.C.D.D. 199 (Allegh. Co., 1981)].3:269-70.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights ofParents Unable or Unwilling to Fulfill CYSConditions for Improving Parenting Skills. [In re:J.E., a minor and E.E., a minor, 745 A.2d 1250(Pa. Super. 2000)]. Colleen M. Neary. 22:34-36.Is a Partition Action Superseded by a Request forEquitable Distribution?–Not Quite. [Marinello v.Marinello, 354 Pa. Super. 471, 512 A.2d 635(1986)]. 7:873-77.Is ‘Home State’ Under the UCCJEA Decided byWhich Judge Speaks First During a Two-StateJudicial Telephone Conference? [Bouzos-Reilly v.Reilly 980 A.2d. 643 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. MelanieS. Rothey. 31:164-65.Is Military Disability Pay Marital Property?[Martin v. Martin, 386 Pa. Super. 328, 562 A.2d1389 (1989)]. 10(4):112-14.Is There an Obligation for Support ArrearagesWhen Parental Rights have been Terminated?[Monroe County Children And Youth Services v.Werkheiser, 409 Pa. Super. 508, 598 A.2d 313(1991)]. 13(1):8.Judge Calls for Legislature to Clarify Guidelinesof Alimony Awards. [Peterson v. Peterson, 427Pa. Super. 572, 629 A.2d 1017 (1993)]. 14(5):2-3.Judgment Stricken on Lump Sum Certification ofSupport Arrears. [Welz v. Stump, 403 Pa. Super.93, 588 A.2d 47 (1991)]. 12(3):8-9.Jurisdiction of Pennsylvania Courts ExtendedOver Non-Resident Defendants. [Messa v. Messa,110 Montg. Co. L.R. 192 (1981)]. 3:327-31.Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, at Least forUntimely Filed Equitable Distribution Request.[Justice v. Justice, 417 Pa. Super. 581, 612 A.2d1354 (1992)]. 13(5):7-8.Laches–Collection of Support Arrearages. [Pattenv. Vose, 404 Pa. Super. 426, 590 A.2d 1307(1991)]. 12(4):10-11.Law Partnership Agreement Binding on Court inDivorce Case. [McCabe v. McCabe, 525 Pa. 25,575 A.2d 85 (1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:142-43.Legal Impediment to Common Law Marriage.[Canute v. Canute, 384 Pa. Super. 60, 557 A.2d772 (1989)]. 10:91-92.Legal Standing for Visitation Rights of FosterParent. [Wilson v. Wilson, 406 Pa. Super. 473,594 A.2d 717 (1991)]. 12(6):910.Lesbian Partner in Exclusive Relationship WithArtificially Inseminated Mother has Standing toBring Partial Custody Case. [T.B. v. L.R.M., 753A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Theresa B. Male.22:61-62.Letter Asking Parents for Wife's Hand does notTranslate into Indefinite Handout of Alimony.[Viles v. Viles, 416 Pa. Super. 95, 610 A.2d 988(1991)]. 13(4):4-6.Life Insurance Proceeds: Equitable Distribution.[Schubert v. Schubert, 398 Pa. Super. 284, 580A.2d 1351 (1990)]. 11:197-98.Limited Testimony of Social Worker AllowedOver Mother’s Objection. [In the Matter of L.F.,Appeal of L.W., 995 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010)].Amy J. Phillips. 32:139-41.Living Separate and Apart in the Same House.[Amelio v. Amelio, 18 D.&C.3d 673 (Lehigh Co.,1981)]. 2:182.Living Separate and Apart in the Same House.[Meyerl v. Meyerl, 129 P.L.J. 397, 1 A.C.D.D.100 (Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:224-27.Local Child Welfare Agency is Given Sixty Daysto Investigate Abuse Complaint Once AccusedAbuser is Identified. [Cumberland CountyChildren & Youth Services v. Department ofPublic Welfare,148 Pa. Cmwlth. 479, 611 A.2d1339 (1992)]. 13(4):13-15.37

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLELocal Rule Which Limits Right to a Hearing DeNovo Declared Invalid. [Warner v. Pollock, 434Pa. Super. 551, 644 A.2d 747 (1994)]. 16(4):9-10.Lottery Ticket Proceeds and EquitableDistribution. [Nufher v. Nufher, 410 Pa. Super.380, 599 A.2d 1348 (1991)]. 13(1):3.Lower Court Reversed for Failure to RelinquishJurisdiction Pursuant to UCCJEA: Remand forConsideration of §5422(B). [Billhime v. Billhime,952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Angelica L.Revelant. 30:158.Lump Sum Personal Injury Settlement ConstitutesIncome for Support Calculations. [Darby v. Darby,455 Pa. Super. 63, 686 A.2d 1346 (1996)]. JamesH. Richardson. 19:29-31.Mailbox Rule Applied to Domestic RelationHearing Notices. [Murphy v. Murphy, 988 A.2d703 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Elizabeth J. McCall.32:70-71.Marital Funds Cannot be Used to Pay Post-Separation Debts. [Grandovic v. Grandovic, 387Pa. Super. 617, 564 A.2d 960 (1989)]. Emanuel A.Bertin. 10:121.Marital Misconduct not a Bar to a Bar to AlimonyPendente Lite. [Siciliano v. Siciliano, 3 A.C.D.D.72 (Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 3:334-35.Marital Property: CSRS Pension. [Cornbleth v.Cornbleth, 397 Pa. Super. 421, 580 A.2d 369(1990)]. 11:182-83.Marriage Settlement Agreement Upheld WhenSpouse of Business Owner Fully Engaged inCouple’s Financial Affairs and Involved inBusiness. [Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061 (Pa.Super. 2005)]. Christine Gale. 27:120-21.Marry At Haste, Divorce from Previous MarriageSpouse at Leisure? Second Marriage Still Valid.[Covington v. Covington, 421 Pa. Super. 328, 617A.2d 1318 (1992)]. 14(3):9-10.Mass Media Expert not an Expert to MakePhysical and Psychological Conclusions fromFrequent Visits to Pornography Internet Sites.[A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d 744 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Erin Farabaugh. 30:88-90.The Mature Minor Doctrine No Defense toInvoluntary Manslaughter of Child not ProvidedMedical Treatment. [Com. v. Nixon, 563 Pa. 425,761 A.2d 1151 (2000)]. Donna M. McKillop.23:11-13.McFadden v. McFadden: A Double Dip at thePension Well. Patricia G. Miller. [McFadden v.McFadden, 386 Pa. Super. 506, 563 A.2d 180(1989)]. 10(4):110-111.The Meaning of the 1988 Divorce CodeAmendments Clarified. [Woodings v. Woodings,411 Pa. Super. 406, 601 A.2d 854 (1992)].Emanuel A. Bertin. 13(1):2.Medical License is Marital Property. [O'Brien v.O'Brien, 359 Pa. Super. 594, 519 A.2d 511(1985)]. 7:820-24.Medical License not Marital Property. [Hodge v.Hodge, 513 Pa. 264, 520 A.2d 15 (1986)]. 8:928-33.Melzer Analysis Requires Calculation ofChildren’s Reasonable Needs Separate from Thoseof the Custodial Parent’s. [Chapman-Rolle v.Rolle, 893A.2d 770 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. AndrewD. Taylor. 28:104-5.Melzer Calculation not Affected by SharedCustody. [Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107(Pa. Super. 2007)]. Julia Swain. 29:129-30.Melzer Guidelines: A New Analysis. [Olson v.Olson, 384 Pa. Super. 224, 558 A.2d 93 (1989)].10:92-93.Melzer Guidelines Revisited. [Marshall v. Ross,373 Pa. Super. 235, 540 A.2d 954 (1988)]. 9:22-23.Melzer not Applicable to High-Income SpousalSupport Cases, Says Supreme Court. [Mascaro v.Mascaro, 803 A.2d 1186 (Pa. 2002)]. Brian C.Vertz. 24:102-4.38

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEMental Incapacity: Termination of Parental Rights.[In re P.A.B.,; M.E.B.; M.A.B., 391 Pa. Super.79,570 A.2d 522 (1990)]. 11:138-39.Meretricious Relationship and EquitableDistribution. [Robertson v. Davis, 397 Pa. Super.292, 580 A.2d 39 (1990)]. 11:201.Military Pensions Revisited with Respect toPersonal Jurisdiction. [Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa.448, 768A.2d 1112 (2001)]. Howard M. Spizer.23:34-37.Minimum Contacts Established in Support Action.[Baronti v. Baronti, 381 Pa. Super. 134, 552 A.2d1131 (1989)]. 10:64-65.Minimum Contacts: Personal JurisdictionReviewed. [Baronti v. Baronti, 381 Pa. Super.134, 552 A.2d 1131 (1989)]. 10(2):79.Minor’s Brother Granted Custody–NotFather–When Mother Died. [Chambers v.Chambers, 105 .PDDRR 69 (Bucks County,2005)]. Julie E. Ganz. 27:114-15.Modifiability of Property Settlement Agreement.[Com. ex rel. Tokach v. Tokach, 326 Pa. Super.359, 474 A.2d 41 (1984)]. 5:571-72.Modification of Custody Order: Must First ProveSubstantial Change in Circumstances. [Karis v.Karis, 353 Pa. Super. 561, 510 A.2d 804 (1986)].7:900-2.Modification of Support Award: StatewideGuidelines. [Keating v. Keating, 407 Pa. Super.31, 595 A.2d 109 (1991)]. 12(6):6-7.Money Can't But You Love. [In Re: Adoption byShives, 363 Pa. Super. 225, 525 A.2d 801 (1987)].9:5-6.Mortgage Adjustment in Child Support Case AfterDecree in Divorce. [ Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d1178 (Pa Super. 2003)]. Sandra E. Davis. 25:69-72.Mother by Estoppel v. In Loco Parentis Status.[S.A. v. C.G.R., 856 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super.2004)]. Cheryl Sattin. 27:3-4.Mother of Custodial Parent has Standing to SeekVisitation of Grandchild in New Interpretation ofGrandparents' Visitation Act. [Hill v. Divecchio,425 Pa. Super. 355, 625 A.2d 642 (1993)].14(3):10-11.Mother Maintained Primary Custody Despite HerPlacement of Child in Private Boarding School.[A.O. v. M.O., 856 A.2d 1204 (2004)]. Jessica A.Pritchard. 26:110-11.Mother's Boyfriend Lacked Standing to ChallengeFinding Implicating Him in Child Abuse. [In theInterest of Garthwaite, 422 Pa. Super. 280, 619A.2d 356 (1993)]. 14(3):7-8.Mutual Mistake of Fact Won't Invalidate DivorceDecree. [Holteen v. Holteen, 413 Pa. Super. 591,605 A.2d 1275 (1992)]. 13(3):7.Name Change of Child. [In re: Richie by Boehm,387 Pa. Super. 401, 564 A.2d 239 (1989)].10(4):111.Neither IVF, Nor a Preconception Oral AgreementNor the Mother’s Intentional Deception Bars aSperm Donor’s Adjudication as the Child’s LegalFather Obligated to Pay Child Support. [Fergusonv. McKiernan, 855 A.2d 121 (Pa Super. 2004)].Charles S. Cusick, Jr. 26:109-10.New Support Guidelines to be AppliedRetroactively. [Caplan v. Caplan, 400 Pa. Super.352, 583 A.2d 823 (1990)]. 12(2):6.No Child Support Duty after Death. [Benson exrel. Patterson v. Patterson, 830 A.2d 966 (Pa2003)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25:95-96.No Child Support Obligation When ChildVoluntarily Leaves Home. [Oeler v. Oeler, 527 Pa.532, 594 A.2d 649 (1991)]. 12(4):11-12.No College Support for Emancipated Son.[Marino v. Marino, 411 Pa. Super. 424, 601 A.2d1240 (1992)]. 13(2):3-5.No "Dueling Experts" Needed to Ascertain Plain39

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEMeaning of Annuity Provision. [Krizovensky v.Krizovensky, 425 Pa. Super. 204, 624 A.2d 638(1993)]. 14(4):11-13.No 50-50 Starting Point Presumption Exists UnderThe Divorce Code. [Frantangelo v. Frantangelo,360 Pa. Super. 487, 520 A.2d 1195 (1987)].8:952-56.No Income Imputed To "Stay-At-Home" Parent ofChronically Ill Toddler. [Singleton v. Waties, 420Pa. Super. 184, 616 A.2d 644 (1992)]. 13(6):9-10.No Modification of Support When Reasons not onthe Record. [Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 412 Pa.Super. 382, 603 A.2d 633 (1992)]. 13(2):5-6.No Presumption that Public School is Superior toHome Schooling. [Staub v. Staub, 960 A.2d 848(Pa. Super. 2008)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker. 31:20-21.No Supercessive Effect of Trust on PreexistingCollege Support Agreement. [Frank v. Frank, 402Pa. Super. 458, 587 A.2d 340 (1991)]. 12(3):7-8.No Third Blood Test Permitted: Paternity.[Deangelo v. Murray, 536 Pa. 206, 638 A.2d 966(1991)]. 15(2):3-4.Non-Biological Grandparents Granted Standing inChild Custody Case. [Peters v. Costello 891 A.2d705]. (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Michael E. Bertin.28:13-15.Non-Debtor Spouse’s Unliquidated E. D. ClaimDischarged in Spouse’s Bankruptcy. [Schorr v.Schorr, 299 B.R. 97 (Bankr. W.D. Pa., 2003)].David I. Grunfeld. 25:100-1.Non-Marital Property: Bequest in a Will. [Kohl v.Kohl, 387 Pa. Super. 367, 564 A.2d 222 (1989)].10(4):114.Noncustodial Father Without Standing to ReceiveAccounting of Trust Established with MaritalFunds Prior to Separation. [Rock v. Pile, 720 A.2d137 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Geraldine M. Redic. 21:8-10A Noncustodial Parent is Obliged to Pay ChildSupport Until a Child Reaches Age 18 orGraduates fromHigh School, Whichever OccursLater in Time. [Robinson-Austin v. Robinson-Austin, 921 A.2d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. GeraldL. Shoemaker, Jr. 29:55.Notes of Other Support Cases.Support–Arrearages. [Com. ex rel. Belin v. Belin,268 Pa. Super. 428, 408 A.2d 862 (1979) ; Com.ex rel. Cragle v. Cragle, 277 Pa. Super. 349, 419A.2d 1179 (1980)]. 1:58-59.Nunc Pro Tunc Relief not Granted Where There isNo Proof of Fraud. [Wood v. Cicierski, 937 A.2d1103 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Stephanie E. Little. 30:7-8.Obligation to Support Child of Second MarriageConstitutes a Change in Circumstance.[Fortune/Forsythe v. Fortune, 352 Pa. Super. 547,508 A.2d 1205 (1986)]. 7:861-63.Of Alleged Prior Abuse Admissible in CurrentPFA Action. Andrew D. Taylor. 31:10-11.An Old Name from the Past-The Gordon Case.[Gordon v. Gordon, 436 Pa. Super. 126, 647 A.2d530 (1994)]. 16(4):13.Once Jurisdiction Attaches, a Court ShouldDispose of All Issues and Questions Relating tothe Matter Before It. [In Re: I.L.P. and I.L.P.,Joint Petition on Assisted Conception BirthRegistration; Appeal of: C.-H.L. and T.J.P., G.S.and B.S., 965 A.2d. 251 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. JohnP. Attiani. 31:99-100.One Night Stand does not Toll Separation Period.[Sadlek v. Sadlek, 4 A.C.D.D. 64, 131 P.L.J. 419(1983)]. 4:449-50.Only Plaintiff in Fault Divorce can Move for Entryof Divorce Decree. [Laxton v. Laxton, 345 Pa.Super. 450, 498 A.2d 909 (1985)]. 7:840-41.Order Denying Or Granting Interim Relief is aFinal and Appealable Order. [Sutliff v. Sutliff, 326Pa. Super. 496, 474 A.2d 599 (1984)]. 5:564-67.40

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEOrder Denying Petition to Bifurcate is NeitherFinal Nor Appealable. [Beasley v. Beasley, 384Pa. Super. 124, 501 A.2d 679 (1985)]. 7:839.Order Granting Bifurcation Petition is not Finaland Appealable. [Mandia v. Mandia, 341 Pa.Super. 116, 491 A.2d 177 (1985)]. 6:779-81.Orders Granting Interim Relief are Interlocutory.[Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89, 501 A.2d 211 (1985)].6:772-75.Order in Aid of Execution on Behalf of CreditorTakes Precedence Over Subsequent EquitableDistribution Order in Favor of Wife. [Livingstonv. Unis, 659 A.2d 606 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)].17(4):4-5.Orphans’ Court’s Revision of Prior Order andInterpretation of Prenuptial Agreement Upheld,.[Estate of Kendall, Deceased, 982 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. Stephanie E. Murphy. 31:165-66.PA Child Custody Jurisdiction Lost Despite ParentRemaining in PA. [Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d1174 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Michael E. Bertin.31:95-96.Pa. Courts Empowered to Allocate DependencyExemptions. [Miller v. Miller, 744 A.2d 778 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. Debra Denison Cantor. 22:3-5.PA Superior Court Reiterates the Rules of LawRegarding Oral Agreements on College Expenses,Definition of Earning Capacity and Net IncomeCalculations. [Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529(Pa. Super. 2009)]. Joo Y. Park. 32:14-16.Pa. Supreme Court Creates A Per Se Rule for theExpungement of Certain Protection from AbuseRecords. [Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186(Pa. 2002)]. David J. Draganosky. 24:99-101.PA. Supreme Court Declares PennsylvaniaCollege Support Statute Unconstitutional. [Curtisv. Kline, 542 Pa. 249, 666 A.2d 265 (1995)].17(5):2-3.Pa.R.A.P. 1701: An Analysis. [Schoff v. Richter,386 Pa. Super. 289, 562 A.2d 912 (1989)].10(4):115.Palimony in Pennsylvania? [Harz v. Stauffer,Monroe Co., 1313 Civil 1981 (1982)]. 3:368.Panel Postpones Re-Examination of Welfare ChildSupport Relationship. [Com., Dept. of PublicWelfare ex rel. Dessus v. Chamberlain, 421 Pa.Super. 137, 617 A.2d 762 (1992)]. 14(1):9-10.Paren[t]. Who Already Located has Burden toShow Best Interests of Children Served byRemaining with That Parent. [Klos v. Klos, 934A2.d 724 (Pa. Super 2007)]. Michele G. Bononi.29:131-32.Parent’s Progress Toward Reunification notEnough to Overcome Petition for Goal Changeand Termination. [In the Interest of R.M.G., aMinor; Appeal of: York County Children andYouth Services, 997 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010)].Elizabeth J. Billies. 32:193-94.Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act ControlsInterstate Custody Case. [Skomo v. Skomo, 844A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. ElisabethBennington. 26:40-41.The Parenting Coordinator Cometh. [Yates v.Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. David J.Draganosky. 31:15-18.Parents Who Signed Agreements to EducateChildren Get No Relief from the Blues, LowerCourts Declare. [Trunkwalter v. Trunwalter, 421Pa. Super. 308, 617 A.2d 1308 (1992)]. 14(1):2.Parents' Child Support Obligations; Age of Childis a Factor. [DeWalt v. DeWalt, 365 Pa. Super.280, 529 A.2d 508 (1987)]. 8:1009-11.Parents' Post-High School Education SupportObligation Ends With Bachelor's Degree, DividedPanel Rules. [delCastillo v. delCastillo, 420 Pa.Super. 520, 617 A.2d 26 (1992)]. 14(1):3.Parochial School is Private School Under PASupreme Court Support Guidelines. [Teresa LynnKnapp vs. John Gordon Knapp, 756 A.2d 1205(Pa. Super. 2000)]. Joseph P. Martone. 23:11.41

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEParties can Obtain Both Alimony Pendente Liteand Support. [Com. ex rel. Homsher v. Homsher].289 Pa. Super. 112, 432 A.2d 1076 (1981)].2:197.Parties Pigeonholing of "Foster" Parent notDispositive in Determining Standing to Adopt. [InRe: Adoption of J.M.E., 416 Pa. Super. 110, 610A.2d 995 (1992)]. 13(4):10-11.Parties’ Residency at Time of Filing CustodyComplaint Governs Exercise of UCCJAJurisdiction. [Simpkins v. Disney, 416 Pa. Super.243, 610 A.2d 1062 (1992)]. 13(5):6-7.Parties' Separate Estate does not Prevent Partyfrom Receiving Alimony Pendente Lite. [Orr v.Orr, 315 Pa. Super. 168, 461 A.2d 850 (1983)].4:466-67.Partition. [Meno v. Meno, 18 D.&C.3d 250(Washing ton Co. 1981)]. 2:131.Partition Action is Being Held to be Supersededby Equitable Distribution Provisions of theDivorce Code. [Pietsch v. Pietsch, Lancaster Co.,Equity No. 21 (1981)]. 2:196.Partition is not Pre-Empted by EquitableDistribution nor does it Defeat Claims forAncillary Relief Under the Divorce Code of 1980.[Daniels v. Daniels, 73 Berks Co. L.J. 319 (1981).2:194-96.Partition Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code. [Ferriv. Ferri, 1 A.C.D.D. 122 (Allegh. Co., 1981)].2:229-30, 232.Party Prejudice fromIntroducing Evidence as aJustifiable Discovery Sanction. [Hein v. Hein, 717A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Stephanie H.Bacine. 21:4-5.Paternity and Visitation: Separate and DistinctIssues. [Mitchell v. Randall, 368 Pa. Super. 421,534 A.2d 508 (1987)]. 9(2):14-15.Paternity by Estoppel. [B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v.M.M.K., 954 A.2d 630 (Pa. Super. 2008)].Stephanie H. Winegrad. 30:203-5.Paternity by Estoppel: If One Waits, It may beToo Late! [Ellison v. Lopez, 959 A. 2d 295 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 31:7-8.Paternity by Estoppel not Recognized to EstablishMaternity. [Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d534 (Pa. 2003)]. Loreen M. Burkett. 25:63-65.Paternity Case: Constitutional Right to Counsel.[Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 410 Pa. Super. 549, 600A.2d 589 (1991)]. 13(1):4-5.Paternity Issue Revisited. [Sanders v. Sanders, 384Pa. Super. 311, 558 A.2d 556 (1989)]. 10:94.Paternity: Recent Opinions by the Superior Court.[McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206 (Pa.Super. 2001), Tregoning v.Wiltsheck and Perez,782 A.2d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2001), and B.S. and R.S. v T. M., 782 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2001)].Caren E. Morrissey. 23:56-58.Paternity: Right of Counsel for IndigentDefendants. [Corra v. Coll, 305 Pa. Super. 179,451 A.2d 480 (1982)]. 3:358-61.Paternity Statute: When does It Apply? [Bowser v.Zachary, 375 Pa. Super. 481, 544 A.2d 1022(1988)]. 9:37.Paternity Test Disallowed. [Donnelly v.Lindenmuth, 409 Pa. Super. 341, 597 A.2d 1234(1991)]. 13(1):5-6.Paternity Testing–Let the Games Begin. [Cable v.Anthou, 499 Pa. 553, 674 A.2d 732 (1997)].Richard I. Moore. 19:76-77.Paternity: The Presumption of Legitimacy. [Scottv. Mershon, 441 Pa. Super. 551, 657 A.2d 1304(1990)]. 11:162-63.“Paving Over" Expenditures for EquipmentDoesn't Create Avenue for ChangedCircumstances or Reduced Support Obligations.[McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 418 Pa. Super. 39, 613A.2d 20 (1992)]. 13(6):5-6.Payments from Special Needs Trust ConsideredIncome for Support Purposes. [Mencer v. Ruch,42

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Darren Oglesby.29:95-96.Payments in Lieu of Property Distribution are notAlimony, Supreme Court Rules. [Zullo v. Zullo,531 Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992)]. 13(6):10-11.Pending Actions: Order Granting Application toProceed is Interlocutory and Non-Appealable.[Bruno v. Bruno, 296 Pa. Super. 90, 442 A.2d 3111 (1982)]. 3:293-94.Pending Actions–Superior Court Sets ForthStandards to be Used. [Gordon v. Gordon, 293 Pa.Super. 491, 439 A. 2d 683 (1981); Toll v. Toll,293 Pa. Super. 549, 439 A. 2d 712 (1981); Conradv. Conrad, 293 Pa. Super. 558, 439 A.2d 717(1981); Kaskie v. Kaskie, 295 Pa. Super. 523, 442A.2d 261 (1982)]. 3:246-57.Pennsylvania Court Lacked Subject MatterJurisdiction to Terminate Parental Rights WhenParent Still Resided in State that Issued CustodyOrder. [In re: Adoption of N.M.B. 564 Pa. 117,764 A.2d 1042 (2000)]. Kristen M. Humphrey.23:2-4.Pennsylvania has Jurisdiction to Hear EconomicIssues, Even Though Parties are Divorced in SouthCarolina. [Cheng v. Cheng, 347 Pa. Super. 515,500 A.2d 1175 (1985)]. 7:832-35.Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure–ShouldThey be Applied Rigidly? [Kurtas v. Kurtas, 521Pa. 105, 555 A.2d 804 (1989)]. 10(2):78-79.Pennsylvania Superior Court AbolishesEvidentiary Presumption Relating to Same-SexRelationships in Custody and Affirms the BestInterest Standard. [M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11(Pa. Super. 2010)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 32:20-21.Pennsylvania Superior Court Applies a StrictStandard for the Showing of Good Cause When aPetition Requests the Opening of AdoptionRecords. [In Re: Adoption of S.B., 979 A.2d 925(Pa. Super. 2009)]. Carla Marino. 31:157-58.Pennsylvania Superior Court Extends ContractualChild Support After Death of Obligor. [In Re:Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Jessica F. Moyer. 31:89-91.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Establishes the “NoJustification” Rule to Preclude Incarcerated ParentfromModifying or Terminating Child SupportBased Upon Modification of Child Support.[Yerkes v. Yerkes, 824 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2003)].Loreen M. Burkett. 26:4-5.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Evaluates Scope ofAppellate Review as Defined by Mumma v.Mumma in Custody Cases. [Robinson v.Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 645 A.2d 836 (1994)].16(4):2-3.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Examines DueProcess Rights of Accused Child Abuser. [R. v.Com., Department of Public Welfare andMontgomery County Office of Children andYouth, 535 Pa. 440, 636 A.2d 142 (1994)].15(3):11-17.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overrules theWolf Case. [Buskirk v. Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590A.2d 4 (1991)]. 12(4):2-3.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Throws Out CollegeSupport. [Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 661 A.2d 628(1992)]. 13(5):2.Pennsylvania’s Beneficiary Re-DesignationStatute–Does ERISA Preempt? [In Re Estate ofPaul J. Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Sarinia M. Feinman. 31:91-92.Pension and Profit Sharing not ExemptfromAttachment for Purposes of SatisfyingFamilial Support Obligations. [Hopkinson v.Hopkinson, 323 Pa. Super. 404, 470 A.2d 981].4:509-12.Pension Attachable for Purpose of EnforcingSupport Order. [Hollman v. Hollman, 515 Pa. 288,528 A.2d 146 (1987)]. 8:1004-5.Pension Benefits as Marital Property. [Miller v.Miller, 395 Pa. Super. 255, 577 A.2d 205 (1990)].11:179-80.43

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEPension Distribution: Credits Earned AfterSeparation. [Holland v. Holland, 403 Pa. Super.116, 588 A.2d 58 (1991)]. 12(3):6-7.Pension Distribution Follows Berrington Analysis.[Katzenberger v. Katzenberger, 534 Pa. 419, 633A.2d 602 (1993)]. 15(1):5.Pension Payment not Attachable to SatisfyArrearages Due and Owing Under SupportAgreement. [Hollman v. Hollman, 511 Pa. Super.362, 513 A.2d 1380 4 (1986)]. 7:796-802.Pension Plans Acquired During Marriage areMarital Property. [King v. King, 22 Erie Co. L. J.46 (1982)]. 4:422-26.Pension Valuation Case. [King v. King, 332 Pa.Super. 526, 481 A.2d 913 (1984)]. 5:643-45.Pension Valuation: Equitable Distribution.[Zollars v. Zollars, 397 Pa. Super. 204, 579 A.2d1328 (1990)]. 11:194-95.Pensions, Vested or Non-Vested, Matured orUnmatured, are Marital Property. [Braderman v.Braderman, 339 Pa. Super. 185, 488 A.2d 613(1985)]. 6:716-19.Perpetrator of Child Abuse: Omissions areEnough. [K.S. v. Com. of Pa., Dept. of PublicWelfare, 129 Pa. Cmwlth. 31, 564 A.2d 561(1989)]. 10:125-26.Person may Only Have One "Bona Fide"Residence Or Domicile. [Stipp v. Stipp, 31Chester Co. L. R. 172 (1983)]. 4:483-84.Personal Jurisdictional: Service of Process.[Ditzler v. Kameran, 384 Pa. Super. 184, 557 A.2d1107 (1989)]. 10:93-94.PFA Statute Applies to Abuse Between Child’sMother and Paternal Grandfather. [DeBoer v.Slusser, 985 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. AndrewD. Taylor. 32:17.Physical Separation Alone Without Intent of OneParty to Dissolve Marriage Insufficient toEstablish Grounds for Divorce. [Sinha v. Sinha,515 Pa. 14, 526 A.2d 765 (1987)]. 8:997-99.Police Department Pension is not Subject toAttachment Pursuant to Equitable DistributionOrder. [Young v. Young, 320 Pa. Super. 269, 467A.2d 33 (1983)]. 4:481-83.Postnuptial Agreement Subject to SimeoneRequirements. [Mormello v. Mormello, 452 Pa.Super. 590, 682 A.2d 824 (1996)]. Gary J.Friedlander. 19:6-8.Post-Divorce Increase in Pension Subject toDivision. [Smith v. Boulding, 938 A.2d 276 (Pa.2007)]. Catherine McFadden. 30:76-79.Post-Separation Act 9 Enhancements to MaritalState Employee Retirement System BenefitsFound not to Constitute Marital Property Undernew Section 3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code.[Smith v. Smith, 881 A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Darren J. Holst. 28:3-5.Post-Separation Increases in Value of NonmaritalAssets: The Line Grows Brighter. [Litmans v.Litmans, 449 Pa. Super. 209, 673 A.2d 382(1996)]. David L. Ladov. 18(3):7-8.Post-Separation Increase in Value of ProfessionalPractice Qualifies as Marital Property Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Goldblum v. Goldblum,416 Pa. Super. 438, 611 A.2d 296 (1992)]. 13(5):2-3.Postseparation Interest and Dividends Earned onNonmarital Bequest is not in Marital Pot. [Ling v.Ling, 442 Pa. Super. 106, 659 A.2d 805 (1995).David L. Ladov. 18(1):7.Post-Separation Retirement Benefits–AfterBerrington. [Brown v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super. 424,669 A.2d 969 (1995)]. Maria P. Cognetti.18(2):11-13.Potential Tax Liability: Equitable DistributionAward. [Hovis v. Hovis, 518 Pa. 137, 541 A.2d13478 (1988)]. 9:20-21.Pre-Divorce Code Ante-Nuptial Agreement BarsWife's Claims to Equitable Distribution. [Stern v.44

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEStern, Montg. Co., No. 84-3570 (1985)]. 6:784-85.Pre-Existing Funds Contributed by Wife toImprovements on Home Owned by In-Laws do notConstitute Consideration which Would Create aProprietary Interest in the Home. [Bolze v. Bolze,427 Pa. Super. 599, 629 A.2d 1031 (1993)].14(5):4.Pre-Retirement Military Voluntary Separation Paynot Subject to Property Settlement AgreementDivision of Retirement Pay. [Horner v. Horner,560 Pa. 559, 747 A.2d 337 (1997)]. Mary EtzrodtGibbons. 20:42-43.Pre-Separation Voluntary Reduction of IncomeUnpersuasive–Prior Earning Capacity Prevails.[Neil v. Neil, 731 A.2d 156 (Pa. Super. 1999)].Maris J. W. Gill. 21:114-15.Preference of Children Dominant Factor inCustody Case Where Parents Equally Capable andHomes Equally Suitable. [Myers v. DiDomenico,441 Pa. Super. 341, 657 A.2d 956 (1995)].17(3):3-4.Prenuptial Agreement: Effect on Marital Property.[Raiken v. Mellon, 399 Pa. Super. 192, 582 A.2d11 (1990)]. 12(1):2-3.Prenuptial Agreement: Express Waiver ofAlimony or Support does not Constitute Waiver ofAlimony Pendente Lite. [Musko v. Musko, 447Pa. Super. 150, 668 A.2d 561 (1995)]. David L.Ladov. 18(1):20.Prenuptial Agreements: Pennsylvania's LandmarkCase. [Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581A.2d 162 (1990)]. 11:170-71.Prenuptial Agreements: The Simeone Standardand Beyond. [Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566(Pa. 2002)]. Julie M. Cillo. 25:5-7.Present Value Required in Valuing Marital Assets.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534(1988)]. 9:32.Presumption Exists that Support Order Should beRetroactive. [Shovlin v. Shovlin, 318 Pa. Super.516, 465 A.2d 673 (1983)]. 4:471-72.The Presumption of Legitimacy–Its Foundation isCrumbling and Its Substance is Coming Apart.[Brinkely v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 701 A.2d 176(1997)]. Cindy Trellis Bernstein. 20:6-8.The Presumption of Legitimacy Still Lives.[Cozad v. Amrhein, 714 A.2d 409 (Pa. Super.1998); Martin v. Martin, 710 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super.1998)]. Jay A. Blechman. 20:6-8.Presumption of Paternity and Doctrine of EstoppelExplained. [Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d721 (1999)]. Ann V. Levin. 22:7-8.The Presumption of Paternity and the Doctrine ofPaternity by Estoppel Revisited. [Hamilton v.Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2002), T.L.F.v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. KarlD. Cooper. 24:35-36.The Presumption of Paternity Lives. [Strauser v.Stahr, 556 Pa. 83, 726 A.2d 1052 (1999)].KathrynG. Carlson. 21:73-75.Presumption of Paternity Rebutted and Paternityby Estoppel Inapplicable. Kathleen Carey Daley.[Green v. Good, 704 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1998)].20:40-42.Prevailing Party in Contract Enforcement Case notEntitled to Attorney’s Fees Upon Settlement.[Profit Wize Marketing v. Wiest, 812 A.2d 1270(Pa. Super. 2002)]. David I. Grunfeld. 25:8-9.A Primary Custodial Parent is not Obligated toPay Child Support. [Colonna v. Colonna, 791A.29 353 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. Gerald L.Shoemaker, Jr. 24:11-13.A Primary Custodial Parent may be Required toPay Child Support. [Colonna v. Colonna, 853A.2d 359(Pa. 2004)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr. 26:47-49Prior Support Hearing Stipulation as to EarningCapacity not Binding in New Petition for45

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEModification. [Baehr v. Baehr, 889A.2d.1240 (Pa.Super .2005)]. Pamela L. Purdy. 28:10-13.Priority: Termination Petition vs. VisitationPetition. [Appeal of G. F., 396 Pa. Super. 661, 570A.2d 1092 (1990)]. 11:158-59.Procedural Due Process Rights Cannot Succumbto the Equitable Aims of the Divorce Code.[Mayer v. Garman, 590 Pa. 268, 912 A.2d 762(2006)]. Darren J. Holst. 28:100-2.Proceeds of Equitable Distribution are not Incomefor Support Purposes. [Miller v. Miller, 783 A2d.832 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. Lori K. Shemtob.24:10:11.Professionals' Business Interests and EquitableDistribution. [Buckl v. Buckl, 373 Pa. Super. 521,542 A.2d 65 (1988)]. 8:1006-08.Property Acquired Prior to Marriage is not MaritalProperty. [Estep v. Estep, 326 Pa. Super. 404, 474A.2d 302 (1984)]. 5:637-642.Property Received as Part of EquitableDistribution is a Relevant Factor in DeterminingWhether Alimony Should be Awarded. [Geyer v.Geyer, 310 Pa. Super. 456, 456 A.2d 1025(1983)]. 4:405-7.Property Settlement Agreement Interpreted toGrant Wife Share of Pension Rights AccruingAfter Divorce. [Matlock v. Matlock, 444 Pa.Super. 507, 664 A.2d 551 (1995)]. 17(5):5.Property Settlement Agreement/Life InsurancePolicy: Separate And Distinct Documents. [Estateof Myers, 375 Pa. Super. 351, 544 A.2d 506(1988)]. 9:33.Property Should be Valued at Most AppropriateDate. [Sergi v. Sergi, 351 Pa. Super. 521, 506A.2d 928 (1986)]. 7:844-47.Prospective Adoptive Parents did not haveStanding to Intervene in Custody Case. [B. A. andA. A. v. E. E. v., D. and C., 559 Pa. 545, 741 A.2d1227 (1999)]. Linda Rovder Fleming. 22:8-11.Prospective Adoptive Parents Have Standing toPetition to Terminate Parental Rights, Even WhereBirth Mother Revokes Consent to Adoption. [InRe Baby Boy S., 420 Pa. Super. 37, 615 A.2d1355 (1992)]. 14(2):8-9.Protection from Abuse Act: Financial Ability toPay. [Eaches v. Steigerwalt, 391 Pa. Super. 15,569 A.2d 975 (1990); Com. v. Ortiz, 391 Pa.Super. 15, 569 A.2d 975 (1990]. 11:147-48.Protection of Mental Health Records as it Appliesto a Custody Case in Pennsylvania. [Gates v.Gates, 967 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Elisabeth W. Molnar. 31:97-99.PSA Prevents Reduction of Wife’s Share ofMilitary Pension. [Adams v. Adams, 725 A.2d 824(Pa. Super. 1999)]. Catherine M. McFadden.21:71-73.Punitive Damages: Failure to Fully Disclose.[Hess v. Hess, 397 Pa. Super. 395, 580 A.2d 357(1990)]. 11:185.Pursuant to Rules, All Co-Tenants Must be Joinedin Partition Action Between Former Spouses.[Lohmiller v. Weidenbaugh, 503 Pa. 329, 469A.2d 578 (1983)]. 5:569-71.Putative Father not Estopped from RaisingPaternity, Supreme. [sic, Superior]. Court Rules.[Jefferson v. Perry, 432 Pa. Super. 651, 639 A.2d830 (1994)]. 15(3):4.Real Estate-Transfer of Property from Wife toHusband. [In The Matter of Beckett v. Laux, 395Pa. Super. 563, 577 A.2d 1341 (1990)]. 11:175-77.Realty Awarded to Husband not Subject toAttachment by the Former Wife’s Attorney forUnpaid Legal Fees Judgment Obtained AgainstWife Prior to Realty Transfer to Husband. [Frantzv. Frantz, 972 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Christine M. O’Brien. 31:102-3.Reasonable Counsel Fees Awarded as a Sanctionfor Fraudulent Concealment of Income in a ChildSupport Proceeding Should be Awarded in Full.46

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE[Krebs v. Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Christine Gale. 31:93-94.Rebuttable Presumption: Child Born DuringMarriage is Husband's Child. [Selm v. Elliot, 411Pa. Super. 602, 602 A.2d 358 (1992)]. 13(2):7-8.[Recent Case on Counsel Fees Under the NewDivorce Code.]. [McGinn v. McGinn andDowling,. [Chester Co., 234 Dec. 1980 (1981)].2:157-61.Recent Cases Concerning the Application of theNew Divorce Code to Pending Actions. [Tanker v.Tanker, Phil Co., F. D. Dec. 1979, No. 2210(1980); Bordner v. Bordner, 14 D.&C.3d 634(Lebanon Co. 1980); Gross v. Gross, 281 Pa.Super. 45, 421 A.2d 1139 (1980); Wilson v.Wilson, 67 Del. Co. R. 724 (1980); Johns v.Johns, Chester Co., No. 11 N 1979 (1980)]. 1:83-87.Recent Cases on Contempt Which Should beNoted by PA Family Law Practitioners. [[Brennanv. Brennan, 281 Pa. Super. 362, 422 A. 2d 510(1980); Rupel v. Bluestein, 280 Pa. Super. 65, 421A.2d 406 (1980)]. 2:114-19.Recent Cases with Respect to the Applicability ofthe New Code to Pending Actions. [Stuckart v.Stuckart, Monroe Co., Civ. No. 494 (1980); Stonev. Stone, Monroe Co., Civ. No. 510 (1980);Nicholas v. Nicholas, 63 Del. Co. R. 138 (1980);Homsher v. Homsher, Blumberg v. Blumberg, 63Del. Co. R. 158 (1980); Conrad v. Conrad, 129P.L.J. 46 (1980); Shuda v. Shuda, 283 Pa. Super.253, 423 A.2d 1242 (1980); Kaskie v. Kaskie, 61Wash. Co. R. 67 (1980]. 2:119-26.Recent Custody Decisions Which Should be Notedby Pennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Cox v.Cox, 255 Pa. Super. 508, 388 A. 2d 1082 (1978);Sipe v. Shaffer, 261 Pa. Super. 150, 396 A. 2d1359 (1979); Lewis v. Lewis, 267 Pa. Super. 235,406 A.2d 781 (1979); Rupp v. Rupp, 268 Pa.Super. 467, 408 A.2d 883 (1979); Kimmey v.Kimmey, 269 Pa. Super. 346, 409 A.2d 1178(1979); Lewis v. Lewis, 271 Pa. Super. 519, 414A.2d 375 (1979) Crowther v. Waida, 272 Pa.Super. 73, 414 A.2d 675 (1979), Weber v. Weber,272 Pa. Super. 88, 414 A.2d 682 (1979)]. 1:1-11.Recent Custody Decisions Which Should be Notedby Pennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Hooksv. Ellerbe, 257 Pa. Super. 219, 390 A. 2d 791(1978); Hooks v. Ellerbe, Phil. Co. DR2554288(Oct. 26, 1977), Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363,416 A. 2d 512 (1980); Palmer v. Tokarek, 279 Pa.Super. 458, 421 A.2d 289 (1980)]. 1:64-73.[A Recent Equitable Distribution Decision.].[Hughes v. Hughes, 108 Montgomery Co. L. R.360 (1981)]. 2:155-57.Recent Partition Decisions Which Should beNoted by Pennsylvania Family Law Practitioners.[Vento v. Vento, 256 Pa. Super. 91, 389 A.2d 615(1978); Damirgian v. Damirgian, 262 Pa. Super.463, 396 A.2d 1263 (1978); Morris v. Morris, 104Montg. Co. L. Rep. 254 (1978); Fascione v.Fascione, 272 Pa. Super. 530, 416 A.2d 1023(1979); Gray v. Gray, 275 Pa. Super. 131, 418A.2d 646 (1980)]. 1:22-32.Recent Support Decision to be Noted byPennsylvania Practitioners. [Com. ex rel. Bulsonv. Bulson, 278 Pa. Super. 6, 419 A.2d 1327(1980)]. 1:57-58.Recent Support Decisions Which Should be Notedby Pennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Paulv. Paul, 279 Pa. Super. 458, 425 A.2d 289 (1980);Com. ex rel. Werline v. Werline, 280 Pa. Super.572, 421 A.2d 1080 (1980); Long v. Long, 280Pa. Super. 477, 421 A.2d 822 (1980); Lundy v.Com., Dept. of Public Welfare, 54 Pa. Commw. 1,419 A.2d 801 (1980); Battle v. Com., Dept. ofPublic Welfare, 541 Pa. Cmwlth. 1, 419 A.2d 801(1980)]. 1:78-82.Recent Support Entitlement Decisions to be Notedby Family Law Practitioners. [Hellman v.Hellman, 246 Pa. Super. 36, 371 A. 2d 964(1977); Com. ex rel. D'Andrea v. D'Andrea, 262Pa. Super. 302, 396 A. 2d 765 (1978); Com. exrel. Carmack v. Carmack, 268 Pa. Super. 198, 407A.2d 1314 (1979); Com. ex rel. Engle v. Engle,Montgomery Co. No. 1087-77 (1978); Com. exrel. Behr v. Behr, Montgomery Co. No. 1814-77(1979); Narbesky v. Narbesky, 255 Pa. Super. 48,47

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE386 A. 2d 129 (1978); Com. ex rel. Stein v. Stein,487 Pa. 1, 406 A.2d 1381 (1979)]. 1:14-19.Recent UCCJA Decisions Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Wenz v.Schwartze, 598 P.2d 1086 (Mont. (1979), cert.den'd 100 S.Ct. 1015 (1980); Zaubi v. Zaubi,Appeal of Hojme, 530 Pa. 831, 423 A.2d 373(1980); Havice v. Havice, 15 D.&C.3d 450(Snyder Co. 1980); J.C.S. v. D.M.S. and D.D., 227Pa. Super. 612, 419 A.2d 1319 (1980)]. 1:46-57Recent UCCJA Decisions Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Warmanv. Warman, 294 Pa. Super. 285, 439 A.2d 1203(1982); Hattoum v. Hattoum, 295 Pa. Super. 169,441 A. 2d 403 (1982); Melzer v. Witsberger, 299Pa. Super. 153, 445 A.2d 499 3 (1982)]. 3:278-87.Regular Visits do not Defeat Separate and ApartClaim Where Parties Reside in SeparateResidence. [Taylor v. Taylor, 1 A.C.D.D. 82(Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:202-5.Religious Restriction in Custody Order StruckDown. [Zummo v. Zummo, 394 Pa. Super. 30, 574A.2d 1130 (1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:143.Relocation: Gruber is Alive and Well. [Gancas v.Schultz, 453 Pa. Super. 324, 683 A.2d 1207(1996)]. David L. Ladov. 19:8-10.Replevin Action Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code.[Kramer v. Kramer, 110 Montg. Co. L.R. 135(1982)]. 3:338-39.Restriction on Lesbian Mother's Visitation onConflicting Testimony of Child and Experts isAbuse of Discretion, Panel Declares. [Blew v.Verta, 420 Pa. Super. 528, 617 A.2d 31 (1992)].14(2):12-13.Results Oriented Fee Agreement. [Eckell v.Wilson, 409 Pa. Super. 132, 597 A.2d 696(1991)].12(6):2-3.Retroactive Application of Support Order Denied.[Hainaut v. Hainaut, 410 Pa. Super. 316, 599 A.2d1009 (1991)]. 13(1):6-7.Retroactive Suspension of a Support OrderWithout Modification Petition. [Calloway v.Calloway, 406 Pa. Super. 454, 594 A.2d 708(1991)]. 12(6):5-6.Retroactivity of APL and Child Support OrdersPrior to Filing is Gaining Momentum: Standard ofReview on Appeal Heightening. [Simmons v.Simmons, 723 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super.)]. Rochelle B.Grossman. 21:37-38.Reunification vs. Adoption –Whose Interests areReally Served? [In the Interest of R.J.T., Minor;Appeal of: Allegheny County Office of Children,Youth and Families. In Re R.J.T., 990 A.2d 777(Pa. Super. 2010)]. Sarah N. Ponzio. 32:72-75.Review by Pennsylvania Supreme Court ofEquitable Distribution Order. [Cooper v. Cooper,8 W.D. 1992 (March 11, 1994)]. 15(2):2-3.Right of Privacy v. Paternity Test: Are They inConflict? [John M. v. Paula T., 377 Pa. Super. 72,546 A.2d 1162 (1988)]. 9(5):47-49.Right to De Novo Trial in Custody Proceeding.[Ashford v. Ashford, 395 Pa. Super. 125, 576A.2d 1076 (1990)]11:157-58.Role of Trusts Under UGMA in Support Actions.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 339 Pa. Super. 523, 489 A.2d764 (1985)]. 6:705-13.Role Reversal: Wife Supports Husband.[McWilliams v. McWilliams, 370 Pa. Super. 595,537 A.2d 35 (1988)]. 9:23.Rule 1910.16-4(E) Spousal Support CalculationsWhen Obligor is the Primary Custodian. [Diamentv. Diament, 816 A.2d 256 (Pa Super.2003)].Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr. 25:73-76.Rule 1910.19(f) Permits Suspension of SupportOrder and Remission of Arrears When There isNo Reasonable Prospect of Recovery. SophiaPaige Paul. 31:13-14.Rule 1910.23: not a Tool to Change a SupportOrder. [O'Neill v. Gioffre, 384 Pa. Super. 579, 559A.2d 588 (1989)]. 10(4):103-4.48

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLERuling fromPA Superior Court Determines WhenStock Options Constitute Marital Property.[MacAleer v. MacAleer, 725 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super.1999)]. David J. Draganosky. 21:38-40.Same Sex Domestic Partner’s in Loco ParentisStanding Carries a Child Support Obligation.[L.S.K. v. H.A.N., 813 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super.2002)]. Margaret T. Lucas and H. William White,III. 25:12-13.Sanctity of Pre-Nuptial Agreements Upheld. [Gulav. Gula, 380 Pa. Super. 249, 551 A.2d 324(1998)]. 10:64.Satisfaction of Proven Reasonable Needs, notEqualization of Income, Is Polestar forDetermining Monthly Alimony Amount.[Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super.2006)]. Darren J. Holst. 29:51-52.Second Parent Adoption: Supreme Court Puts Endto “Absurdity.” [In Re: Adoption of R.B.F. andR.C.F., Appeal of B.A.F. and C.H.F. (LancasterCounty), 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002), In Re:Adoption of C.C.G. and Z.C.G., Appeal of J.C.Gand J.J.G. (Erie County), 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa.2002)]. Daniel J. Clifford. 24:105-6.Section 201(d) Divorce–Court Need not GiveParty Notice Before Entering Divorce Decree.[Kopf v. Kopf, 2 A.C.D.D. 87(Allegh. Co.,1982)]. 3:322-323.Section 201(d) Divorce–Must Allege Three YearSeparate And Apart In Complaint. [Creach v.Creach, 361 Pa. Super. 482, 522 A.2d 1133(1987)]. 8:970-972.Section 505 Applies Only to Foreign Ex ParteDivorces. [Sohmer v. Sohmer, 318 Pa. Super. 500,465 A.2d 665 (1983)]. 4:465-66.Section 501(f) of Divorce Code PermitsEnforcement of Support Obligations Made Subjectto a Consent Decree Under §503 of Divorce Code.[Hopkinson v. Hopkinson, 112 Montg. Co. L. Rep.351 (1983)]. 4:490.Seizing of Personal Settlement Proceeds Permittedfor Child Support Enforcement. [Campbell v.Walker; Appeal of: Department of Public Welfare982 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Christine Gale.32:5-7.Self-Created Economic Hardship SabotagesColonna Support Deviation Request. [Saunders v.Saunders, 908 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Darren J. Holst. 29:3-5.Sensitivity is Paramount in Fight Over Child’sRemains. [Kulp v. Kulp, 920 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super.2007)]. Michael E. Bertin.29:49-51.Separate and Apart Means Separate Residences.[Williams v. Williams, 31 Chester Co. L. R. 82(1982)]. 4:458-60.Separate and Apart: Sexual Relations does notToll Separation Period. [Oatman v. Oatman, ErieCo., 599 A of 1981 (1982)]. 4:400.Separation Agreement–Effect of Merger vs.Incorporation. [Millstein v. Millstein, 311 Pa.Super. 495, 457 A.2d 1291 (1983)]. 4:432-435.Separation Date Value Used in ValuingProfessional Practice. [Oppenheim v. Oppenheim,Lehigh Co., 81-C-3083 (June 21, 1989)]. 10:89.Separation Period Under §201(d) Need not be aVoluntary Decision. [McBride v. McBride, 335Pa. Super. 296, 484 A.2d 141 (1984)]. 6:697-98.Settlement Proceeds: Equitable Distribution.[Kozich v. Kozich, 397 Pa. Super. 463, 580 A.2d390 (1990)]. 11:200.“Seven Year Ache" of Missing Spouse may beCured Without Petition of Surviving Spouse toDeclare Death. [Cann v. Cann, 429 Pa. Super. 234,632 A.2d 322 (1993)]. 15(1):14-15.A Severance Payment and Distribution of anAccural Account Income for Support or Assets forEquitable Distribution? [Berry v. Berry, 898 A.2d.1100 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. David C. Schanbacher.28:102-4.Sexual Abuser Appeals Dependency Adjudication49

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEof His Paramour's Children. [In the Interest ofC.L., P.G., Appeal of Pierson, 436 Pa. Super. 630,648 A.2d 799 (1994))]. 16(5):11-12.Sexual Assault Alone Does not Establish Standingin Protection from Abuse Cases. [Scott v. Shay,928 A.2d. 312 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Michael E.Bertin. 29:137-39Sexual Relations do not Necessarily Toll ThreeYear Separate and Apart Period. [Thomas v.Thomas, 335 Pa. Super. 41, 483 A.2d 945 (1984)].5:648-50.Shared Custody Act Interpreted by PennsylvaniaSupreme Court. [Karis v. Karis, 518 Pa. 601, 544A.2d 1328 (1988)]. 9(5):45-46.Shared Custody–Criteria Needed to beEstablished. [Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 432 A.2d63 (1982); In Re: K., 299 Pa. Super. 504, 445 A.2d 1243 (1982)]. 3:314-18.Shared Custody Case. [Smith v. Smith, 307 Pa.Super. 544, 453 A.2d 1020 (1983)]. 4:418-22.Shared Custody Order Vacated for Infant.[Wiseman v. Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super.1998)]. Susan N. Dobbins. 21:6-8.Shared Legal Custody: Public School VersusPrivate School. [Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa. Super.321, 548 A.2d 632 (1988)]. 9(5):46-47.Significance of Retirement Date in PensionValuation. [Demarco v. Demarco, 787 A.2d 1072(Pa. Super. 2001)]. Julie A. Auerbach and WilliamE. Ehrich. 24:8-9.Social Security Derivative Benefits can be Subjectto Legal Process Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 659. [Silverv. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Jonathan T. Hoffman. 32:23-25.Sole Proprietorship can have Enterprise GoodwillUnder Facts of Some Cases (But not This One).[Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Super.1997)]. Patricia A. Miles. 19:51-54.Sole Proprietorship does not have Good Will,.[Beasley v. Beasley, 359 Pa. Super. 20, 518 A.2d545 (1986)]. 8:940-46.Some Parents are not More Equal than Others inJoint Custody Arrangements.[Hill v. Hill, 422 Pa.Super. 533, 619 A.2d 1086 (1993)]. 14(3):13.Son Adopted as Adult Can't Collect UnderGrandfather's Will. [Estate of Goal v. Hollifield,380 Pa. Super. 219, 551 A.2d 309 (1988)]. 10:68.Specific Enforcement of Agreement. [Marcolongov. Nicolai, 392 Pa. Super. 208, 572 A.2d 765(1990)]. 11:163-64.Sperm Donor not Liable for Child Support.[Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa.2007)]. Bruce L. Wilder. 30:10-11.Spousal Support Order Entered During PendingDivorce Case Unappealable. [Leister v. Lesiter,453 Pa. Super. 576, 684 A.2d 192 (1996)].Rochelle B. Grossman. 19:3-5.Spousal Support Shall be Based Upon ReasonableNeeds in High Income Cases, not GuidelineFormula. [Mascaro v, Mascaro, 764 A.2d 1085(Pa. Super. 2000)]. Rochelle B. Grossman. 23:13-15.Spouse-Owned Business More Likely to beValued as of Date of Separation, not EquitableDistribution. [Benson v. Benson, 357 Pa. Super.166, 515 A.2d 917 (1993)]. 14(4):7-8.SSI Considered Other Household Income forDeviation from Pennsylvania Supreme CourtGuidelines Order. [Landis v. Landis, 456 Pa.Super. 727, 691 A.2d 939 (1997); Rodrigues v.Rodrigues, Allegheny County, FD 86-0293(1997)]. Martha B. Walker. 19:55-57.Standard for Name Change. [In Re: Grimes, 530Pa. 388, 609 A.2d 158 (1992)]. 13(4):4.Standing Denied to Stepgrandfather underGrandparent Visitation Act After Parties hadReconciled. [Helsel v. Puricelli and Puricelli, 927A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. 2007) Reargument Denied2007 Pa. Super. Lexis 2206 (Filed 7/30/07)].50

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLECarolyn Moran Zack. 29:87-88.State Court has Jurisdiction Over Non-ResidentAlien in Divorce Action. [Sinha v. Sinha, 341 Pa.Super. 440, 491 A.2d 1399 (1985)]. 6:764-67.State Employees Pension Contributions in Lieu ofSocial Security are not Marital Property Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Schneeman v. Schneeman,420 Pa. Super. 65, 615 A.2d 1369 (1992)].14(2):2-3.Statutory Standing in Grandparent Custody Cases.[Martinez v. Baxter, 725 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super.1999)]. Sally R. Miller. 21:35-36.“Stay At Home Mom" of Second MarriageToddler has No Support Obligation for First-Marriage Teenager Triggering Debate by DividedPanel. [Atkinson v. Atkinson, 420 Pa. Super. 146,616 A.2d 22 (1992)]. 14(1):5-6.Stock Options are Income for Support Purposes.[MacKinley v. Messersschmidt, 814 A.2d 680 (Pa.Super. 2002)]. Joseph P. Martone. 25:9-10.Stress but No Duress: Agreement Valid. [Adamsv. Adams, 848 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 2004)].Michael E. Bertin. 26:45-46.Strict Adherence is Required Concerning Venue inthe Issue of Divorce Decrees. [Danz v. Danz, 947A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Christine Gale.30:150-51.Subsequent Filed Divorce Action with Claim forEquitable Distribution does not Preempt orSupersede Prior Filed Partition Action. [Goldsteinv. Goldstein, 354 Pa. Super. 490, 512 A.2d 644(1986)]. 7:868-873.Subsequent Mortgage Takes Priority OverUnrevived Equitable Distribution Judgment. [Mid-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Globalnet International,Inc., 557 Pa. 555, 735 A.2d 79 (1999)]. David I.Grunfeld. 21:75-76.Successful Physician Held to be Responsible toReturn Funds Borrowed from His Father-In-LawWhile a Medical Student. [Hornyak v. Sell v. Sell,427 Pa. Super. 356, 627 A.2d 138 (1993)].14(5):8-9.Successor Entities, Judgments and Leases. CaronP. Graff and Elizabeth L. Bennett. [Gioia v. Gioia,382 Pa. Super. 538, 555 A.2d 1330 (1989)].10(2):76-77.Sunny Florida: Relocation Granted. [Billhime v.Billhime, 869 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Michael E. Bertin.27:59-61.Superior Court Addresses Appealability ofSpousal Support Orders. [Calibeo v. Calibeo, 443Pa. Super. 694, 663 A.2d 184 (1995)]. 17(4):7.Superior Court Addresses Interplay of PFA andCustody Order. [Dye for McCoy v. McCoy, 423Pa. Super. 334, 621 A.2d 144 (1993)]. 14(3):6-7.Superior Court Affirms Decision to DeclineJurisdiction Under UCCJEA After Full CustodyHearing Where One Parent Remains inJurisdiction and Underlying Custody OrderOstensibly Retains Jurisdiction. [A.D. v. M.A.B.,989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Ann M. Funge.32:68-70.Superior Court Affirms Denial of Visitation toParents of Biological Father, Whose ParentalRights Had Been Terminated. [Rigler v. Treen,442 Pa. Super. 533, 660 A.2d 111 (1995)].17(5):7.Superior Court Affirms Modification of SupportOrder Due to Changed Circumstances. [Farabaughv. Killen, 436 Pa. Super. 480, 648 A.2d 60(1994)]. 16(5):6-7.Superior Court Affirms Order of Trial CourtDirecting Abused Woman to Pay PerpetratorMoney Per the Terms of a Consent Order. [Lee v.Carney, 435 Pa. Super. 405, 645 A.2d 1363(1993)]. 16(5):7-8.Superior Court Affirms Trial Court’s Dismissal ofFather’s Petition for Modification of ChildSupport. [McClain v. McClain, 872 A.2d 856 (Pa.Super. 2005)]. Mary H. Burchik. 27:115-17.51

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLESuperior Court Affirms Trial Court’s Refusal toReduce Support Obligation. [Nicholson v. Combs,437 Pa. Super. 334, 650 A.2d 55 (1994)]. 17(1):9-11.Superior Court Analyzes "Best Interests" and"Clear Necessity" Standards in SeparatingDependant Children from Their Natural Parents.[In The Interests of: S.S.; Appeal of: Steven S.,438 Pa. Super. 62, 651 A.2d 174 (1994)]. 17(2):7-8.The Superior Court Analyzes the InterplayBetween the Child Protective Services Law andthe Juvenile Act. [In the Interest of: J.R.W.,Appeal of: V.F., Appeal of A.W., 428 Pa. Super.597, 631 A.2d 1019 (1993)]. 15(1):11-13.Superior Court Applies “Specific Harm” Standardto Prevent Mother’s Request to Baptize Child.[Hicks v. Hicks, 868 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Super.2005)]. J. Alan Fuehrer. 27:54-55.Superior Court Approves Entry of Alimony OrderBased on Pennsylvania Agreement, Many YearsFollowing Final Divorce Decree in a Jurisdictionnot Permitting Alimony. [Polito v. Polito, 440 Pa.Super. 328, 655 A.2d 587 (1995)]. 17(3):7.Superior Court Assesses Costs Against Pro SeLitigant as Deterrent from Further Abuse of theCourts. [Winpenny v. Winpenny, 434 Pa. Super.348, 643 A.2d 677 (1994)]. 15(3):7-9Superior Court Compares and Contrasts DefinedBenefit Plans and Defined Contributions Plans.[Paulone v. Paulone, 473 Pa. Super. 130, 649 A.2d691 (1994)]. 16(5):8-10.Superior Court Confirms Custody of 15-Year-OldGirl in Aunt, With Whom She has Resided forThree Years, Despite the Claim of Her Mother, aRecovered Addict. [Cardamone v. Elshoff, 442 Pa.Super. 263, 659 A.2d 575 (1995)]. 17(4):2-3.Superior Court Construes Prenuptial AgreementWaiving Testamentary Rights to Also WaiveDivorce Code Rights in Absence of ExpressLanguage. [Stackhouse v. Zaretsky, 900A.2d. 383(Pa. Super. 2006)]. Hillary J. Moonay. 28:106-8.Superior Court Criticizes Local Procedure andRemands for Factual Determination of DueProcess Concerns. [Reimer v. Reimer, 442 Pa.Super. 689, 660 A.2d 663 (1995)]. 17(3):6.Superior Court Declares No Retroactive Credit forChild Support on Behalf of Emancipated Minor.[Holcomb v. Holcomb, 448 Pa. Super. 154, 670A.2d 1155 (1996)]. David L. Ladov. 18(3):5-6.Superior Court Declares that an EmancipatedMinor Child may be Re-Declared Dependent andUnemancipated. [Berks County Children andYouth Services v. Rowan, 428 Pa. Super. 448, 631A.2d 615 (1992)]. 15(1):6-8.Superior Court Declares Trial Court did notViolate Due Process Clause by not ConsideringMarital Misconduct in Equitable DistributionIssues. [Witcher v. Witcher, 433 Pa. Super. 14,639 A.2d 1187 (1994)]. 15(3):2-4.Superior Court Denies Visitation Rights to Sister.[Ken R., On Behalf of His Daughter, C. C.R. v.Arthur Z. and Mary Jane Z., (1994)]. 17(2):5-6.Superior Court does Away with UnallocatedSupport Orders in Divorce Actions. [Dubin v.Dubin, 372 Pa. Super. 84, 538 A.2d 1362 (1988)].9(2):12.Superior Court does not Permit Double Dipping(Including an Asset as Marital PropertyInequitable Distribution and an Income forSupport). [McCarty v. Smith, 440 Pa. Super. 280,655 A.2d 563 (1995)]. 17(3):5-6.Superior Court En Banc Overrules Miller v.Berschler, and Limits Immunity from Malpracticeof Attorneys Counseling Settlement Agreements.[McMahon v. Shea, 441 Pa. Super. 304, 657 A.2d938 (1995)]. 17(3):2.Superior Court Finds Condonation is an AdequateDefense to Adultery as it Precludes SpousalSupport. [Hoffman v. Hoffman, 762 A.2d 766 (Pa.Super. 2000)]. Jean Gilroy Gavlick. 23:9-10.Superior Court Finds Four Year Statute ofLimitations Inapplicable to Registration of Foreign52

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLESupport Judgments Act. [Stewart v. Stewart, 743A.2d 955 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. Joel S. Todd. 22:36-38.Superior Court Finds Tax Refund Retains theCharacter of the Payment from Which It wasWithheld. [Cerny v. Cerny, 440 Pa. Super. 550,656 A.2d 507 (1995)]. 17(3):5.Superior Court Grants Standing to a LesbianPartner to Seek Partial Custody. [J.A.L. v. E.P.H.,453 Pa. Super. 78, 682 A.2d 1314 (1996)].Bernard D. Faigenbaum. 18(4):3-6.Superior Court Holds that Non-Custodial Parent isnot Entitled to Reduction in Child SupportProportionate to the Amount of Time Non-Custodial Parent has Custody of Children.[Connor v. Connor, 434 Pa. Super. 288, 642 A.2d1136 (1994)]. 16(4):6-7.Superior Court Holds that South Carolina Courthas Jurisdiction Over Support Action Under theProvision of URESA. [Bratton v. Jury, 435 Pa.Super. 110, 644 A.2d 1259 (1994)]. 16(4):8-9.Superior Court Imposes Contractual Duty of GoodFaith and Fair Dealing in Performance andEnforcement on Parties to a Marriage SettlementAgreement. [Herzog v. Herzog, 887 A 2d. 313].(Pa. Super. 2005)]. David C. Schanbacher. 28:8-10.Superior Court Offended by Abuse of Discretionin Carbon County Court of Common Pleas andOverturns Award of Custody to father. [Wiskoskiv. Wiskoski, 427 Pa. Super. 531, 629 A.2d 996(1993)]. 14(5):9-12.Superior Court Reaffirms Trial Court’s Discretionto Apply Gruber to Intrastate Relocations, Rejectthe Recommendation of a Custody Evaluator, andIncrease the Custodial Time of the Non-Petitioning Parent. [Masser v. Miller, 909 A.2d846 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Cheryl B. Krentzman.29:15-17.Superior Court Recognizes Precedential Power ofCommonwealth Court’s Abolition of CommonLaw Marriage and Limit Its ProspectiveApplication to Common Law Marriages EnteredAfter September 13, 2003. [Stackhouse v.Stackhouse, 862 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. AnnM. Funge. 27:9-10.Superior Court Remands Custody Case, Based onInsufficiency of Trial Court's Opinion, in Light ofMother's Status as Illegal Alien and AllegedFailure to Properly Supervise. [Alfred v. Brazton,442 Pa. Super. 381, 659 A.2d 1040 (1995)].17(5):6-7.Superior Court Reverses Trial Court’s Inclusion ofRetained Earnings in Computing DisposableIncome for Support. [Fennell v. Fennell, 753 A.2d866 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Carolyn Moran Zack.22:59-61.Superior Court Rules No Due Process Violation ina Paternity Matter Where an Acknowledged Fatherdid not Receive Notice Nor a Timely HearingWhen Mother Filed for Child Support Against aThird Party. [Wieland v. Wieland, 948 Pa. Super.863 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Ann M. Funge. 30:154-56.Superior Court Rules that Binding ArbitrationProvision in Custody Cases not AutomaticallyEnforceable. [Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa. Super. 162,620 A.2d 1161 (1993)]. 14(3):2-3.Superior Court Rules That Relevant ValuationDate for Closely-Held Business InterestControlled Exclusively by One Party Post-Separation is Date of Distribution. [Smith v.Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Ann M.Funge. 28:96-97.Superior Court Says No to Netherlands ChildRelocation Request. [Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 906 A.2d1198 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:6-8.Superior Court Upholds Child Support AwardBased on Presumptive Minimum from UniformGuidelines Even Though Child's Actual ExpensesWere One-Fifth of the Presumptive MimimumAmount. [Gowdy v. Kesserling, 455 Pa. Super. 57,686 A.2d 1343 (1996)]. David J. Steerman. 19:31-33.53

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLESuperior Court Upholds Paternity by Estoppel andRelaxation of Wavier Doctrine Under HybridLocal Procedure. [Zadori v. Zadori, 443 Pa. Super.192, 661 A.2d 370 (1995) (1995)]. 17(4):5-6.Superior Court Upholds Trial Court OrderAwarding Spousal Support to Wife Who LeftMarital Residence upon Disclosure that Husbandwas a Transvestite. [McKolanis v. McKolanis, 435Pa. Super. 103, 644 A.2d 1256 (1994)]. 16(4):4-6.Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's Issuance ofPreliminary Injunction and Imposition ofConstructive Trust of Children's EducationalFunds. [Robbins v. Kristofic, 434 Pa. Super. 392,643 A.2d 1079 (1994)]. 15(3):5-7.Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's OrderAwarding Shared Legal and Primary PhysicalCustody of Child to Grandfather. [R.A.R. & M.E.R. v. T.M. & R.E.R., 434 Pa. Super. 592, 644A.2d 767(1994)]. 16(4):3-4.Support Action Brought Under New Statute ofLimitations Survives Despite Res Judicata RulingUnder Former Statute. [Fornwalt v. Follmer, 420Pa. Super. 413, 616 A.2d 1040 (1992)]. 14(1):7-8.Support–Arrearages–Proceeds from Post-DivorcePartition can be Used to Satisfy Arrearages.[Moyer v. Moyer, 292 Pa. Super. 434, 437 A.2d752 (1981)]. 2:216-18.Support Award: Interplay of Melzer Formula andStatewide Support Guidelines. [Seawalt v.Muldoon, 406 Pa. Super. 94, 593 A.2d 886(1991)]. 12(5):4-5.Support Case–Hearing De Novo Means HearingAnew. [D'Arciprete v. D'Arciprete, 323 Pa. Super.430, 470 A.2d 995 (1984)]. 5:572-573.Support Case–Loss of Employment due to WillfulMisconduct does not Constitute Change inCircumstances. [Schad v. Schaffner, Alleg. Co.,FD 81-5256 (1984)]. 5:632.Support Continues Until Entry of a DivorceDecree and an Appeal Stays the Effect of aDivorce Decree. [Tose v. Tose, Montgomery Co.,498 Sept. 1971 (April 30, 1981)]. 2:184-86.Support–Court Discusses Factors to be Consideredin Determining Earning Capacity. [Boni v. Boni,302 Pa. Super. 102, 448 A.2d 547 (1982)]. 3:306-9.Support for Child in College by Way of Alimony.[Barrone v. Barrone, 2 A.C.D.D. 188 (Allegh. Co.,1982)]. 3:366-67.Support Guidelines Reign Supreme. [Young v.Muthersbaugh, 415 Pa. Super. 591, 609 A.2d 1381(1992)]. 13(6):6-7.Support Guidelines: Two Part Test. [Shutter v.Reilly, 372 Pa. Super. 251, 539 A.2d 424 (1988)].9(2):12-13.Support Modification: Kinden Payments, EarningCapacity and Federal Tax Liability. [Adams v.Adams, 387 Pa. Super. 1, 563 A.2d 913 (1989)].10:123-25.Support Order: Physical or Financial Separation.[Shilling v. Shilling, 394 Pa. Super. 154, 575 A.2d145 (1990)]. 11:161.Support Order Runs fromDate of Filing ofComplaint In Support Until Entry of DivorceDecree. [Noldy v. Noldy, 340 Pa. Super. 588, 490A.2d 1376 (1985)]. 7:828-29.Support Procedures: Appointment of DistrictAttorney. [Steenland-Parker v. Parker, 375 Pa.Super. 457, 544 A.2d 1010 (1988)]. 9:36.Support–Property SettlementAgreement–Incorporation vs. Merger. [Brown v.Hall and Com. ex rel. Hall v. Hall, 495 Pa. 635,435 A.2d 859 (1981)]. 2:214-16.Support Provisions Under Post-Nuptial AgreementSurvive Despite Fact Other Provisions may beIllegal. [Huber v. Huber, 523 Pa. Super. 530, 470A.2d 1385 (1984)]. 5:583-85.Supreme Court Admits Parole Evidence to Definethe Term of Cohabitation in a Property SettlementAgreement. [Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159 (Pa.54

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE2004)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 26:41-42.Supreme Court Allows Legal Malpractice ClaimWhere Settlement was Entered in Divorce.[McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124, 688 A.2d 1179(1997)]. Robb B. Bunde. 19:33-34.The Supreme Court Considers Deprecation in theCalculation of Income Available for Support.[Labar v. Labar, 557 Pa. 54, 731 A.2d 1252(1999)]. Carol S. Mills McCarthy. 21:76-78.Supreme Court Declares that Standing in ChildSupport Cases Determined by CustodyOrder–Legislature Responds With De FactoCustody Statute. [Larson v. Diveglia, 549 Pa. 118,700 A.2d 931 (1997)]. Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr.20:6-8.Supreme Court Differentiates Between Postnuptialand Separation Agreements. [Vaccarellov.Vaccarello, 563 Pa. 93, 757 A.2d 909 (2000)].Maribeth Blessing. 23:4-8.Supreme Court Discusses Important CustodyFactors. [In Re: Shane Davis, 502 Pa. 110, 465A.2d 614 (1983)]. 4:493-502.Supreme Court Examines Extent of Applicabilityof 23 Pa.C.S. §3701(E) In Case Where MaritalProperty has Been Distributed. [Wagoner v.Wagoner, 538 Pa. 265, 648 A.2d 299 (1994)(1994)]. 17(1):12-14.Supreme Court Finds That Reasonableness Mustbe Implied When Determining an Award ofContractual Counsel Fees. [McMullen v. Kutz,985 A.2d 769 (Pa. 2009)]. Elizabeth J. Billies.32:18-20.Supreme Court Gives Grandparents Equal Right toAdopt Grandchildren. [Adoption of Hess, 530 Pa.218, 608 A.2d 10 (1992)]. 13(3):3-5.Supreme Court Holds that Trial Court Erred in notConsidering Children And Youth Services ofAllegheny County v. Chorgo in DeterminingWhether Obligor for Support is Entitled to CreditDue to Children's Receipt of Social SecurityMonies. [Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa. Super. 459,646 A.2d 1186 (1994)]. 16(5):5.Supreme Court Limits Fact Finder's Discretion inDeviating from the Support Guidelines. [Ball v.Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 648 A.2d 1192 (1994)].16(5):2-4.Supreme Court Reaffirmed Third Party Burden inCustody Case Against Parent. [Charles v. Stehlik,560 Pa. 334, 744 A.2d 1255 (2000)]. Stephanie H.Winegrad. 22:33-34.Supreme Court Rejects the Theory that Marriageand Spousal Loans are Separate Transactions forPurposes of the Bankruptcy Recoupment Doctrine.[Cohen v. Goldberg, 554 Pa. 201, 720 A.2d 1028(1998)]. Selina J. Schultz. 21:5-6.Supreme Court's Change in Pension Valuation forEquitable Distribution Causes Dates for Valuationto be "Carved In Sand". [Berrington v. Berrington,534 Pa. 393, 633 A.2d 589 (1993)]. 15(1):2-4.Taking a "Fifth" in a Car Overrides Father's"Taking the Fifth" In Custody Hearing, DividedPanel Declares. [Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa. Super.450, 625 A.2d 692 (1993)]. 14(4):8-10.Tax Consequences–Relevant Factor to beConsidered in Making Alimony Pendente LiteAward. [Reisinger v. Reisinger, 3 A.C.D.D. 65(Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 3:335-336.Tax Consequences Must be Considered in SettingSupport Orders. [Reisinger v. Reisinger, 324 Pa.Super. 223, 471 A.2d 544 (1984)]. 5:529-530.Tax Consequences of Alimony PaymentsContinued After Remarriage of Former Spouse.[Sherwood v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. 1979-149(1979)]. 2:135-36.Tax Impact Must be Considered in EquitableDistribution Award. [White v. White, 382 Pa.Super. 478, 555 A.2d 1299 (1989) 10(2):76.Tax Liability is Attributable to Year in WhichIncome is Earned in Determining IncomeAvailable for Support. [Spahr v. Spahr, 869 A.2d548 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Carolyn Moran Zack.55

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE27:58-59.Temporary Award of Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport is not Appealable. [Lowenschuss v.Lowenschuss, Montgomery Co., No. 81-17813(1982)]. 3:310.Temporary Institutionalization Does not ConstitutePermanent Challenge in Circumstances. [R.C. v.J.S., 957 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2008). Scott L.Levine. 30:215-16.Tenancy by the Entireties is Subject to aCreditor's/ Mother's Judgement for DelinquentChild Support. [Coscia v. Hendrie, 427 Pa. Super.585, 629 A.2d 1024 (1993)]. 14(4):5-6.The Tender Years Act. [Fidler v. Cunningham-Small, 871 A.2d 231 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Joseph P.Martone. 27:56-57.Termination of Child Support Order Pursuant toRule. [1]910.19(e) Does not Automatically Bar aLater Claim for Post-Majority Support. [Style v.Shaub, 955 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. CherylB. Krentzman. 30:208-11.Termination of Parental Rights–Revisited. [In Re:Adoption of M.M., a Minor, Appeal of J.M. andC.B., 492 Pa. 457, 424 A.2d 1280 (1981)]. 2:130.Termination of Parental Rights Under theAdoption Act of 1970. [In Re VoluntaryTermination of Parental Rights to MLO, Appeal ofKO, 490 Pa. 237, 416 A.2d 88 (1980); In ReL.A.G., Appeal of M.G.B., 490 Pa. 54, 415 A.2d44 (1980); In Re M.A.K.,489 Pa. 587, 414 A.2d1052 (1980); In Re M.L.H., Appeal of M.H., 490Pa. 54, 415 A.2d 29 (1980); In Re D.K.W.,Appeal of C.J.W., 490 Pa. 134, 415 A.2d 69(1980); In Re Adoption of F.D.S. and G.M.S.,Appeal of C.S.S., 490 Pa. 43, 415 A.2d 23 (1980);Lehman, v. Lycoming County Children's ServicesAgency, 1980 U.S. App. Lexis 15451 (3d Cir.1980)]. 1:90-96.Termination of Relationship With Paramour Priorto Trial will not Preclude Finding of Cohabitation.[Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Super.2003)]. Margaret Lucas. 26:6-7.Termination of Support on Remarriage. [Purdue v.Purdue, 398 Pa. Super. 228, 580 A.2d 1146(1990)]. 11:196-97.Terms of Settlement Agreement Override CaseLaw Regarding Pension Valuation Date. [Bianchiv. Bianchi, 859 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2004)].Mindi J. Hodge and Randi J. Silverman. 26:108-9.Test for Hearsay Evidence in Sexual Abuse Cases.[G.W.K. v. Com. of Pa., Dept. of Welfare, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 512, 558 A.2d 151 (1989)]. 10(4):105-6.The Test for Innocent and Injured Spouse.[Hunsinger v. Hunsinger, 381 Pa. Super. 453, 554A.2d 89 (1989)]. 10(2):81-82.Test for Reimbursement Alimony/Equity: UnjustEnrichment. [Bold v. Bold, 374 Pa. Super. 317,542 A.2d 1374 (1988)]. 9:21-22.Testamentary Appointment of a Guardian for aMinor Child is Controlling and not MerelyDirectory. [In re: Slaughter, 738 A.2d 1013 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. James G. Keenan. 22:5-7.A Thin Line Distinguishing Billhime: WhatConstitutes Enough Evidence to Establish aChild’s “Significant Connection” withPennsylvania to Maintain Jurisdiction Over aCustody Matter? Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d1217 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Joanna K. Conmy.32:141-44.Third Parties May be on Equal Footing, But doThey Have Equal Standing? [In RE: G.C., 449 Pa.Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932 (1996)]. David L.Ladov. 18(3):8-11.Third Parties Now on Equal Footing in CustodyCases–Supreme Court Apparently OverrulesPresumption in Favor of Parents. [Rowles v.Rowles, 542 Pa. 443, 668 A.2d. 126 (1995)].David L. Ladov. 18(1):6-7.Third Party Standing Clarified in Child CustodyCases. [Gradwell v. Strausser, 416 Pa. Super. 118,610 A.2d 999 (1992)]. Emanuel A. Bertin.13(3):2.56

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLETill Death Do Us Part? Grounds for Divorce Mustbe Established to Avoid the Abatement of aDivorce Action: 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3323(d.1). [Gerowv. Gerow, 962 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2008)].Kerri Lee Cappella. 31:11-13.Time Waits for No One, Including Pro SeLitigants. [Blatz v. Blatz, 412 Pa. Super. 449, 603A.2d 666 (1992)]. 13(3):7-8.Timing of Special Relief Motion. [Reese v. Reese,406 Pa. Super. 214, 593 A.2d 1312 (1991)].12(6):5.‘Tis not the “Season” for Calculating Support,Court Tells Recission Victim Father. [Paulus v.Paulus, 413 Pa. Super. 230, 604 A.2d 1103(1992)]. 13(3):5-6.To Merge or not to Merge: Modifiability ofSupport Agreement at Stake. [McGough v.McGough, 361 Pa. Super. 391, 522 A.2d 638(1987)]. 9:7.Tokach is Overlooked. [D'Huy v. D'Huy, 390 Pa.Super. 509, 568 A.2d 1289 (1990)]. 11:131-32.Tracing and Standard of Proof Required toOvercome Presumption of Marital Property.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 515 Pa. 393, 528 A.2d 1318(1987)]. 8:976-80.Transfer of Pre-Marital Property Into Joint NamesConstitutes Gift of Martial Entity. [Brown v.Brown, 352 Pa. Super. 267, 507 A.2d 1223(1986)]. 7:849-50.Transfer of Primary Physical Custody as aSanction for Contempt of a Custody Order withouta Pending Petition for Modification and Hearingthereon is not Permitted. [Langendorfer v.Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002)].Stephanie H. Winegrad. 24:38-39.Transfer of Property Set Aside Under §403(d).[Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 307 Pa. Super. 499, 453A.2d 998 (1982)]. 4:417-18.Transfer of Separate Property into Joint NamesCreates Gift to the Marital Estate. [Burry v. Burry,111 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 330 (1982)]. 4:407-9.Transfer of Support Action. [Altschuler v.Altschuler, 334 Pa. Super. 111, 482 A.2d 1106(1984)]. 5:653-54.Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying WifeAlimony. [Eck v. Eck, 327 Pa. Super. 334, 475A.2d 825 (1984)]. 5:606-7.Trial Court did not Improperly Modify CustodyOrder in Contempt Proceeding by Failing toImpose Sanction of Return of Child toJurisdiction, but Failure to Impose Any Sanctionsfor Contempt and Pronouncement RegardingFuture Jurisdiction Constituted Errors. [Harcar v.Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. CherylB. Krentzman. 32:9-12.Trial Court Finds Tax Consequences AlreadyCalculated into Support Guidelines. [Reisinger v.Reisinger, 3 A.C.D.D. 65 (Allegh. Co., 1984)].5:582.Trial Court had Jurisdiction to Enforce MaritalProperty Settlement Agreement under DivorceCode Where Agreement had not been Merged orIncorporated into Final Divorce Decree.[Annechino v. Joire, 946 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Michele G. Bononi. 30:82-83.Trial Court ay not Infuse Personal BeliefsOpposing Shared Physical Custody. [B.C.S. v.J.A.S., 994 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. DonnaMcKillop. 32:137-38.Trial Court Must Appoint a Qualified Professionalto Provide Counselling to Parent Who has beenConvicted of Certain Crimes and Must HearfromThat Professional at the Time of Trial.[Ramer v. Ramer, 914 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super.2006)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr. 29:20-21.Trial Court Must Keep Its Eye on Ball inEvaluating Support Cases. [Seman v. Seman, 419Pa. Super. 20, 614 A.2d 1189 (1992)]. 13(6):7.Trial Court Must Set Forth Rationale forBifurcation on the Record Prior to the Entry of aDecree in Divorce. [Brian v. Brian, 872 A.2d 84357

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE(Pa. Super. 2005)]. Benjamin E. Orsatti. 27:62.Trial Court Reversed for Failure to ApplyImportant Child Custody Procedures. [Cyran v.Cyran, 389 Pa. Super. 128, 566 A.2d 878 (1989)].Emauel A. Bertin. 11:134-35.Trial Court's Inadvertent Delayed Filing ofReconsidered Equitable Distribution Order CausesAppeal to Fail. [Weinzetl v. Weinzetl, 452 Pa.Super. 271, 681 A.2d 813 (1996)]. Linda C.Liechty. 19:5-6.Trial Court's Order Terminating Father's ParentalRights Overturned by Superior Court. [In Re:Bowman, Appeal of Bowman, II, 436 Pa. Super.10, 647 A.2d 217 (1994)]. 16(4):11-12.Trial Courts Must Put Reasons for Bifurcation ofDivorce Cases on the Record. [Lambert v.Lambert, 422 Pa. Super. 444, 619 A.2d 761(1993)]. 14(3):11-12.True Disability Payments held not MaritalProperty Subject To Equitable Distribution.[Anderson v. Ciliberti, 374 Pa. Super. 228, 542A.2d 580 (1988)]. 9(5):45.Two Agreements–Two Enforcement Cases OneSuccess-One Failure. [Thomson v. Rose, 698 A.2d1321 (Pa. Super. 1997); Gaster v. Gaster, 703A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1997)]. Lise A. Fisher.19:79-81.Two Cases on Standing: Case 1: Third PartyAsserting Paternity has No Standing in a PartialCustody Case Against an Intact Family Unit. [CWv. LV and GV, 788 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Super. 2001)];Case 2: Former Same-Sex Partner has Standing inPartial Custody Case. [T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d913 (Pa. 2001)]. Michael E. Bertin. 24:3-5.Two Fit Parents vs. Best Interest of Child:Opposing Attorney in Quasi Judicial Role.[Songster v. Mumma, 380 Pa. Super. 18, 550 A.2d1341 (1988)]. 10:66-67.Two Wrongs did not Make It Right: Defects onthe Face of the Record 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3332,.[Bingaman, Jr. v. Bingaman 980 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. Kerri Lee Cappella. 31:162-63.Typical Support Case Clarifies Law RegardingEarning Capacity, Employee Perquisites, Bonuses,401(k) Contributions, Employer Matches,Exemptions and Child Care Expenses. [Portugal v.Portugal, 798 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 2002)].Elisabeth Bennington. 24:97-99.U.S. Court of Appeals Upheld Tax Court RulingThat Unallocated Pendente Lite Support Awardwas Properly Deductible as Alimony to Payor andIncome to Payee. [Patricia Kean v. Commissionerof Internal Revenue; Robert W. Kean v.Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 407 F.3d 186rd(3 Cir. 2005)]. Albert Shemtob. 27:117-18.Unauthorized Appeal Results in Ruling that Parentwith De Jure, But not De Facto, Custody hasStanding to Seek Child Support. [Seder v. Seder,841 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Ann M. Funge.26:9-11.Unilateral Removal of Any Assets from MaritalResidence is not Permissible. [Stapleton v.Stapleton, 32 Chester Co. 338 (1984)]. 5:568-69.Unless a Child is Lacking Proper Parental Careand Control, He or She Cannot be AdjudicatedDependent. [In Re Jeffrey S., Justin S. Jordon S.and Joy S., 427 Pa. Super. 79, 628 A.2d 439(1993)]. 14(4):6-7.Use of Blood Test to Rebut Presumption ofMarried Father's Paternity. [Faust v. Faggart, 406Pa. Super. 357, 594 A.2d 660 (1991)]. 12(5):6-7.Validity of Third Party's Intervention in DivorceProceedings. [Luiziaga v. Psolka, 432 Pa. Super.26, 637 A.2d 645 (1994)]. 15(2):5-6.Valuation Dates. [McNaughton v. McNaughton,412 Pa. Super. 409, 603 A.2d 646 (1992)].13(4):3.Valuation of Closely Held Corporation. [Bowen v.Bowen, 96 N.J. 36, 473 A.2d 73 (1984)]. 5:615-19.Valuation of Increase in Value of Inheritance.58

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE[Winters v. Winters, 355 Pa. Super. 64, 512 A.2d1124 (1986)]. 7:902-4.Valuation of Marital Property: Separation orDistribution Date. [Downey v, Downey, 399 Pa.Super. 437, 582 A.2d 674 (1990)]. 12(1):6-7.Valuation of Marital Property: Separation orHearing Date. [Tocco v. Tocco, 389 Pa. Super.310, 567 A.2d 303 (1989)]. 10:121-22.Value of Employee Benefits Package andUndistributed Annuity Interest Must be Includedas Income Available for Child Support Purposes.[Arbet v. Arbet, 803 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 2004)].Darrren J. Holst. 27:4-7.Value of Interest in Law Firm Controlled byPartnership Agreement. [McCabe v. McCabe,Nos. 1353 & 1354 Phil. 1986 (April 10, 1987)].8:995-97.Value of Marital Property Limited to Terms ofLaw Firm Partnership Agreement. [McCabe v.McCabe, 374 Pa. Super. 451, 543 A.2d 558(1988)]. 9:20.Valuing a Pension–New Jersey Court Uses "TotalOffset Method". [Dipietro v. Dipietro, 183 N. J.Super. 69, 443 A.2d 244 (1981)]. 3:324-27.Valuing Increase of Non-Marital Trust and NoGoodwill Value of Sole Owner of VeterinarianPractice. [Solomon v. Solomon, 531 Pa. 113, 611A.2d 686 (1992)]. 13(4):2-3.Vento is Dead!!!! [Platek v. Platek, 309 Pa. Super.16, 454 A.2d 1059 (1982)]. 4:389-90.Vested and Non-Vested Pensions are MaritalProperty. [Kalinoski v. Kalinoski, Butler Co., F.C.No. 80-530 (1982)]. 4:394-99.Violation of Abuse Act Order is Indirect CriminalContempt and Due Process Must be Afforded.[Vito v. Vito, 380 Pa. Super. 258, 551 A.2d 471(1988)]. 10:65-66.Violation of the Protection of the Abuse Act:Indirect Criminal Contempt. [Wagner v. Wagner,387 Pa. Super. 246, 564 A.2d 162 (1989)].10(4):104-5.Voluntary Resignation fromEmployment Does notJustify Reduction of Alimony Pursuant to Post-Nuptial Agreement. [Williams v. Williams, 108PDDRR 87 p.321]. Elizabeth Billies. 30:219-20.Voluntary Termination of Parental RightsReversed Following "Unorthodox" Procedures Inthe Lower Court. [In Re: Adoption of Stickley:Appeal of McCook, 432 Pa. Super. 354, 638 A.2d976 (1994)]. 15(2):8-9.Wage Attachment or Equitable DistributionOrders. [Laughlin v. Laughlin, 525 Pa. 141, 578A.2d 922 (1990)]. 11:183-84.Was Wife's Move With Child Legitimate, or didShe "Abscond"? [Hamm v. Hamm, 431 Pa. Super.283, 636 A.2d 652 (1994)]. 15(2):10-11.Weighing Substance Abuse and Sexual Preferencein Determining Parental Fitness. [Barron v.Barron, 406 Pa. Super. 401, 594 A.2d 682(1991)]. 12(5):7.When Bankruptcy and Divorce Coincide EsoteriaPrevails. [Cohen v. Goldberg, 695 A.2d 806 (Pa.Super. 1997)]. 19:54-55.When can Putative Father Claim Custody Rightsto Child Born While Mother is Married to AnotherMan? [Dettinger v. McCleary, 438 Pa. Super. 300,652 A.2d 383 (1994)]. 17(2):3-5.When is a Custody Order Final and Appealable?not When it is an Interim Order Intended to be anInterim Measure–"Complete Resolution Test.".[G.B. v. M.M.B., 448 Pa. Super. 133, 670 A.2d714 (1996)]. Steven B. Schwartz. 18(2):4-5.When Local Court’s Reasoning Is not Evidentfrom Record Failure to File Rule 1925(a) OpinionCaused Reversal and Remand. [Bold v. Bold, 939A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Marion Laffey-Ferry. 30:3-5.Where Killing Done With "Will," There's No"Way" Killer can Take fromVictim's Estate. (In Re59

C ASE D IGESTS BY T ITLEEstate of Bartolovich, 420 Pa. Super. 419, 616A.2d 1043 (1992)]. 14(2):15-16.Where No Petition to Modify was Filed, the TrialCourt Dismissal of the PFA Order was Improper.[Stamus v. Dutcavich, 938 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super.2007)]. John P. Attiani. 30:84-86.Marital Property. Status of Disability PensionsCalled Into Question. [Drake v. Drake, 555 Pa.481, 725 A.2d 717 (1999)]. Linda K. Bravacos.21:40-42.Whether a Verdict for Personal Injuries is MaritalProperty Subject to Equitable Distribution.[Hurley v. Hurley, 342 Pa. Super. 156, 492 A.2d439 (1985)]. 6:756-57.Wife Awarded Exclusive Occupancy of MaritalResidence During Pending Divorce Proceedings.[Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, 344 Pa. Super. 154,496 A.2d 56 (1985)]. 6:736-40.Wife’s Business Interest Intended to be Her Asset/Husband’s Business Valuation not Based UponIntent of Partnership Agreement. [Brody v. Brody,758 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Julie A.Auerbach. 23:7-8.Wife's Remarriage Doesn't Terminate Agreed-Upon Alimony Absence Express Cut-off Date.[McMahon v. McMahon, 417 Pa. Super. 592, 612A.2d 1360 (1992)]. 13(5):4-6.Wife's Settlement to Spousal Support When SheVacates the Home. [Rock v. Rock, 385 Pa. Super.126, 560 A.2d 199 (1989)]. 10:93.Wife's Waiver of Child Support Determined to beInvalid Because Payments Were EquitableDistribution and not Child Support. [Kraisinger v.Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super 2007)].Michael Viola. 29:93-95.Withdrawal of Affidavit of Consent Prior to Entryof Divorce Decree is Permissible. [Berman v.Berman, 4 A.C.D.D. 102 (Allegh. Co., 1983)].4:450-51.Worker’s Compensation Award Held in Escrow toPay Alimony. [Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 813 A.2d1 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Jennifer M. McEnroe. 25:10-11.Workers’ Compensation Commutation Award is60

3C. CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTABUSEFactors Relied on in Expunging Sexual Abuse Report.[J.S. v. Com., 528 Pa. 243, 596 A.2d 1114 (1991)].12(6):4-5.Local Child Welfare Agency is Given Sixty Days toInvestigate Abuse Complaint Once Accused Abuser isIdentified. [Cumberland County Children & YouthServices v. Department of Public Welfare,148 Pa.Cmwlth. 479, 611 A.2d 1339 (1992)]. 13(4):13-15.Mother's Boyfriend Lacked Standing to ChallengeFinding Implicating Him to Child Abuse. [In theInterest of Garthwaite, 422 Pa. Super. 280, 619 A.2d356 (1993)]. 14(3):7-8.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Examines Due ProcessRights of Accused Child Abuser. [R. v. Com.,Department of Public Welfare and Montgomery CountyOffice of Children and Youth, 535 Pa. 440, 636 A.2d142 (1994)]. 15(3):11-17.Perpetrator of Child Abuse: Omissions are Enough.[K.S. v. Com.of Pa., Dept. of Public Welfare, 129 Pa.Cmwlth. 31, 564 A.2d 561 (1989)]. 10:125-26.The Superior Court Analyzes the Interplay Between theChild Protective Services Law and the Juvenile Act. [Inthe Interest Of: J.R.W., Appeal of: V.F., NaturalMother, Appeal of A.W., Natural Father, 428 Pa.Super. 597, 631 A.2d 1019 (1993)]. 15(1):11-13.ADOPTIONAppealability of CYS' Adoption Goal. [In Re: In theInterest of M.B., K.B., J.B., L.B., 388 Pa. Super. 381,565 A.2d 804 (1989)]. 11:135-36.Commonwealth Court Upholds GovernmentalImmunity Defense in Case Against CYS forMisrepresentation of Adopted Child's Health andBackground. [Zernhelt v. Lehigh County Office ofCYS, 659 A.2d 89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)]. 17(4):3-4.Court Sets Forth Charges Permitted as Part of AdoptionProceedings. [In Re: Baby Girl D., 512 Pa. 449, 517A.2d 925 (1986)]. 8:946-950Eight Years' Failure to Cooperate with Agency Resultsin Termination of Parental Rights. [In Re: Adoption ofSteven S., 417 Pa. Super. 247, 612 A.2d 465 (1992)].13(4):11-13.Father’s Paternal Rights Terminated in Favor ofMaternal Grandfather. [In Re Adoption of J.M., 991A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker.32:79-80.Foster Parents may not Adopt Over CYS Objection:Superior Court Refuses to Extend Supreme Court'sDecision In Re: Adoption of Hess to Foster Parents.[Chester County Children and Youth Services v.Cunningham, 457 Pa. 525, 326 A.2d 377 (1994)].15(2):7-8.Homosexual Partners are not Spouses Qualified UnderPa. Adoption Act. [In re: Adoption of R. B. F. and R.C. F., 762 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 2000)] and. [In re:Adoption of C. C. G. and Z. C. G. 762 A.2d 724 (Pa.Super. 2000)]. Stanley J. Margle. 23:8-9.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights: CourtAdopts "Clear and Convincing Evidence" Standard.[Petition for Involuntary Termination of ParentalRights, Appeal of G.J.A, 304 Pa. Super. 21, 450 A.2d80 (1982)]. 3:361-362.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights–Father'sAttempt to Overcome. [In Re: Baby Boy H., 401 Pa.Super. 530, 585 A.2d 1054 (1991)]. 12(3):10-11.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights DeniedWhen Natural Parent Maintains Substantial andContinuing Contact Prior to the Filed Petition, SuperiorCourt Declares. [T.J.B. v. E.C., 438 Pa. Super. 529,652 A.2d 936 (1995); In Re: Adoption of M.J.C., 438Pa. Super. 529, 652 A.2d 936 (1995)]. 17(2):9-12.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of ParentsUnable or Unwilling to Fulfill CYS Conditions forImproving Parenting Skills. [In re: J.E., a minor andE.E., a minor, 745 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2000)].Colleen M. Neary. 22:34-36.Limited Testimony of Social Worker Allowed OverMother’s Objection. [In the Matter of L.F., Appeal ofL.W., 995 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Amy J.61

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTPhillips. 32:139-41.Mental Incapacity: Termination of Parental Rights. [Inre P.A.B.; M.E.B.; M.A.B., 391 Pa. Super. 79, 570A.2d 522 (1990)]. 11:138-39.Money Can't but You Love. [In Re: Adoption byShives, 363 Pa. Super. 225, 525 A.2d 801 (1987)]. 9:5-6.Parties Pigeonholing of "Foster" Parent not Dispositivein Determining Standing to Adopt. [In Re: Adoption ofJ.M.E., 416 Pa. Super. 110, 610 A.2d 995 (1992)].13(4):10-11.Pennsylvania Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdictionto Terminate Parental Rights When Parent Still Residedin State that Issued Custody Order. [In re: Adoption ofN.M.B. 564 Pa. 117, 764 A.2d 1042 (2000)]. KristenM. Humphrey. 23:2-4.Pennsylvania Superior Court Applies a Strict Standardfor the Showing of Good Cause When a PetitionRequests the Opening of Adoption Records. [In Re:Adoption of S.B., 979 A.2d 925 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Carla Marino. 31:157-58.Prospective Adoptive Parents Have Standing to Petitionto Terminate Parental Rights, Even Where Birth MotherRevokes Consent to Adoption. [In re Baby Boy S., 420Pa. Super. 37, 615 A.2d 1355 (1992)]. 14(2):8-9.Reunification vs. Adoption–Whose Interests are ReallyServed? [In the Interest of R.J.T., Minor; Appeal of:Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth andFamilies. In Re R.J.T. 990 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2010)].Sarah N. Ponzio. 32:72-75.Second Parent Adoption: Supreme Court puts end to“Absurdity.” [In Re:: Adoption of R.B.F. and R.C.F.,Appeal of B.A.F. and C.H.F. (Lancaster County), 803A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002), IN RE: Adoption of C.C.G. andZ.C.G., Appeal of J.C.G and J.J.G. (Erie County), 803A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002)]. Daniel J. Clifford. 24:105-6.Supreme Court Gives Grandparents Equal Right toAdopt Grandchildren. [Adoption of Hess, 530 Pa. 218,608 A.2d 10 (1992)]. 13(3):3-5.Termination of Parental Rights–Revisited. [In Re:Adoption of M.M., Appeal of J.M. and C.B., 492 Pa.457, 424 A.2d 1280 (1981)]. 2:130.Termination of Parental Rights Under the Adoption Actof 1970. [In re Voluntary Termination of ParentalRights to MLO, Appeal of KO, 490 Pa. 237, 416 A. 2d88 (1980); In re L.A.G. Appeal of M.G.B., 490 Pa. 85,415 A.2d 44 (1980); In re M.A.K. and R.L.K., Appealof Allegheny County Institution District, 489 Pa. 597,414 A.2d 1052 (1980); In re M.L.H., Appeal of M.H.and J.H., 490 Pa. 54, 415 A. 2d 29 (1980); Lehman, v.Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 1980U.S. App. Lexis 15451 (3d Cir. 1980)]. 1:90-96.Trial Court's Order Terminating Father's ParentalRights Overturned by Superior Court. [In Re: Bowman,Appeal of Bowman, 436 Pa. Super. 10, 647 A.2d 217(1994)]. 16(4):11-12.Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights ReversedFollowing "Unorthodox" Procedures in the LowerCourt. [In Re: Adoption of Courtney Stickley: AppealOf: McCook, 432 Pa. Super. 354, 638 A.2d 976(1994)]. 15(2):8-9.ANNULMENTCourt Annuls 24 Year Marriage on Grounds ofImpotency. [Manbeck v. Manbeck, 339 Pa. Super. 493,489 A.2d 748 (1985)]. 6:728-32.ANTENUPTIAL/PRENUPTIAL/ POSTNUPTIALAGREEMENTSAntenuptial Agreement Deemed Valid DespiteProvisions of Divorce Code. [Fox v. Fox, Montg. Co.,No. 83-10430 (1984)]. 5:540-42.Antenuptial Agreement–Support Rights Waived.[Hamilton v. Hamilton, 404 Pa. Super. 316, 591 A.2d720 (1991)]. 12(4):6.APL Included in Antenuptial Waiver of Alimony orSupport. [Musko v. Musko, 697 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super.1997)]. Steven S. Hurvitz. 19:75-76.Award of Specific Performance: Unique CircumstancesOnly. [Lower v. Lower, 401 Pa. Super. 158, 584 A.2d1028 (1991)]. 12(2):3.62

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTCourt Rules that Parties' Ante-Nuptial AgreementPrecluded Wife's Claims for Ancillary Relief. [Laub v.Laub, 351 Pa. Super. 110, 505 A.2d 290 (1986)].7:851-52.Court Upholds Validity of Antenuptial Agreement. [InRe: Estate of Geyer, 338 Pa. Super. 157, 487 A.2d 901(1985)]. 6:724-28.Dead Spouse can Tell No Tales Regarding Intent ofPre-Nuptial Agreements. [Cooper v. Oakes, 427 Pa.Super. 430, 629 A.2d 144 (1993)]. 14(4):4-5.Earning Capacity vs. Earning History: If a Party hasbeen a Farmer for Ten Years; He is a Farmer. [Dennisv. Whitney, 844 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. DanielJ. Clifford. 26:44-45.Enforceability of Antenuptial Agreement. [Karkaria v.Karkaria, 405 Pa. Super. 176, 592 A.2d 64 (1991)].12(4):6-8.Enforcing Mortgage Payment Provision in PostnuptialAgreement. [Miller v. Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Michael E. Bertin. 32:7-8.Husband Receives No Credit for Direct Payments.[Wertz v. Anderson, 508 Pa. 1218, 352 A.2d 572(1986)]. 7:858-60.Orphans’ Court’s Revision of Prior Order andInterpretation of Prenuptial Agreement Upheld,. [Estateof Kendall, Deceased, 982 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Stephanie E. Murphy. 31:165-66.Postnuptial Agreement Subject to SimeoneRequirements. [Mormello v. Mormello, 452 Pa. Super.590, 682 A.2d 824 (1996)]. Gary J. Friedlander 19:6-8Pre-Divorce Code Ante-Nuptial Agreement Bars Wife'sClaims to Equitable Distribution. [Stern v. Stern,Montg. Co., No. 84-3570 (1985)]. 6:784-85.Prenuptial Agreements: Pennsylvania's Landmark Case.[Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162(1990)]. 11:170-71.Prenuptial Agreements: The Simeone Standard andBeyond. [Porreco v Porreco, 811 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2002)].Julie M. Cillo. 25:5-7.Sanctity of Pre-Nuptial Agreements Upheld. [Gula v.Gula, 380 Pa. Super. 249, 551 A.2d 324 (1998)]. 10:64.Tenancy by the Entireties is Subject to a Creditor's/Mother's Judgement for Delinquent Child Support.[Coscia v. Hendrie, 427 Pa. Super. 585, 629 A.2d 1024(1993)]. 14(4):5-6.Voluntary Resignation from Employment Does notJustify Reduction of Alimony Pursuant to Post-NuptialAgreement. [Williams v. Williams, 108 PDDRR 87p.321]. Elizabeth Billies. 30:219-20.APPELLATE PROCEDUREAppellant’s Failure to Comply With Trial Court’s Orderto Furnish a 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complainedof on Appeal in a Timely Manner While Also Violatingthe New Procedural Rules Outlined in 1925(a)(2)(i)Constitutes a Waiver of Objections to the LowerCourt’s Order. [J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super.2010)]. Liane Davis Anderson. 32:80-82.‘Continuing Contract’ Nature of Marital SettlementAgreement Tolls Statute of Limitations; DeviationfromRules of Appellate Procedure Results in Waiver.[Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Benjamin E. Orsatti. 29:10-11.Failure to Adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules ofAppellate Procedure can Preclude Review of anAppellant’s Arguments. [In Re K.T.E.L, 983 A.2d 745(Pa. Super. 2009)]. Lynnore K. Seaton. 32:12-14.Failure to State Issues in Statement of MattersComplained of On Appeal Constitutes Waiver of IssuesFirst Raised by Appellant in Superior Court Brief.[Kelly v. Mueller, 912 A.2d 202 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Michelle S. Dawson. 29:19-20.Nunc Pro Tunc Relief not Granted Where There is NoProof of Fraud. [Wood v. Cicierski, 937 A.2d 1103 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. Stephanie E. Little. 30:7-8.When Local Court’s Reasoning Is not Evident fromRecord Failure to File Rule 1925(a) Opinion CausedReversal and Remand. [Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d 892(Pa. Super. 2007)]. Marion Laffey-Ferry. 30:3-5.63

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTATTORNEYS FEESCourt Imposes Reasonableness Standard on Attorney'sFees Provision in Property Settlement Agreement.[McMullen v. Kutz, 925 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. 2007)].Amy J. Phillips. 29:88-91.Grant of Counsel Fees for Continuing Conduct inCustody Case. [Holler v. Smith, 928 A.2d 330 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. Sally R. Miller. 29:123-24.Prevailing Party in Contract Enforcement Case notEntitled to Attorney’s Fees Upon Settlement. [ProfitWize Marketing v. Weist, 812 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super.2002)]. David I. Grunfeld. 25:8-9.Supreme Court Finds That Reasonableness Must beImplied When Determining an Award of ContractualCounsel Fees. [McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 769 (Pa.2009)]. Elizabeth J. Billies. 32:18-20.BANKRUPTCYBankruptcy: Non-Dischargeability of SupportObligation. [Deichert v. Deichert, 402 Pa. Super. 415,587 A.2d 319 (1991)]. 12(3):2-4.Courts Have Equitable Power to Appoint Trustee inReceivership. [Mayhue v. Mayhue, 336 Pa. Super. 188,485 A.2d 494 (1984)]. 6:754-56.Effect of Bankruptcy Action on Divorce Proceeding.[In re Murray v. Murray and Ganz, 31 B.R. 499(1983)]. 4:473.Non-Debtor Spouse’s Unliquidated E. D. ClaimDischarged in Spouse’s Bankruptcy. [Schorr v. Schorr,299 B.R. 97 (Bankr. W.D. Pa., 2003)]. David I.Grunfeld. 25:100-1.Supreme Court Rejects the Theory that Marriage andSpousal Loans are Separate Transactions for Purposesof the Bankruptcy Recoupment Doctrine. [Cohen v.Goldberg, 554 Pa. 201, 720 A.2d 1028 (1998)]. SelinaJ. Schultz. 21:5-6.When Bankruptcy and Divorce Coincide EsoteriaPrevails . [Cohen v. Goldberg, 695 A.2d 806 (Pa.Super. 1997)]. 19:54-55.BIGAMYBigamy and Pension Benefits. [Board of Pensions andRetirement, City of Philadelphia v. Boelter, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 336, 573 A.2d 867 (1990)]. 11:148-49.COMMON LAW MARRIAGEAdding Uncertainty to Uncertainty About CommonLaw Marriage. [PNC Bank Corp. v. W.C.A.B (Stamos),831 A.2d 1269 (Pa Cmwlth. 2003)]. Robert E. Rains.25:101-4.Common Law Marriage A Doctrine Whose Time hasCome and Gone? [Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552Pa. 253, 714 A.2d 1016 (1998)]. Ellen GoldbergWeiner. 20:92-94.Legal Impediment to Common Law Marriage. [Canutev. Canute, 384 Pa. Super. 60, 557 A.2d 772 (1989)].10:91-92."Seven Year Ache" of Missing Spouse may be CuredWithout Petition of Surviving Spouse to Declare Death.[Cann v. Cann, 429 Pa. Super. 234, 632 A.2d 322(1993)]. 15(1):14-15.Superior Court Recognizes Precedential Power ofCommonwealth Court’s Abolition of Common LawMarriage and Limit Its Prospective Application toCommon Law Marriages Entered After September 13,2003. [Stackhouse v. Stackhouse, 862 A.2d 102 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. Ann M. Funge. 27:9-10.CONTEMPTCivil Contempt: Standard of Review. [Baum v. Baum,395 Pa. Super. 182, 576 A.2d 1104 (1990)]. 11:179.Contempt Powers Available to Enforce Counsel FeeOrder. [Motheral v. Motheral, 7 A.C.D.D. 103, 133P.L.J. 116 (1984)]. 5:655-56.Courts May Attach Pension as Contempt Sanction.[Richardson v Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super.2001)]. Patricia T. Brennan. 23:60-62.A Finding of Criminal Contempt is ImmediatelyAppealable. [Diamond v. Diamond, 715 A.2d 1190 (Pa.64

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTSuper. 1998)]. Charles J. Meyer. 20:90-92.Husband Found in Contempt of Support Order.[Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 323 Pa. Super. 381, 470A.2d 970 (1983)]. 5:543-46.Recent Cases on Contempt Which Should be Noted byPa Family Law Practitioners. [[Brennan v. Brennan,281 Pa. Super. 362, 422 A. 2d S10 (1980); Rupel v.Bluestein, 280 Pa. Super. 65, 421 A.2d 406 (1980)].2:114-19.COSTSCosts can be Awarded upon Final Disposition. [Fried v.Fried, 326 Pa. Super. 271, 473 A.2d 1087 (1984)].5:567-68.Indigency: Trial Transcript Expense. [Morrison v.Miller, 397 Pa. Super. 153, 579 A.2d 976 (1990)].11:187-88.Superior Court Assesses Costs Against Pro Se Litigantas Deterrent from Further Abuse of the Courts.[Winpenny v. Winpenny, 434 Pa. Super. 348, 643 A.2d677 (1994)]. 15(3):7-9.COUNSEL FEESAn Attorney Held in Contempt and Directed to ReturnAppointment Fees Prevails on Appeal. [In the Matter ofC. W., 960 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. MelaineShannon Rothey. 31:8-10.Attorney's Counsel Fee Claim. [Damiano v. Damiano,378 Pa. Super. 106, 548 A.2d 298 (1988)]. 9(5):50-51.Award of Preliminary Counsel Fees and Expenses isInterlocutory. [Grippo v. Grippo, 331 Pa. Super. 553,479 A.2d 1112 (1984]. 4:468-69.Award of Primary Custody to Non-biological Mother ofFormer Lesbian Couple. [Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915(Pa. Super. 2005)]. Cathy M. Cardozo. 28:7-8.Counsel Fees Awarded in Unfounded Sexual AbuseComplaint. [M.C. v. R.W., 398 Pa. Super. 183, 580A.2d 1124 (1990)]. 12(1):7-8.Counsel Fees–Factor of Who Commenced DivorceAction not Relevant. [Lawrence v. Lawrence, 347 Pa.Super. 57, 500 A.2d 154 (1985)]. 7:811-13.Effect of Foreign Decree on Rights to EquitableDistribution and Counsel Fees. [Coleman v. Coleman,361 Pa. Super. 446, 522 A.2d 1115 (1987)]. 8:964-70.An Interim Award of Counsel Fees is HeldInterlocutory and Therefore not Appealable. [Lane v.Lane, 111 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 244 (1981); Walters v.Walters, 109 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 466 (1981)]. 3:265-69.Realty Awarded to Husband not Subject to Attachmentby the Former Wife’s Attorney for Unpaid Legal FeesJudgment Obtained Against Wife Prior to RealtyTransfer to Husband. [Frantz v. Frantz, 972 A.2d 525(Pa. Super. 2009)].Christine M. O’Brien. 31:102-3.Reasonable Counsel Fees Awarded as a Sanction forFraudulent Concealment of Income in a Child SupportProceeding Should be Awarded in Full. [Krebs v.Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. ChristineGale. 31:93-94.[Recent Case on Counsel Fees Under the New DivorceCode.]. [McGinn v. McGinn and Dowling, Chester Co.,234 Dec. 1980 (1981)]. 2:157-61.Results Oriented Fee Agreement. [Eckell v. Wilson,409 Pa. Super. 132, 597 A.2d 696(1991)]. 12(6):2-3.CRIMINAL LAWThe Mature Minor Doctrine No Defense to InvoluntaryManslaughter of Child not Provided MedicalTreatment. [Com. v. Nixon, 563 Pa. 425, 761 A.2d1151 (2000)]. Donna M. McKillop. 23:11-13.CUSTODYAbsent Existing Pennsylvania Custody Order, VirginiaCourt Had Jurisdiction Over Action by Parent WhoFailed to Return Child from Vacation. [Boudwin v.Boudwin, 419 Pa. Super. 570, 615 A.2d 786 (1992)].14(2):10-11.Allocation of APL and Child Support–SplitCustody–Complex Support Case with CompoundingComplexities. [Holland v. Holland, 444 Pa. Super. 251,65

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT663 A.2d 768 (1995)]. David S. Pollock. 18(2):7-9."Changed Circumstances" Abolished in Child CustodyCases in Pennsylvania? [Martin v. Martin, 385 Pa.Super. 554, 561 A.2d 1231 (1989)]. 10(4):100-1.Child Custody–Court Considers Several Key Issues inDetermining Custody. [In Re: Custody of Temos, 304Pa. Super. 82, 450 A.2d 111 (1982)]. 3:346-56.The Child's Preference is Given Weight in CustodyDetermination. [McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198,602 A.2d 845 (1992)]. 13(2):8-9.Conciliation Conference Agreements are not Ordersuntil the Parties and Court Say So, Superior CourtDeclares. [Moran v. Moran, 417 Pa. Super. 549, 612A.2d 1075 (1992)]. 13(6):2.Court Decides Shared Legal Custody / ReligiousDispute. [Shepp v. Shepp, 821 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super.2003)]. Harry M. Byrne, Jr. 25:76-78.Court Enforces Rules Regarding In Camera InterviewsWith Children and Expert Reports. [Ottolini v. Barrett,954 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Michael E. Bertin.30:217-19.Custodial Mother Denied Right to Move Child fromPennsylvania. [Lozinak v. Lozinak, 390 Pa. Super. 597,569 A.2d 353 3 (1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:133-34.Custody–Agreed Consent Order vs. Custody Order(Subsequent to Judicial Determination)–Change ofCircumstances Need not be Shown to Modify Custody.[Vivian B. v. Raymond B., 129 P.L.J. 410 (1981)].2:227-29.Custody: Best Interest of Child is Paramount. [Baumhorv. Baumhor, 407 Pa. Super. 276, 595 A.2d 1147(1991)]. 12(6):19-11.Custody–Importance of Religious Training Revisited.[In the Matter of Boylan v. Boylan, 395 Pa. Super. 380,577 A.2d 218 (1990)]. 11:178.Custody–Standard for Review is Gross Abuse ofDiscretion. [Com. ex rel. Robinson v. Robinson, 505Pa. 226, 478 A.2d 800 (1984)]. 5:591-93.Custody: Superior Court Determines Best Interests ofChild. [Fisher v. Fisher, 370 Pa. Super. 87, 535 A.2d1163 (1988)]. 9(2):13-14.Custody Agreements will not Only be Upheld WhereAll of the Terms are Known by the Litigants. [Yates v.Yates, 936 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Super 2007)]. Michele G.Bononi. 30:9-10.Custody Battle: A Mockery of the System. [Lambert v.Lambert, 409 Pa. Super. 552, 598 A.2d 561 (1991)].12(6):7-9.Custody Modification: Due Notice Required.[Choplosky v. Choplosky, 400 Pa. Super. 590, 584A.2d 340 (1990)]. 12(2):4-5.Custody Modification–The Trial Court Must Assess thePotential Harm of Disturbing Existing CustodyArrangements. [Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. Daniel G. Ronca. 27:53-54.Custody of Child Granted to Aunt Over Mother'sObjections. [Vicki N. v. Josephine N., 437 Pa. Super.166, 649 A.2d 709 (1994)]. 17(1):5-6.Custody of Child Granted to Father and Denied toGrandmother. [Dorsey v. Freeman, 438 Pa. Super. 26,652 A.2d 352 (1994)]. 17(2):6-7.Custody of Child not Factor Purposes of EquitableDistribution. [Bold v. Bold, 358 Pa. Super. 7, 516 A.2d741 (1986)]. 8:934-36.De Facto Award of Custody to Third Party Overturned.[Hockenberry v. Thompson, 428 Pa. Super. 403, 631A.2d 204 (1993)]. 14(5):5-6.Failure to Transcribe In Camera Interview of MinorChild not Fatal to Trial Court Decision When SomeFacts Were Elicited fromMultiple Other Witnesses.[N.H.M. v. P.O.T., 947 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2008)].Kim Denise Morton. 30:152-54.Father Convicted of First Degree Murder and ServingLife Term Entitled to Evaluation and Treatment toCustody Case. [Cramer v. Zgela, 969 A.2d. 621 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. Pamela L. Purdy. 31:100-1.Father Whose Parental Rights Were Terminated had no66

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTStanding to Petition for Custody. [Morgan v. Weisner,923 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Kim Denise Morton.29:85-86.Father’s Failure to Exercise Custody Does not ExcuseMother’s Failure to Follow Parties’ Custody Order.[Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 2008)].Amy J. Phillips. 30:205-8.Forum Non Conveniens Analyzed in Adoption/CustodyProceedings. [In Re:Adoption of K.S., 399 Pa. Super.29, 581 A.2d 659 (1990)]. 12(1):10-12.Grandparents have Automatic Standing to BringCustody Actions. [R.M. v. Baxter ex rel T.M., 565 Pa.619, 777 A.2d 446 (2001)]. Teri L. Henning. 23:59-60Gross Abuse of Discretion Standard Child CustodyCases Re-emphasized by Supreme Court. [Lombardo v.Lombardo, 515 Pa. 139, 527 A.2d 525 (1987)]. 9:5.Gruber Factors Applied to Intrastate CustodyRelocation Case. [Perrott v. Perrott, 713 A.2d 666 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. Michael L. Kleiman. 20:59-61.Guidelines for Relocation Custody Disputes. [Lee v.Fontine, 406 Pa. Super. 487, 594 A.2d 724 (1991)].12(4):9-10.Home State Jurisdiction in Custody Cases and Test ofSignificant Connections. [Zimbicki v. Zimbicki, 810A.2d 168 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Mark R. Galzerano. 25:7-8.Homosexuality is Relevant Factor in Custody Decision.[Constant A. v. Paul C. A., 344 Pa. Super. 49, 496 A.2d1 (1985)]. 6:748-754.In Loco Parentis Required for Standing in CustodyCases. [Argenio v. Fenton, 703 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super.1998)]. Samatha R. LeComte. 20:38-40.In Re: G.C. Focuses Attention on Standing Issues. [InInterest of G.c., 449 Pa. Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932(1996)]. Sophie P. Paul. 18(3):11-12.Inapplicability of Use of Writ of Habeas Corpus andWrit of Prohibition in Custody Case. [Mayercheck v.Wood, 526 Pa. 477, 587 A.2d 696 (1991)]. 12(3):9-10.Interim Custody Order and Status Quo not ControlSubsequent School Year School District Determination.[Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Pamela L. Purdy. 27:118-20.Lesbian Partner in Exclusive Relationship WithArtificially Inseminated Mother has Standing to BringPartial Custody Case. [T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873(Pa. Super. 2000)]. Theresa B. Male. 22:61-62.Melzer Calculation not Affected by Shared Custody.[Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super.2007)]. Julia Swain. 29:129-30.Minor’s Brother Granted Custody–Not Father–WhenMother Died. [Chambers v. Chambers, 105 PDDRR 69(Bucks County, 2005)]. Julie E. Ganz. 27:114-15.Modification of Custody Order: Must First ProveSubstantial Change in Circumstances. [Karis v. Karis,353 Pa. Super. 561, 510 A.2d 804 (1986)]. 7:900-2.Mother by Estoppel v. In Loco Parentis Status. [S.A. v.C.G.R., 856 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. CherylSattin. 27:3-4.Mother Maintained Primary Custody Despite HerPlacement of Child in Private Boarding School. [A.O.v. M.O., 856 A.2d 1204 (2004)]. Jessica A. Pritchard.26:110-11.No Presumption that Public School is Superior to HomeSchooling. [Staub v. Staub, A.2d (Pa. Super. 2008)].Gerald L. Shoemaker. 31:20-21.Non-Biological Grandparents Granted Standing inChild Custody Case. [Peters v. Costello 891 A.2d 705(Pa. Super. 2005)]. Michael E. Bertin. 28:13-15.Paren[t] Who Already Located has Burden to ShowBest Interests Of Children Served by Remaining withThat Parent. [Klos v. Klos, 934 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super2007)]. Michele G. Bononi. 29:131-32.Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act Controls InterstateCustody Case. [Skomo v. Skomo, 844 A.2d 1256 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. Elisabeth Bennington. 26:40-41.The Parenting Coordinator Cometh. [Yates v. Yates,963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. David J. Draganosky.67

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT31:15-18.Pennsylvania Superior Court Abolishes EvidentiaryPresumption Relating to Same-Sex Relationships inCustody and Affirms the Best Interest Standard.[M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010)].Carolyn R. Mirabile. 32:20-21.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Evaluates Scope ofAppellate Review as Defined by Mumma v. Mumma inCustody Cases. [Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. Super.52, 645 A.2d 836 (1994)]. 16(4):2-3.Preference of Children Dominant Factor in CustodyCase Where Parents Equally Capable and HomesEqually Suitable. [Myers v. Didomenico, 441 Pa.Super. 341, 657 A.2d 956 (1995)]. 17(3):3-4.Prospective Adoptive Parents did not have Standing toIntervene in Custody Case. [B.A. and A.A. v. E.E. v.,D. and C., 559 Pa. 545, 741 A.2d 1227 (1999)]. LindaRovder Fleming. 22:8-11.Protection of Mental Health Records as it Applies to aCustody Case in Pennsylvania. [Gates v. Gates, 967A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Elisabeth W. Molnar.31:97-99.Recent Custody Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Cox v. Cox,255 Pa. Super. 508, 388 A. 2d 1082 (1978); Sipe v.Shaffer, 261 Pa. Super. 150, 396 A. 2d 1359 (1979);Lewis v. Lewis, 267 Pa. Super. 235, 406 A.2d 781(1979); Rupp v. Rupp, 268 Pa. Super. 467, 408 A.2d883 (1979); Kimmey v. Kimmey, 269 Pa. Super. 346,409 A.2d 1178 (1979); Lewis v. Lewis, 271 Pa. Super.519, 414 A.2d 375 (1979), Crowther v. Waida, 272 Pa.Super. 73, 414 A.2d 675 (1979), Weber v. Weber, 272Pa. Super. 88, 414 A.2d 682 (1979)]. 1:1-11.Recent Custody Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Hooks v.Ellerbe, 257 Pa. Super. 219, 390 A. 2d 791 (1978);Hooks v. Ellerbe, Phil. Co., DR 2554288 (Oct. 26,1977), Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A. 2d 512(1980); Palmer v. Tokarek, 279 Pa. Super. 458, 421A.2d 289 (1980)]. 1:64-72.Religious Restriction in Custody Order Struck Down.[Zummo C. Zummo, 394 Pa. Super. 30, 574 A.2d 1130(1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:143.Right to De Novo Trial in Custody Proceeding.[Ashford v. Ashford, 395 Pa. Super. 125, 576 A.2d1076 (1990)]11:157-58.Shared Custody Act Interpreted by PennsylvaniaSupreme Court. [Karis v. Karis, 518 Pa. 601, 544 A.2d1328 (1988)]. 9(5):45-46.Shared Custody Case. [Smith v. Smith, 307 Pa. Super.544, 453 A.2d 1020 (1983)]. 4:418-22.Shared Custody–Criteria Needed to be Established.[Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 432 A.2d 63 (1982); In Re:K., 299 Pa. Super. 504, 445 A. 2d 1243 (1982)]. 3:314-18.Shared Custody Order Vacated for Infant. [Wiseman v.Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Susan N.Dobbins. 21:6-8.Shared Legal Custody: Public School Versus PrivateSchool. [Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa. Super. 321, 548 A.2d632 (1988)]. 9(5):46-47.Some Parents are not More Equal Than Others in JointCustody Arrangements.[Hill v. Hill, 422 Pa. Super.533, 619 A.2d 1086 (1993)]. 14(3):13.Statutory Standing in Grandparent Custody Cases.[Martinez v. Baxter, 725 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999)].Sally R. Miller. 21:35-36.Superior Court Addresses Interplay of PFA andCustody Order. [Dye for McCoy v. McCoy, 423 Pa.Super. 334, 621 A.2d 144 (1993)]. 14(3):6-7.Superior Court Applies “Specific Harm” Standard toPrevent Mother’s Request to Baptize Child. [Hicks v.Hicks, 868 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Alan J.Fuehrer. 27:54-55.Superior Court Confirms Custody of 15-year-old Girl inAunt, With Whom She has Resided for Three Years,Despite the Claim of Her Mother, a Recovered Addict.[Cardamone v. Elshoff, 442 Pa. Super. 263, 659 A.2d575 (1995)]. 17(4):2-3.Superior Court Grants Standing to a Lesbian Partner to68

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTSeek Partial Custody. [J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa. Super.78, 682 A.2d 1314 (1996)]. Bernard D. Faigenbaum.18(4):3-6.Superior Court Offended by Abuse of Discretion inCarbon County Court of Common Pleas and OverturnsAward of Custody to Father. [Wiskoski v. Wiskoski,427 Pa. Super. 531, 629 A.2d 996 (1993)]. 14(5):9-12.Superior Court Remands Custody Case, Based onInsufficiency of Trial Court's Opinion, in Light ofMother's Status as Illegal Alien and Alleged Failure toProperly Supervise. [Alfred v. Braxton, 442 Pa. Super.381, 659 A.2d 1040 (1995)]. 17(5):6-7.Superior Court Rules that Binding Arbitration Provisionin Custody Cases not Automatically Enforceable.[Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa. Super. 162, 620 A.2d 11611993)]. 14(3):2-3.Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's Order AwardingShared Legal and Primary Physical Custody of Child toGrandfather. [R.A.R. & M. E.R. v. T.M. & R.E.R., 434Pa. Super. 592, 644 A.2d 767(1994)]. 16(4):3-4.Supreme Court Discusses Important Custody Factors.[In Re: Davis, 502 Pa. 110, 465 A.2d 614 (1983)].4:493-502.Supreme Court Reaffirmed Third Party Burden inCustody Case Against Parent. [Charles v. Stehlik, 560Pa. 334, 744 A.2d 1255 (2000)]. Stephanie H.Winegrad. 22:33-34.Taking a "Fifth" in a Car Overrides Father's "Taking theFifth" in Custody Hearing, Divided Panel Declares.[Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa. Super. 450, 625 A.2d 692(1993)]. 14(4):8-10.Testamentary Appointment of a Guardian for a MinorChild is Controlling and not Merely Directory. [In re:Slaughter, 738 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. James G.Keenan. 22:5-7.A Thin Line Distinguishing Billhime: What ConstitutesEnough Evidence to Establish a Child’s “SignificantConnection” with Pennsylvania to Maintain JurisdictionOver a Custody Matter? [Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Joanna K. Conmy.32:141-44.Third Parties may be on Equal Footing, but Do TheyHave Equal Standing? [In Re: G.C., 449 Pa. Super.258, 673 A.2d 932 (1996)]. David L. Ladov. 18(3):8-11.Third Parties Now on Equal Footing in CustodyCases–Supreme Court Apparently OverrulesPresumption in Favor of Parents. [Rowles v. Rowles,542 Pa. Super. 443, 668 A.2d. 126 (1995)]. David L.Ladov. 18(1):6-7.Third Party Standing Clarified in Child Custody Cases.[Gradwell v. Strausser, 416 Pa. Super. 118, 610 A.2d999 (1992)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 13(3):2.Transfer of Primary Custody as a Sanction forContempt of a Custody Order without a PendingPetition For Modification and Hearing Thereon is notPermitted. [Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303(Pa. Super. 2002)]. Stephanie H. Winegard. 24:38-39.Trial Court did not Improperly Modify Custody Orderin Contempt Proceeding by Failing to Impose Sanctionof Return of Child to Jurisdiction, but Failure to Imposeany Sanctions for Contempt and PronouncementRegarding Future Jurisdiction Constituted Errors.[Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009)].Cheryl B. Krentzman. 32:9-12.Trial Court may not Infuse Personal Beliefs OpposingShared Physical Custody. [B.C.S. v. J.A.S., 994 A.2d600 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Donna McKillop. 32:137-38.Trial Court Must Appoint a Qualified Professional toProvide Counselling to Parent Who has been Convictedof Certain Crimes and Must Hear fromThatProfessional at the Time of Trial. [Ramer v. Ramer, 914A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr.29:20-21.Trial Court Reversed for Failure to Apply ImportantChild Custody Procedures. [Cyran v. Cyran, 389 Pa.Super. 128, 566 A.2d 878 (1989)]. Emanuel A. Bertin.11:134-35.Two Cases on Standing: Case 1: Third Party AssertingPaternity has No Standing in a Partial Custody CaseAgainst an Intact Family Unit. [CW v. LV and GV, 788A.2d 1002 (Pa. Super. 2001)]; Case 2: Former Same-Sex Partner has Standing in Partial Custody Case. [T.B.69

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTv. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa.2001)]. Michael E. Bertin.24:4-5.Two Fit Parents vs. Best Interest of Child: OpposingAttorney in Quasi Judicial Role. [Songster v. Mumma,380 Pa. Super. 18, 550 A.2d 1341 (1988)]. 10:66-67.Weighing Substance Abuse and Sexual Preference inDetermining Parental Fitness. [Barron v. Barron, 406Pa. Super. 401, 594 A.2d 682 (1991)]. 12(5):7.When can Putative Father Claim Custody Rights toChild Born While Mother is Married to Another Man?[Dettinger v. McCleary, 438 Pa. Super. 300, 652 A.2d383 (1994)]. 17(2):3-5.When is a Custody Order Final and Appealable? notWhen it is an Interim Order Intended to bean InterimMeasure–"Complete Resolution Test." [G.B. v.M.M.B., 448 Pa. Super. 133, 670 A.2d 714 (1996)].Steven B. Schwartz. 18(2):4-5.CUSTODY–RELOCATIONBest Interest of the Child Paramount in Denial ofIntrastate Relocation Petition. [Speck v. Spadafore, 895A.2d. 606 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 28:98-99.Best Interests Control in Custody Relocation Cases.[Tripathi v. Tripathi, 787 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2001)].Sally R. Miller. 24:39-40.Custody Relocation Standard Prior to Initial CustodyOrder. [Marshall v. Marshall, 814 A.2d 1226 (Pa.Super. 2002)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25:4-5.Gruber Analysis Applied to Inter-County Case.[Bednarek v. Velazquez, 830 A.2d 1267 (PaSuper.2003)]. David S. Pollock. 25:99-100.Gruber Applied to Shared Custody Case a Componentof Best Interests. [Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206(Pa. Super. 1999)]. Cheryl L. Young. 21:119-20.Gruber Factors are Only a Part of a Best InterestAnalysis When Court Makes Initial CustodyDetermination in a Relocation Situation. [Hurley v.Hurley, 754 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Candice L.Komar. 22:62-63.Gruber Test not Controlling Where Children RelocatedPursuant To Earlier Order. [R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Elizabeth H. Cepparulo.32:22-23.In Custody Relocation Cases, When can the CourtAssign an Earning Capacity for Purposes ofDetermining Economic Benefit to the Child? [Hogreliusv. Martin, 950 A.2d 345 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. JenniferZofcin. 30:156-57.Parent Who Already Located has Burden to Show BestInterests of Children Served by Remaining With ThatParent. [Klos v. Klos, 934 A2.d 724 (Pa. Super. 2007)].Michael G. Bononi. 29:131-32.Sunny Florida: Relocation Granted. [Billhime v.Billhime, 869 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. MichaelE. Bertin. 27:59-61.Superior Court Reaffirms Trial Court’s Discretion toApply Gruber to Intrastate Relocations, Reject theRecommendation of a Custody Evaluator, and Increasethe Custodial Time of the Non-Petitioning Parent.[Masser v. Miller, 909 A.2d 846 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Cheryl B. Krentzman. 29:15-17.Superior Court Says No to Netherlands ChildRelocation Request. [Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 906 A.2d1198 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:6-8.CUSTODY–UCCJAContinuing Jurisdiction–“The Significant ConnectionsAnalysis”. [Kriebel v. Kriebel, 766 A.2d 854 (Pa.Super. 2000) and Favacchia v. Favacchia, 769 A.2d 531(Pa. Super 2001)]. Richard I. Moore. 23:38-39.Is “Home State” Under the UCCJEA Decided byWhich Judge Speaks First During a Two-State JudicialTelephone Conference? [Bouzos-Reilly v. Reilly 980A.2d. 643 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Melanie S. Rothey.31:164-65.Interplay: PKPA and UCCJA. [Barndt v. Barndt, 397Pa. Super. 321, 580 A.2d 320 (1990)]. 11:185-87.Danger to Children Permits Exercise of JurisdictionUnder UCCJA Despite Pending Out-of-state Action.[Baines v. Williams, 431 Pa. Super. 72, 635 A.2d 107770

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT(1993)]. 15(2):11-12.Lower Court Reversed for Failure to RelinquishJurisdiction Pursuant to UCCJEA: Remand forConsideration of §5422(B). [Billhime v. Billhime, 952A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Angelica L. Revelant.30:158.PA Child Custody Jurisdiction Lost Despite ParentRemaining in PA. [Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174(Pa. Super. 2008)]. Michael E. Bertin. 31:95-96.Parties Residency at Time of Filing Custody ComplaintGoverns Exercise of UCCJA Jurisdiction. [Simpkins v.Disney, 416 Pa. Super. 243, 610 A.2d 1062 (1992)].13(5):6-7.Recent UCCJA Decisions Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Wenz v.Schwartze, 598 P.2d 1086 (Mont. (1979), Cert. Den'd100 S.Ct. 1015 (1980); Zaubi v. Zaubi, Appeal ofHojme, 530 Pa. 831, 423 A.2d 333 (1980); Havice v.Havice, 15 D.&C.3d 450 (Snyder Co., 1980); J.C.S. v.D.M.S. and D.D., 227 Pa. Super. 612, 419 A.2d 1319(1980)]. 1:46-57.Recent UCCJA Decisions Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Warman v.Warman, 294 Pa. Super. 285, 439 A.2d 1203 (1982);Hattoum v. Hattoum, 295 Pa. Super. 169, 441 A. 2d403 (1982); Melzer v. Witsberger, 299 Pa. Super. 153,445 A.2d 499 3 (1982)]. 3:278-87.Superior Court Affirms Decision to Decline JurisdictionUnder UCCJEA After Full Custody Hearing WhereOne Parent Remains in Jurisdiction and UnderlyingCustody Order Ostensibly Retains Jurisdiction. [A.D. v.M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Ann M.Funge. 32:68-70.DEPENDENCYCustody Action Filed While Juvenile Proceedings arePending is an Unwarranted Waste of JudicialResources. [P.T. & K.T. v. M.H., 953 A.2d 814 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. Elizabeth J. McCall. 31:6-7.Dependency by Omission: Trial Court’s Finding Thata Child is Without Proper Parental Care Supports anAdjudication of Dependency. [In Re: R.P., 2008 Pa.Super. 196 (August 21, 2008), 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. Christina M. DeMatteo. 30:213-15.Sexual Abuser Appeals Dependency Adjudication ofHis Paramour's Children. [In the Interest of :C.L., P.G.,Appeal of Pierson, 436 Pa. Super. 630, 648 A.2d 799(1994))]. 16(5):11-12.Superior Court Analyzes "Best Interests" and "ClearNecessity" Standards in Separating Dependant Childrenfrom Their Natural Parents. [In the Interests Of: S.S.;Appeal Of: Steven S. and Lori S., Natural Parents, 438Pa. Super. 62, 651 A.2d 174 (1994)]. 17(2):7-8.Unless a Child is Lacking Proper Parental Care andControl, He or She Cannot be Adjudicated Dependent.[In re Jeffrey S., Justin S. Jordon S. and Joy S., 427 Pa.Super. 79, 628 A.2d 439 (1993)]. 14(4):6-7.DISCOVERYCourts Imposes Sanctions for Failure to Comply WithDiscovery. [Scott v. Scott, 190 N. J. Super. 189, 462A.2d 614 (1983)]. 4:502-503.Discovery in Family Law Cases the Last of the PerryMason Courts. [Com. ex rel. Swank v. Swank, 266 Pa.Super. 94, 403 A. 2d 109 (1979); Drummond v.Drummond, Montg. Co., Equity 28, April Term 1960(1979); McCann v. McCann, 19 D.&C.3d 234 (ChesterCo. 1981); Roussos v. Roussos, 7 Family L. R. 2157(1981)]. 2:138-50.DIVORCEAncillary Appeals: Divorce Decree Reinstated. [Rosenv. Rosen, 520 Pa. 19, 549 A.2d 561 (1988)]. 9:44-45.Bill of Particulars does not Apply to No-Fault Divorce.[Jakstys v. Jakstys, 326 Pa. Super. 367, 474 A.2d 45(1984)]. 5:608-9.The Broad Discretion of the Court to EffectuateEconomic Justice Meant the Court Could Appoint anEquitable Distribution Master Within 30 Days of theFinal Decree Despite the Lack of a Properly RaisedClaim. [Lowers v. Lowers, 911 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super.2006)]. Kimberly Litzke. 29:12-13.Closure of Divorce Proceedings. [Katz v. Katz, 356 Pa.71

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTSuper. 461, 514 A.2d 1374 (1986)]. 7:912-16.Commencement of Second Divorce Action in AnotherCounty Violative of Spirit of Divorce Code. [Gantz v.Gantz, 338 Pa. Super. 528, 448 A.2d 17 (1985)]. 6:696-97.Court May Consider Fault Grounds, Even When No-Fault Grounds Have Been Established. [Restifo v.Restifo, 339 Pa. Super. 352, 489 A.2d 196 (1985)].6:675-76.Court Sets Aside Divorce Due to Wife's Failure toFollow Rules of Procedure. [Crookes v. Crookes, 346Pa. Super. 315, 499 A.2d 626 (1985)]. 6:781-83.Court Sets Forth Procedures to be Followed After Entryof a Divorce Decree and Equitable Distribution Order.[Colagioia v. Colagioia, 362 Pa. Super. 213, 523 A.2d1158 (1987)]. 8:959-60.Court's Ignoring a Petition for Reconsideration Doesn'tMake Wife less "Appealing" on Merits. [Waddingtonv. Waddington, 425 Pa. Super. 241, 624 A.2d 657(1993)]. 14(4):10-11.Death Prevents Entry of Posthumous Divorce DecreeEven Though Equitable Distribution Proceeds. [Yelenicv. Clark, 922 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Stephanie L.Jablon. 29:53-54.Decree Entered Prior to Code Cannot be Affected byCode. [Ewiak v. Ewiak, 328 Pa. Super. 83, 476 A.2d464 (1984)]. 5:602.Divorce Decree does not Automatically TerminateRight of Party as Beneficiary. [Stowell v. Stowell, 3dCir., No. 84-1037 (Oct. 26, 1984)]. 5:656-58.Divorce Decree Insufficient to Divest Beneficiary ofERISA Pension Plan in Absence of Change ofBeneficiary According to Plan Documents. [Kennedy,Executrix of the Estate of Kennedy, Deceased v. PlanAdministrator for Dupont Savings and Investment Planet al. 129 S. Ct. 865(2009)]. Caren E. Morrisey. 31:4-5.Enforceability of Agreement Incorporated into DivorceDecree. [Kasloff v. Kasloff, Montg. Co., 81-5390,Equity (1982)]. 4:401-3.Equitable Powers of the Court to Modify an EquitableDistribution Order More Than 30 Days Following theEntry of a Divorce Decree. [Johnson v. Johnson, 864A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Stephanie H. Winegard.27:51-52.Extrinsic Fraud: Petition to Vacate Divorce Decree.[Foley v. Foley, 392 Pa. Super. 9, 572 A.2d 6 (1990)].11:144-45.Failure to Inform Employer RE: Divorce SubjectsEmployee to Liability for Post-Divorce Health BenefitsPaid when No Health Insurance Premiums Paid.[Trustees of the AFTRA Health Fund v. Biondi, 303thF.2d 765 (7 Cir. 2002)]. David I. Grunfeld. 24:106.Marry at Haste, Divorce from Previous MarriageSpouse at Leisure? Second Marriage Still Valid.[Covington v. Covington, 421 Pa. Super. 328, 617 A.2d1318 (1992)]. 14(3):9-10.Mutual Mistake of Fact Won't Invalidate DivorceDecree. [Holteen v. Holteen, 413 Pa. Super. 591, 605A.2d 1275 (1992)]. 13(3):7.Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure–Should TheyBeApplied Rigidly? [Kurtas v. Kurtas, 521 Pa. 105,555 A.2d 804 (1989)]. 10(2):78-79.Procedural Due Process Rights Cannot Succumb to theEquitable Aims of the Divorce Code. [Mayer v.Garman, 590 Pa. 268, 912 A.2d 762 ( 2006)]. Darren J.Holst. 28:100-2.Sensitivity is Paramount in Fight Over Child’s Remains.[Kulp v. Kulp, 920 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. 2007)].Michael E. Bertin. 29:49-51.Superior Court Criticizes Local Procedure andRemands for Factual Determination of Due ProcessConcerns. [Reimer v. Reimer, 442 Pa. Super. 689, 660A.2d 663 (1995)]. 17(3):6.Timing of Special Relief Motion. [Reese v. Reese, 406Pa. Super. 214, 593 A.2d 1312 (1991)]. 12(6):5.Validity of Third Party's Intervention in DivorceProceedings. [Luiziaga v. Psolka, 432 Pa. Super. 26,637 A.2d 645 (1994)]. 15(2):5-6.72

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTWithdrawal of Affidavit of Consent Prior to Entry ofDivorce Decree is Permissible. [Berman v. Berman, 4A.C.D.D. 102 (1983)]. 4:450-51.DIVORCE–ACTIONS IN MORE THANONE COUNTYDivorce–Simultaneous Actions in Two Counties. [Bemv. Bem, 30 Chester Co. Rep. 276 (1982)]. 3:340Divorce–Two Cases can be Pending in Two Countiesuntil Appellate Courts Rule Otherwise. [Ravetz v.Ravetz, Montg. Co., No. 80-10116 (1981)]. 2:186-87.DIVORCE-ALIMONYAlimony–Husband Ordered to Pay Wife Alimony forIndefinite Period of Time. [Orange v. Orange,Westmoreland Co., 5949 Civil 1980 (1981)]. 2:205-6.Alimony–Provisions of §501 are to be Read inConjunction With One Another. [Hess v. Hess, 327 Pa.Super. 279, 475 A.2d 796 (1984)]. 5:576-579.Alimony–Section 501 Provisions to be Read inConjunction With One Another. [Bickley v. Bickley,301 Pa. Super. 396, 447 A.2d 1025 (1982)]. 3:302-6.Alimony Award and Standard of Living. [Edelstein v.Edelstein, 399 Pa. Super. 536, 582 A.2d 1074 (1990)].12(1):2.Alimony Award Upheld to Effectuate 50-50 EquitableDistribution Split. [Uhler v. Uhler, 406 Pa. Super. 414,594 A.2d 688 (1991)]. 12(5):5.Alimony in Accordance With Standard of Living.[Kutzer v. Kutzer, Montg. Co., No. 79-396 (1982)].3:262-65.Alimony Modification Due to Voluntary Retirement.[McFadden v. McFadden, 386 Pa. Super. 506, 563A.2d 180 (1989)]. 10(4):111-12.Alimony not Terminable for Same-Sex Cohabitation.[Kripp v. Kripp, 784 A.2d 158 (Pa. Super 2001)].Gerald J. Schorr. 24:6-8.Alimony Provisions in Separation Agreement Reducedto Court Order are Non-Modifiable. [Blackson v.Blackson, Mercer Co., 39 EQ. 1978 (1981)]. 3:341-42.Alimony vs. Property Settlement Payable inInstallments. [Goninen, Jr. v. Commissioner, 47 TCM49,698 (1983) and Lewis v. Commissioner, 47 TCM49,699 (1983)]. 5:528.Child's Illness Warrants Continuation of Alimony toMother. [Soncini v. Soncini, 417 Pa. Super. 393, 612A.2d 998 (1992)]. 13(4):6-7.Court Awards Wife Alimony of Unlimited Duration.[Pacella v. Pacella, 342 Pa. Super. 178, 492 A.2d 707(1985)]. 7:835-37.Court Awards Wife Permanent Alimony. [Pacella v.Pacella, Allegh. Co., No 517 of 1979 (1982)]. 4:441-44.Court Cannot Dismiss Divorce Complaint Sua SponteWithout Affording Plaintiff Prior Notice. [Hoffman v.Hoffman, 350 Pa. Super. 1280, 504 A.2d 356(1986)]7:838.Court Vacates Divorce Decree upon Finding ExtrinsicFraud. [Fenstermaker v. Fenstermaker, 348 Pa. Super.237, 502 A.2d 185 (1985)]. 7:813-16.Courts Have Equitable Powers Under Section 401(c) toAward Reimbursement Alimony. [Lehmicke v.Lehmicke, 339 Pa. Super. 559, 489 A.2d 782 (1985)].6:692-96.Effect of Cohabitation on Alimony Agreement.[Vankirk v. Vankirk, 336 Pa. Super. 502, 485 A.2d1194 (1984)]. 5:654-55.Entrepreneur Wife too Active for Permanent Alimony.[O'callaghan v. O'callaghan, 530 Pa. Super. 176, 607A.2d 735 (1992)]. 13(4):8.Entry of Divorce Decree Prerequisite to AncillaryRelief Order. [Dech v. Dech, 342 Pa. Super. 17, 492A.2d 41 (1985)]. 7:803-4.The 50/50 Starting Point. [Labuda v. Labuda, 349 Pa.Super. 524, 503 A.2d 971 (1986)]7:808-10.Garnish Gross, not Net, Wages for Alimony Arrearages,Superior Court Declares. [Goodstein v. Goodstein, 42273

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTPa. Super. 331, 619 A.2d 703 (1992)]. 14(2):6-8.Gates V. Gates: Alimony Award Linked toEmancipation of Child Improper. [Gates v. Gates, 933A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Aaron P. Asher. 29:127-28.Judge Calls for Legislature to Clarify Guidelines ofAlimony Awards. [Peterson v. Peterson, 427 Pa. Super.572, 629 A.2d 1017 (1993)]. 14(5):2-3.Letter Asking Parents for Wife's Hand does notTranslate to Indefinite Handout of Alimony. [Viles v.Viles, 416 Pa. Super. 95, 610 A.2d 988 (1991)].13(4):4-6.Only Plaintiff in Fault Divorce can Move for Entry ofDivorce Decree. [Laxton v. Laxton, 345 Pa. Super. 450,498 A.2d 909 (1985)]. 7:840-41.Order Denying or Granting Interim Relief is a Final andAppealable Order. [Sutliff v. Sutliff, 326 Pa. Super.496, 474 A.2d 599 (1984)]. 5:564-67.Payments in Lieu of Property Distribution are notAlimony, Supreme Court Rules. [Zullo v. Zullo, 531Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992)]. 13(6):10-11.Pennsylvania has Jurisdiction to Hear Economic Issues,Even Though Parties are Divorced in South Carolina.[Cheng v. Cheng, 347 Pa. Super. 515, 500 A.2d 1175(1985)]. 7:832-35.Property Received as Part of Equitable Distribution isa Relevant Factor in Determining Whether AlimonyShould be Awarded. [Geyer v. Geyer, 310 Pa. Super.456, 456 A.2d 1025 (1983)]. 4:405-7.Satisfaction of Proven Reasonable Needs, notEqualization of Income, Is Polestar for DeterminingMonthly Alimony Amount. [Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Darren J. Holst. 29:51-52.Superior Court Approves Entry of Alimony OrderBased on Pennsylvania Agreement, Many YearsFollowing Final Divorce Decree in a Jurisdiction notPermitting Alimony. [Polito v. Polito, 440 Pa. Super.328, 655 A.2d 587 (1995)]. 17(3):7.Termination of Relationship With Paramour Prior toTrial will not Preclude Finding of Cohabitation. [Moranv. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. MargaretLucas. 26:6-7.Test for Reimbursement Alimony/Equity: UnjustEnrichment. [Bold v. Bold, 374 Pa. Super. 317, 542A.2d 1374 (1988)]. 9:21-22.Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Denying WifeAlimony. [Eck v. Eck, 327 Pa. Super. 334, 475 A.2d825 (1984)]. 5:606-7.Wife's Remarriage Doesn't Terminate Agreed-uponAlimony Absence Express Cut-off Date. [McMahon v.McMahon, 417 Pa. Super. 592, 612 A.2d 1360 (1992)].13(5):4-6.Workers’ Compensation Award held in Escrow to PayAlimony. [Dudas v. Pietrzykowski, 813 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2002)]. Jennifer M. McEnroe. 25:10-12.DIVORCE–ALIMONY PENDENTE LITEAlimony Pendente Lite. [Mckelvey v. Mckelvey, 16D.&C.3d 611 (Armstrong Co. 1980); Thoma v. Thoma,284 Pa. Super. 249, 425 A.2d 797 (1981)]. 2:132-34Alimony Pendente Lite and Support–Court Rules Partymay Maintain Actions for Both. [Remick v. Remick,310 Pa. Super. 23, 456 A.2d 163 (1983)]. 4:429-432Alimony Pendente Lite Case. [Sands v. Sands, 112Montg. Co. L. Rep. 287 (1983)]. 4:469-71.Appeal from Order Granting or Denying Interim ReliefStays All Proceedings. [Prozzoly v. Prozzoly, 327 Pa.Super. 326, 475 A.2d 820 (1984)]. 5:579-81.Appeal of Distribution Order Doesn't Entitle Spouse toAlimony Pendente Lite. [Spink v. Spink, 422 Pa. Super.126, 619 A.2d 277 (1992)]. 14(2):5-6.Court Analyzes Tax Benefits in Determining True Costof Alimony Pendente Lite to Payor. [Hovis v. Hovis, 6A.C.D.D. 197 (1984)]. 5:619-21.Court Sets Forth Factors to be Used in Making AlimonyPendente Lite Award. [Orr v. Orr, 110 Montg. Co. L.Rep. 273 (1982)]. 3:298-300.74

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTDistinction Between Spousal Support and AlimonyPendente Lite. [Horn v. Horn, 388 Pa. Super. 46, 564A.2d 995 (1989)]. 10:123.Even Non-Dependent Spouses May Receive AlimonyPendente Lite to Defray Costs of Maintaining DivorceAction. [Powers v. Powers, 419 Pa. Super. 464, 615A.2d 459 (1992)]. 14(1):6.Marital Misconduct not a Bar to a Bar to AlimonyPendente Lite. [Siciliano v. Siciliano, 3 A.C.D.D. 72(1982)]. 3:334-35.Parties can Obtain Both Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport. [Com. ex rel. Homsher v. Homsher, 289 Pa.Super. 112, 432 A.2d 1076 (1981)]. 2:197.Parties' Separate Estate does not Prevent Party fromReceiving Alimony Pendente Lite. [Orr v. Orr, 315 Pa.Super. 168, 461 A.2d 850 (1983)]. 4:466-67.Prenuptial Agreement: Express Waiver of Alimony orSupport does not Constitute Waiver of AlimonyPendente Lite. [Musko v. Musko, 447 Pa. Super. 150,668 A.2d 561 (1995)]. David L. Ladov. 18(1):20.Retroactivity of APL and Child Support Orders Prior toFiling is Gaining Momentum: Standard of Review onAppeal Heightening. [Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d221 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Rochelle B. Grossman. 21:37-38.Temporary Award of Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport is not Appealable. [Lowenschuss v.Lowenschuss, Montg. Co., No. 81-17813 (1982)].3:310.DIVORCE–APPLICATION TO PROCEEDApplication to Proceed Under New Code–To Give NoRecognition to a Counterclaim Filed Prior to the Entryof a Divorce Decree Gives to the Opposing Party aWindfall that has No Relationship to the Goals andObjectives of the 1980 Code. [Conley v. Conley, 1A.C.D.D. 162 (Allegh. 1981); Newby v. Newby,Mercer Co., No. 1135 C.d. 1980 (1981)]. 2:190-94.DIVORCE–BANKRUPTCY ACTIONSEffect of Bankruptcy Action on Divorce Proceeding.[In re Murray v. Murray and Ganz, 31 B.R. 499(1983)]. 4:473.When Bankruptcy and Divorce Coincide EsoteriaPrevails. [Cohen v. Goldberg, 695 A.2d 806 (Pa. Super.1997)]. 19:54-55.DIVORCE–BIFURCATIONA Bifurcated Divorce Case and the Entry of the DivorceDecree does not Terminate Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport. [Klein v. Klein, 1 A.C.D.D. 205 (Allegh. Co.1980)]. 2:183-84.Bifurcated Divorce Decree is a Final Appealable Order.[Curran v. Curran, 446 Pa. Super. 633, 667 A.2d 1155(1995)]. David S. Pollock. 18(2):6-7Bifurcation Under the New Divorce Code–Yes or No.[[Simpkins v. Dodolak, Clearfield Co., 79-751-cd(1980)]. 2:131.Case Law on Bifurcation Under the New Divorce Code.[Casey v. Casey, 1 A.C.D.D. 14 18 D.&C.3d 24 (1980);Tose v. Tose, 63 Del. Co. R. 309 (1981); Smolinsky v.Smolinsky, Philadelphia Co., Family Div., No. 3347Aug. 1980 (1981); Carney v. Carney, Erie Co., Civ.Div. No. 8420-a 1980 (1981)]. 2:166-71.Decision to Bifurcate Based on Review of Facts. [Wolkv. Wolk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 464 A.2d 1359]. 4:460-62.Decision to Bifurcate is Discretionary. [Hall v. Hall,333 Pa. Super. 483, 482 A.2d 974 (1984)]. 5:650-52.The Decision to Bifurcate is Within the Decision of theCourt. [Tose v. Tose, 297 Pa. Super. 592, 441 A.2d 7901 (1982)]. 3:257-58.Effect of Death on Bifurcated Divorce. [Delehanty v.Wozman, 7 A.C.D.D. 141, 133 P.L.J. 263(1985)].6:743-44.First Impression: Bifurcation Under the AmendedDivorce Code. [Bonawits v. Bonawits, 907 A.2d 611(Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:98-100.Inmate's Right to Attend Bifurcation Hearing. [Salemov. Salemo, 381 Pa. Super. 632, 554 A.2d 563 (1989)].75

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT10(2):80-81.Order Denying Petition to Bifurcate is Neither FinalNor Appealable. [Beasley v. Beasley, 384 Pa. Super.124, 501 A.2d 679 (1985)]7:839.Order Granting Bifurcation Petition is not Final andAppealable. [Mandia v. Mandia, 341 Pa. Super. 116,491 A.2d 177 (1985) ]. 6:779-81.Trial Courts Must Put Reasons for Bifurcation ofDivorce Cases on the Record. [Lambert v. Lambert,422 Pa. Super. 444, 619 A.2d 761 (1993)]. 14(3):11-12.Trial Court Must Set Forth Rationale for Bifurcation onthe Record Prior to the Entry of a Decree in Divorce.[Brian v. Brian, 872 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Benjamin E. Orsatti. 27:62.DIVORCE–COHABITATIONBifurcation of Divorce Upheld–Trial Court ProperlyEngaged in a Systematic and On-The-Record Inquiry atHearing. [Savage v. Savage, 736 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super.1999)]. Julie K. Freeman. 21:116-18.Court Defines "Cohabitation.". [Soby v. Soby, 113Montg. Co. L. Rep. 406 (1983)]. 5:596-97.Court Defines Cohabitation for Purposes of §507.[Miller v. Miller, 353 Pa. Super. 194, 509 A.2d 291(1986)]. 7:856-58.Effect of Cohabitation on Alimony Agreement.[Vankirk v. Vankirk, 336 Pa. Super. 502, 485 A.2d1194 (1984)]. 5:654-55.DIVORCE–CONSTITUTIONALITYA Challenge to the Constitutionality of the 1980Divorce Code. [Nuttall v. Nuttall, 386 Pa. Super. 148,562 A.2d 841 (1989)]. 10:126-27.DIVORCE–DEATH OF PARTYAbatement of Divorce Action on Death. [Myers v.Myers, 379 Pa. Super. 450, 580 A.2d 384 (1990)].11:197.Alimony Terminates upon Obligated Party's Death.[Chaney v. Chaney, 343 Pa. Super. 77, 493 A.2d 1382(1985)]. 6:740-43.Death Abates Equitable Distribution Proceedings.[Geraghty v. Geraghty, 411 Pa. Super. 53, 600 A.2d1261 (1991)]. 13(1):3-4.Death of Parties Abates Claim for EquitableDistribution. [Drumheller v. Marcello, 351 Pa. Super.139, 505 A.2d 305 (1986)]. 7:860-61.Death Penalty in a Divorce Proceeding Abates Action.[Haviland v. Haviland, 481 A.2d 1355 (1984)]. 5:652-53.Effect of Death of Party on a Divorce Action. [Chappellv. Chappell, 21 D.&C.3d 44 (1981)]. 3:342-43.Effect of Death on Bifurcated Divorce. [Delehanty v.Wozman, 7 A.C.D.D. 141, 133 P.L.J. 263 (1985) ].6:743-44.Effect of Divorced Party's Death on AncillaryClaims–the Action Lives On. [Pastuszek v. Pastuszek,346 Pa. Super. 416, 499 A.2d 1069 (1985)]. 6:777-79.Effect of Party's Death on Pre-Divorce EquitableDistribution. [Reese v. Reese Pa. Super. 351 Pa. Super.521, 506 A.2d 471 (1986)]. 7:847-49.Pennsylvania’s Beneficiary Re-DesignationStatute–Does ERISA Preempt? [In Re Estate of Paul J.Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. SariniaM. Feinman. 31:91-92.DIVORCE–DOMICILEChange in Domicile Must be Proven by Clear andConvincing Evidence. [Bell v. Bell, 326 Pa. Super. 237,473 A.2d 1069 (1984)]. 5:555-59.Domicile Governs Divorce Jurisdiction. [Sinha v.Sinha, 834 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 2003)]. Kate E.McDonnell. 26:43-44.Person May Only Have One "Bona Fide" Residence orDomicile. [Stipp v. Stipp, 31 Chester Co. L. R. 172(1983)]. 4:483-84.76

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTDIVORCE–FOREIGN DECREEEnforcement of Foreign Decree in Pennsylvania.[Kramer v. Kramer, 21 D.&C.3d 94 (Lehigh, 1981)].3:323-24.Husband Estopped from Asserting Invalidity of ForeignDivorce Decree. [Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 396Pa. Super. 531, 579 A.2d 377 (1990)]. Emanuel A.Bertin. 11:154-55.Jurisdiction of Pennsylvania Courts Extended OverNon-Resident Defendants. [Messa v. Messa, 110Montg. Co. L. Rep. 192 (1981)]. 3:327-31.Section 505 Applies Only to Foreign ex Parte Divorces.[Sohmer v. Sohmer, 318 Pa. Super. 500, 465 A.2d 665(1983)]. 4:465-66.State Court has Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Alienin Divorce Action. [Sinha v. Sinha, 341 Pa. Super. 440,491 A.2d 1399 (1985)]. 6:764-67.Superior Court Approves Entry of Alimony OrderBased on Pennsylvania Agreement, Many YearsFollowing Final Divorce Decree in a Jurisdiction notPermitting Alimony. [Polito v. Polito, 440 Pa. Super.328, 655 A.2d 587 (1995)]. 17(3):7.DIVORCE–GROUNDS201(d) Divorce–Separation Must be Related to MaritalDiscord. [Spitzkopf v. Spitzkopf, 3 A.C.D.D. 42(1982)]. 3:337-38.Defendants are not Required to Execute §201(c)Affidavit of Consents Against Will. [Hulek v. Hulek, 6A.C.D.D. 294 (1984)]. 6:699.Given a Conflict Between a Fault and No-Fault Ground,No-Fault Will Prevail. [Barbara B. S. v. S. Allen S.,Allegh. Co., 876 Oct. 1977 (1982)]. 3:273-74 .Heart Balm Act Held Inapplicable to Causes of Actionfor Fraud and Negligent Representation, Arising out ofa Bigamous Marriage. [Lampus v. Lampus, 541 Pa. 67,660 A.2d 1308 (1995)]. 17(5):6.The "I's" Have It: Infidelity, Insufficient to Invalidate,Indignities to the "Injured and Innocent". [Schuback v.Schuback, 412 Pa. Super. 233, 603 A.2d 194 (1992)].13(3):6-7.The Meaning of the 1988 Divorce Code AmendmentsClarified. [Woodings v. Woodings, 411 Pa. Super. 406,601 A.2d 854 (1992)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 13(1):2.Section 201(d) Divorce–Court Need not Give PartyNotice Before Entering Divorce Decree. [Kopf v. Kopf,2 A.C.D.D. 87(1982)]. 3:322-23.The Test for Innocent and Injured Spouse. [Hunsingerv. Hunsinger, 381 Pa. Super. 453, 554 A.2d 89 (1989)].10(2):81-82.DIVORCE–INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCase Law on the Availability of Injunctive Relief Underthe New Divorce Code. [Holub v. Holub, 1 A.C.D.D.31 (Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:172-76.Injunctive Relief Under Section 401(c) of the DivorceCod. [Lazovitz v. Lazovitz, 307 Pa. Super. 341, 453A.2d 615 (1982)]. 4:391-93.DIVORCE–MARITAL PROPERTYBonds Purchased with Proceeds from Sale of GiftBecome Marital Property When Placed in Joint Names.[Madden v. Madden, 336 Pa. Super. 552, 486 A.2d 951(1984) 6:673-75.Constructive Trust May Attach to Non-DisclosedMarital Assets Regardless of Withholder's Intent.[Creeks v. Creeks, 422 Pa. Super. 432, 619 A.2d 754(1993)]. 14(3):8-9.Court Creates Constructive Trust. [Brasile v. Estate ofLouis Brasile, 354 Pa. Super. 400, 512 A.2d 10(1986)]. 7:877-78.Court Finds Mortgage Payments Together WithResulting Appreciation on Pre-Owned Property isMarital. [Ball v. Ball, 5 A.C.D.D. 174 (1983)]. 4:512-14.Division of Marital Property: Factors Considered.[Powell v. Powell, 395 Pa. Super. 345, 577 A.2d 576(1990)]. 11:171-73.77

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTEquitable Distribution Case-date of Valuation andClassification as Martial Property. [Diamond v.Diamond, 360 Pa. Super. 101, 519 A.2d 1012 (1987)].8:980-84.Federal Law Held not to Preempt Provisions of MaritalProperty Settlement Agreement. [Eonda v. Affinito, 427Pa. Super. 317, 629 A.2d 119 (1993)]. 14(5):6-8.Going Concern Value as Distinguished from Goodwillof Professional Practice is Marital Property. [Gaydos v.Gaydos, 143 P.L.J. 224 (1995)]. Steven B. Schwartz.18(2):9-11.Increase in Value of Medical Degree Held to be MaritalProperty, as Well as Future Earnings Made Possible byDegree, Due to Contributions of Working Spouse. Alsoa Factor for Alimony. [Millili v. Millili, 24 D.&C.3d479 (Montg. Co. 1982)]. 3:270-73.Increase in Value of Pre-Marital Attributable to EitherParty's Contributions is Marital Property. [Pascoe v.Pascoe, 7 A.C.D.D. 51 (Allegh. Co., 1984)]. 6:719-22.Increase in Value of Premarital Property is MaritalProperty. [Anthony v. Anthony, Tompkins v.Tompkins, 355 Pa. Super. 589, 514 A.2d 91 2 (1986)].7:884-92.Interspousal Gifts are Marital Property. [Semasek v.Semasek, 331 Pa. Super. 1, 479 A.2d 1047 (1984)].5:624-630Interspousal Gifts are not Marital Property. [Semasek v.Semasek, 509 Pa. 282, 502 A.2d 109 (1984)]. 6:775-77.Is Military Disability Pay Marital Property? [Martin v.Martin, 386 Pa. Super. 328, 562 A.2d 1389 (1989)].10(4):112-14.Medical License is Marital Property. [O'Brien v.O'Brien, 359 Pa. Super. 594, 519 A.2d 511 (1985)].7:820-24.Medical License not Marital Property. [Hodge v.Hodge, 513 Pa. 264, 520 A.2d 15 (1986)]. 8:928-33.Noncustodial Father Without Standing to ReceiveAccounting of Trust Established with Marital FundsPrior to Separation. [Rock v. Pile, 720 A.2d 137 (Pa.Super. 1998)]. Geraldine M. Redic. 21:8-10.Non-Marital Property: Bequest in a Will. [Kohl v.Kohl, 387 Pa. Super. 367, 564 A.2d 222 (1989)].10(4):114.Post-Separation Increase in Value of ProfessionalPractice Qualifies as Marital Property Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Goldblum v. Goldblum, 416Pa. Super. 438, 611 A.2d 296 (1992)]. 13 (5):2-3.Prenuptial Agreement: Effect on Marital Property.[Raiken v. Mellon, 399 Pa. Super. 192, 582 A.2d 11(1990)]. 12(1):2-3.Property Acquired Prior to Marriage is not MaritalProperty. [Estep v. Estep, 326 Pa. Super. 404, 474 A.2d302 (1984)]. 5:637-42.Property Should be Valued at Most Appropriate Date.[Sergi v. Sergi, 351 Pa. Super. 521, 506 A.2d 928(1986)]. 7:844-47.Real Estate–Transfer of Property from Wife toHusband. [In the Matter of Beckett v. Laux, 395 Pa.Super. 563, 577 A.2d 1341 (1990)]. 11:175-77.Subsequent Mortgage Takes Priority Over UnrevivedEquitable Distribution Judgment. [Mid-State Bank &Trust Co. v. Globalnet International, Inc., 557 Pa. 555,735 A.2d 79 (1999)]. David I. Grunfeld. 21:75-76.Successor Entities, Judgments and Leases. Caron P.Graff and Elizabeth L. Bennett. [Gioia v. Gioia, 382 Pa.Super. 538, 555 A.2d 1330 (1989)]. 10(2):76-77.Superior Court Finds Tax Refund Retains the Characterof the Payment from Which it was Withheld. [Cerny v.Cerny, 440 Pa. Super. 550, 656 A.2d 507 (1995)].17(3):5.Supreme Court Examines Extent of Applicability of 23Pa.C.S. §3701 (E) in Case Where Marital Property hasBeen Distributed. [Wagoner v. Wagoner, (1994)].17(1):12-14.Tracing and Standard of Proof Required to OvercomePresumption of Marital Property. [Sutliff v. Sutliff, 515Pa. 393, 528 A.2d 1318 (1987)]. 8:976-80.78

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTTransfer of Pre-Marital Property into Joint NamesConstitutes Gift of Martial Entity. [Brown v. Brown,352 Pa. Super. 267, 507 A.2d 1223 (1986)]. 7:849-50.Transfer of Property Set Aside Under §403(d).[Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 307 Pa. Super. 499, 453 A.2d998 (1982)]. 4:417-18.Transfer of Separate Property into Joint Names CreatesGift to the Marital Estate. [Burry v. Burry, 111 Montg.Co. L. Rep. 330 (1982)]. 4:407-9.True Disability Payments Held not Marital PropertySubject to Equitable Distribution. [Anderson v.Ciliberti, 374 Pa. Super.228, 542 A.2d 580 (1988)].9:45.Valuation Dates. [McNaughton v. McNaughton, 412Pa. Super. 409, 603 A.2d 646 (1992)]. 13(4):3.Valuation of Increase in Value of Inheritance. [Wintersv. Winters, 355 Pa. Super. 64, 512 A.2d 1124 (1986)].7:902-4.Valuation of Marital Property: Separation orDistribution Date. [Downey v. Downey, 399 Pa. Super.437, 582 A.2d 674 (1990)]. 12(1):6-7.Valuation of Marital Property: Separation or HearingDate. [Tocco v. Tocco, 389 Pa. Super. 310, 567 A.2d303 (1989)]. 10:121-22.Value of Marital Property Limited to Terms of LawFirm Partnership Agreement. [McCabe v. McCabe, 374Pa. Super. 451, 543 A.2d 558 (1988)]. 9:20.Whether a Verdict for Personal Injuries Is MaritalProperty Subject to Equitable Distribution. [Hurley v.Hurley, 342 Pa. Super. 156, 492 A.2d 439 (198 )].6:756-57.Workers’ Compensation Commutation Award isMarital Property. Status of Disability Pensions CalledInto Question. [Drake v. Drake, 555 Pa. 481, 725 A.2d717 (1999)]. Linda K. Bravacos. 21:40-42.DIVORCE–PENDING ACTIONS[Brief Synopsis of Recent Pending Action Cases.].[Kaufman v. Kaufman, 68 Del. Co. Rep. 326 (1980);Sclocchini v. Sclocchini, 68 Del. Co. Rep. 307 (1980);Reifsneider v. Reifsneider, 108 Montg. Co. Rep. 257(1981); Toll v. Toll, No. 73-8806 ]. 2:163.[Discussion of Issues Which Arise Where IrretrievableBreakdown has been Alleged as Grounds for Divorce inComplaint.]. [Rueckert v. Rueckert, 1 A.C.D.D. 55, 20D.&C.3d 191 (Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:161-63.Pending Actions: Order Granting Application toProceed Is Interlocutory and Non-Appealable. [Brunov. Bruno, 296 Pa. Super. 90, 442 A.2d 311 1 (1982)].3:293-94.Pending Actions–Superior Court Sets ForthAmendment Standards to be Used. [Gordon v. Gordon,293 Pa. Super. 491, 439 A. 2d 683 (1981); Toll v. Toll,293 Pa. Super. 549, 439 A. 2d 712 (1981); Conrad v.Conrad, 293 Pa. Super. 558, 439 A.2d 717 (1981);Kaskie v. Kaskie, 295 Pa. Super. 523, 442 A.2d 261(1982)]. 3:246-57.Recent Cases Concerning the Application of the NewDivorce Code to Pending Actions. [Tanker v. Tanker,(Phil Co., F.D. Dec. 1979, No. 2210 (1981); Bordner v.Bordner, 14 D.&C.3d 634 (Lebanon Co., 1980); Grossv. Gross, 281 Pa. Super. 45, 421 A.2d 1139 (1980);Wilson v. Wilson, 67 Del. Co. R. 724 (1980); Johns v.Johns, Chester Co., No. 11 N 1979 (1980)]. 1:83-87.Recent Cases With Respect to the Applicability of theNew Code to Pending Actions. [Stuckart v. Stuckart,Monroe Co., Civ. No. 494 (1980); Stone v. Stone,Monroe Co., Civ. No. 510 (1980); Nicholas v.Nicholas, 63 Del. Co. R. 138 (1980); Homsher v.Homsher, Blumberg v. Blumberg, 63 Del. Co. R. 158(1980); Conrad v. Conrad, 129 P.L.J. 46 (1980); Shudav. Shuda, 283 Pa. Super. 253, 423 A.2d 1242 (1980);Kaskie v. Kaskie, 61 Wash. Co. R. 67 (1980)]. 2:120-26.DIVORCE-POST-SEPARATIONBerrington Held Applicable to Defined Benefit Plan inImmediate Offset Case–Early Retirement IncentivesOffered Post-Separation Excluded from Marital Estate.[Gordon v. Gordon, 545 Pa. 391, 681 A.2d 732(1996)]. Susan J. Beckert. 18(4):10-12.Marital Funds Cannot be Used to Pay Post-Separation79

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTDebts. [Grandovic v. Grandovic, 387 Pa. Super. 617,564 A.2d 960 (1989)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 10:121.Post-Separation Increases in Value of NonmaritalAssets: The Line Grows Brighter. [Litmans v. Litmans,449 Pa. Super. 209, 673 A.2d 382 (1996)]. David L.Ladov. 18(3):7-8.Postseparation Interest and Dividends Earned onNonmarital Bequest is not in Marital Pot. [Ling v. Ling,442 Pa. Super. 106, 659 A.2d 805 (1995). David L.Ladov. 18(1):7.Post-Separation Retirement Benefits–After Berrington.[Brown v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super. 424, 669 A.2d 969(1995)]. Maria P. Cognetti. 18(2):11-13.Separation Period Under §201(d) Need not be aVoluntary Decision. [McBride v. McBride, 335 Pa.Super. 296, 484 A.2d 141 (1984)]. 6:697-98.DIVORCE–PROCEDURETill Death do us Part? Grounds for Divorce Must beEstablished to Avoid the Abatement of a DivorceAction: 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3323(d.1). [Gerow v. Gerow,962 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Kerri Lee Cappella.31:11-13.Time Waits for No One, Including Pro Se Litigants.[Blatz v. Blatz, 412 Pa. Super. 449, 603 A.2d 666(1992)]. 13(3):7-8.Two Wrongs did not Make It Right: Defects on theFace of the Record 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3332,. [Bingaman, Jr.v. Bingaman 980 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. KerriLee Cappella. 31:162-63.DIVORCE–RELOCATIONRelocation: Gruber is Alive and Well. [Gancas v.Schultz, 453 Pa. Super. 324, 683 A.2d 1207 (1996)].David L. Ladov. 19:8-10.Was Wife's Move With Child Legitimate, or Did She"Abscond"? [Hamm v. Hamm, 431 Pa. Super. 283, 636A.2d 652 (1994)]. 15(2):10-11.DIVORCE–RESIDENCEAttorney's Lien on Marital Residence. [Jaywork v.Jaywork, 378 Pa. Super. 89, 548 A.2d 290 (1988)].9:51.Buy-Out Remedy: Equitable Distribution of MaritalResidence. [Brojack v. Brojack, 385 Pa. Super. 502,561 A.2d 788 (1989)]. 10(4):102.Court Awards Wife Exclusive Possession of Home untilChild Completes High School. [Simpson v. Simpson,Westmoreland Co., 268 of 1982-d (1983)]. 5:552-54.Court Correctly Concludes Marital Residence asMarital Property Notwithstanding SeparationAgreement. [Barnhart v. Barnhart, 343 Pa. Super. 234,494 A.2d 443 (1985)]. 6:767-69.Half a Credit Is Better than Whole in Awarding RentalValue of Marital Residence to Dispossessed Spouse.[Trembach v. Trembach, 419 Pa. Super. 80, 615 A.2d33 (1992)]. 13(6):8.Unilateral Removal of Any Assets from MaritalResidence is not Permissible. [Stapleton v. Stapleton,32 Chester Co. 338 (1984)]. 5:568-69.Wife Awarded Exclusive Occupancy of MaritalResidence During Pending Divorce Proceedings.[Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, 344 Pa. Super. 154, 496A.2d 56 (1985)]. 6:736-40.DIVORCE–SEPARATE AND APARTCourt Reviews "Separate and Apart" Standard.[Pangallo v. Pangallo, 329 Pa. 25, 477 A.2d 885(1984)]. 5:600-2.Frey and Separation: A Principle in Search of aStandard. [Frey v. Frey, 821 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super.2003)]. Mark R. Ashton. 25:65-66.Living Separate and Apart in the Same House. [Ameliov. Amelio, 18 D.&C.3d 673 (Lehigh Co. 1981)]. 2:182.Living Separate and Apart in the Same House. [Meyerlv. Meyerl, 129 P.L.J. 397, 1 A.C.D.D. 100 (Allegh.1981)]. 2:224-27.80

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTOne Night Stand does not Toll Separation Period.[Sadlek v. Sadlek, 4 A.C.D.D. 64, 131 P.L.J. 419(1983)]. 4:449-50.Physical Separation Alone Without Intent of One Partyto Dissolve Marriage Insufficient to Establish Groundsfor Divorce. [Sinha v. Sinha, 515 Pa. 14, 526 A.2d 765(1987)]. 8:997-99.Regular Visits do not Defeat Separate and Apart ClaimWhere Parties Reside in Separate Residence. [Taylor v.Taylor, 1 A.C.D.D. 82 (Allegh. 1981)]. 2:202-5.Section 201(d) Divorce–Must Allege Three YearSeparate and Apart in Complaint. [Creach v. Creach,361 Pa. Super. 482, 522 A.2d 1133 (1987)]. 8:970-972.Separate and Apart Means Separate Residences.[Williams v. Williams, 31 Chester Co. L. R. 82 (1982)].4:458-60.Separate and Apart: Sexual Relations does not TollSeparation Period. [Oatman v. Oatman, Erie Co., 599a of 1981 (1982)]. 4:400.Separation Agreement–Effect of Merger vs.Incorporation. [Millstein v. Millstein, 311 Pa. Super.495, 457 A.2d 1291 (1983)]. 4:432-35.Sexual Relations do not Necessarily Toll Three YearSeparate and Apart Period. [Thomas v. Thomas, 335Pa. Super. 41, 483 A.2d 945 (1984)]. 5:648-50.DIVORCE–TAXATIONTax Consequences of Alimony Payments ContinuedAfter Remarriage of Former Spouse. [Sherwood v.Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. 1979-149 (1979)]. 2:135-36.Tax Consequences–Relevant Factor to be Consideredin Making Alimony Pendente Lite Award. [Reisinger v.Reisinger, 3 A.C.D.D. 65 (1982)]. 3:335-36.Tax Impact Must be Considered in EquitableDistribution Award. [White v. White, 382 Pa. Super.478, 555 A.2d 1299 (1989) 10(2):76.DIVORCE–THIRD PARTIESThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overrules the WolfCase. [Buskirk v. Buskirk, 378 Pa. Super. 418, 548A.2d 1270 (1991)]. 12(4):2-3.Pre-Existing Funds Contributed by Wife toImprovements on Home Owned by In-laws do notConstitute Consideration Which Would Create aProprietary Interest in the Home. [Bolze v. Bolze, 427Pa. Super. 599, 629 A.2d 1031 (1993)]. 14(5):4.EMANCIPATED MINORS19-Year-Old Adult Child With Medical Conditions notConsidered Emancipated. Aaron P. Asher. [Kotzbauerv. Kotzbauer, 937 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 30:5-7.Emancipation and the Troubled Child. [Trosky v.Mann, 398 Pa. Super. 369, 581 A.2d 177 (1990)].11:198-99.Superior Court Declares No Retroactive Credit forChild Support on Behalf of Emancipated Minor.[Holcomb v. Holcomb, 448 Pa. Super. 154, 670 A.2d1155 (1996)]. David L. Ladov. 18(3):5-6Superior Court Declares that an Emancipated MinorChild may be Re-declared Dependant andUnemancipated. [Berks County Children and YouthServices v. Rowan, 428 Pa. Super. 448, 631 A.2d 615(1992)]. 15(1):6-8.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION50/50 Is not an Appropriate Starting Point. [Ruth v.Ruth, 67 Lancaster L. Rev. 461 (1981)]. 3:274-76.An Accurate Inventory Prior to Trial may not Be.[Anderson v. Anderson, 822 A.2d 824 (Pa Super2003)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25-66-67.[The Constitutionality of Equitable Distribution.].[Bacchetta v. Bacchetta, 29 Chester Co. L. Rep. 167(1981)]. 2:154-55.Court Awards Value at Date of Marriage of Pre-MaritalHome to Party Who Brought to Marriage. [Durham v.Durham, A.C.D.D. ]. 5:636-37.Court's Equitable Distribution of Property is not thatEquitable. [Rudick v. Rudick, Lackawanna Co., 80 Cw4753 (1981)]. 2:207-10.81

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTDeath Abates Equitable Distribution Proceedings.[Geraghty v. Geraghty, 411 Pa. Super. 53, 600 A.2d1261 (1991)]. 13(1):3-4.Entry into Pre-Divorce Code Agreement Results inWife's Waiver of Equitable Distribution. [Wolfe v.Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 491 A.2d 291 (1985)].6:763-64.Equitable Distribution, Alimony, Alimony PendenteLite, Counsel Fees and Costs. [Tonetti v. Tonetti, 39Lehigh Law J. 535 (1982)]. 3:294-98.Equitable Distribution, Alimony and Counsel Fee Case.[Romeo v. Romeo, 42 Bucks Co. L. R. 39 (1983)].4:487-89.Equitable Distribution and Alimony Award. [Regli v.Regli, 111 Montg. Co. L.Rep. 119 (1982)]. 3:362-66.Equitable Distribution and Alimony–Wife Awarded65% of Marital Estate. [Stanton v. Stanton, 112 Montg.Co. L. Rep. 234 (1983)]. 4:484-87.Equitable Distribution–Assets Valued as of DateHearing. [Treasure v. Treasure, 2 A.C.D.D. 170(Allegh. Co., 1982)]. 3:306.Equitable Distribution Award Case. [Pangallo v.Pangallo, Westmoreland Co., No. 8650 of 1979(1983)]. 4:444-47.Equitable Distribution: Buy-Out Remedy. [Ryan v.Ryan, 391 Pa. Super. 327, 571 A.2d 392 (1990)].11:130-31.Equitable Distribution by the Inch. [Anzalone v.Anzalone, 835 A.2d 773 (Pa Super. 2003)]. David S.Pollock. 25:96-99.Equitable Distribution Case. [Ruth v. Ruth, 316 Pa.Super. 282, 462 A.2d 1351 (1983)]. 4:453-58.Equitable Distribution Case. [Benner v. Benner, 42Bucks Co. L. R. 99 (1983)]. 4:474-78.Equitable Distribution Case. [Wichers v. Wichers, 6A.C.D.D. 67, 132 P.L.J. 146 (1984)]. 5:546-549Equitable Distribution, Counsel Fees and Costs. [Baraffv. Baraff, 4 A.C.D.D. 1 (Allegh. Co., 1983)]. 4:409-13.Equitable Distribution–Grounds for Divorce Must ExistBefore Court can Decide. [Oliver v. Oliver, 39 BucksCo. L.R. 130 (1982)]. 3:341.Equitable Distribution is Constitutional. [Bank v. Bank,Nov. Term 1980, No. 2993 (1981); Kline v. Kline,Lancaster Co., No. 166, Oct. Term 1979 (1981)].2:178-81.Equitable Distribution is Constitutional. [Schwartz v.Schwartz, Montg. Co., 81-3684, in Divorce A.V.M.(1981)]. 2:210-12.Equitable Distribution is Constitutional. [Bacchetta v.Bacchetta, 498 Pa. 227, 445 A.2d 1194 (1982)]. 3:290-93.Equitable Distribution of Property–Outright Award ofMarital Home to Husband. [Hovey v. Hovey, WarrenCo., No. 417 of 1980 (1981)]. 2:181-82.Equitable Distribution: Possibility of Inheritance notIncluded. [Gruver v. Gruver, 372 Pa. Super. 194, 539A.2d 395 (1988)]. 9(2):14.Equitable Defense to Equitable Distribution RentalCredit Claim. [Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Elizabeth J. Fineman. 31:103-5.Equitable Distribution (W/100%, H/0%)–An AwardMade by the Court Rehabilitative Alimony, CounselFees. [Kiesel v. Kiesel, 19 D.&C.3d 792 (Montg. Co.1981)]. 2:220-22.Equitable Distribution (W/80%, H/20%)–An AwardMade by the Court Rehabilitative Alimony, CounselFees (75%). [Reese v. Reese, (Montg. Co. 1981)].2:222-23.Equitable Distribution–Wife Awarded Interest inHusband's Pension. [Dean v. Dean, 2 A.C.D.D. 227(1982)]. 4:447-49.Equitable Provisions of Divorce Code GoverningDisposition of Property, not Applicable to Transfers ofProperty Made Prior to Effective Date of Code.[Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 503 Pa. 373, 469 A.2d 987(1983)]. 4:505-09.82

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTEquitable Reimbursement Camouflaged as Alimony.[Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa. Super. 113, 576 A.2d 1000(1990)]. 11:156-57.Equitable Reimbursement When Marital Assets Just arenot Enough. [Wang v. Feng, 888 A.2d. 882 (Pa. Super.2005)]. Sarinia A. Michaelson. 28:15-16.Expectancies are Relevant Factors to be Considered inEquitable Distribution. [Moritz v. Moritz, Allegh. Co.,FD 82-07811 (1984)]. 5:630-32.Expectancies not Relevant in Equitable DistributionCases. [Hutnik v. Hutnik, 369 Pa. Super. 263, 535 A.2d151 (1987)]. 9:2-3.Failure to Value a Marital Asset. [Ratarsky v. Ratarsky,383 Pa. Super. 445, 557 A.2d 83 (1989)]. 10:90-91.Husband’s Proceeds from a Workers’ CompensationCompromise and Release Agreement Approved PostSeparation (for a Pre-Separation Injury) were notMarital Property Subject to Equitable Distribution.[Pudlish v. Pudlish, 796 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2002)].Julia Swain. 24:36-38.Increase in Value of Separate Property Attributable toMarital Contributions is Marital Property. [Birkel v.Birkel, 3 A.C.D.D. 230 (1982)]. 4:436-38.Increased Earnings Capacity is Neither Real NorPersonal Property. [Hodge v. Hodge, 327 Pa. Super.151, 486 A.2d 401 (1984)]. 6:668-73.Is 50/50 an Appropriate Starting Point? Wife AwardedShare of Husband's Pension. [Martin B. v. Jane B., 1A.C.D.D. 199 (1981)]. 3:269-70.Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, at Least for UntimelyFiled Equitable Distribution Request. [Justice v. Justice,417 Pa. Super. 581, 612 A.2d 1354 (1992)]. 13(5):7-8.Lottery Ticket Proceeds and Equitable Distribution.[Nufher v. Nufher, 410 Pa. Super. 380, 599 A.2d 1348(1991)]. 13(1):3.Meretricious Relationship and Equitable Distribution.[Robertson v. Davis, 397 Pa. Super. 292, 580 A.2d 39(1990)]. 11:201.No 50-50 Starting Point Presumption Exists Under theDivorce Code. [Frantangelo v. Frantangelo, 360 Pa.Super. 487, 520 A.2d 1195 (1987)]. 8:952-56.Order in Aid of Execution on Behalf of Creditor TakesPrecedence Over Subsequent Equitable DistributionOrder in Favor of Wife. [Livingston v. Unis, 659 A.2d606 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)]. 17(4):4-5.Potential Tax Liability: Equitable Distribution Award.[Hovis v. Hovis, 518 Pa. 137, 541 A.2d 13478 (1988)].9:20-21.Present Value Required in Valuing Marital Assets.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534 (1988)].9:32.[A Recent Equitable Distribution Decision]. Hughes v.Hughes, 108 Montgomery Co. L. R. 360 (1981)].2:155-57.Review by Pennsylvania Supreme Court of EquitableDistribution Order. [Cooper v. Cooper, 8 W.D. 1992(March 11, 1994)]. 15(2):2-3.Settlement Proceeds: Equitable Distribution. [Kozich v.Kozich, 397 Pa. Super. 463, 580 A.2d 390 (1990)].11:200.Superior Court Declares Trial Court did not ViolateDue Process Clause by not Considering MaritalMisconduct in Equitable Distribution Issues. [Witcherv. Witcher, 433 Pa. Super. 14, 639 A.2d 1187 (1994)].15(3):2-4.Trial Court's Inadvertent Delayed Filing ofReconsidered Equitable Distribution Order CausesAppeal to Fail. [Weinzetl v. Weinzetl, 452 Pa. Super.271, 681 A.2d 813 (1996)]. Linda C. Liechty. 19:5-6.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION-BUSINESSThe Application of the Doctrine of In Custodia Legis toProtect Marital Property fromTax Sale During thePendency of Equitable Distribution. [City of Easton v.Marra, 862 A.2d 170 (Pa. Commw. 2004)]. ChristinaM. DeMatteo. 27:8-9.Business Valuation–Increase in Value of NonmaritalAsset–Are We Comparing Apples to Oranges?83

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT[(Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860 A.2d 1056 (2004)].Loreen M. Burkett. 27:11-12.Buy/Sell Provisions of Shareholders' Agreement notBinding on Valuation in Terms of Agreement do notActually Reflect Current Value. [Butler v. Butler, 541Pa. 364, 663 A.2d 148 (1995)]. David L. Ladov.18(1):7, 18-20.Buy-Out is Only Ordered Where Distribution of Assetsis Economically Unwise. [Barletta v. Barletta, 506 Pa.404, 485 A.2d 752 (1984)]. 6:704-5.Distribution Order Giving Wife the Mining Equipmentand "The Shaft" Must be Revised. [Beener v. Beener,422 Pa. Super. 351, 619 A.2d 713 (1992)]. 14(2):13-15.Equitable Distribution Applies to Small Law Practice,Superior Court Declares. [Naddeo v. Naddeo, 426 Pa.Super. 131, 626 A.2d 608 (1993)]. 14(4):3-4.Even "Worthless" Stock Still Subject to "Buy-out"Valuation for Equitable Distribution. [Harasym v.Harasym, 418 Pa. Super. 486, 614 A.2d 742 (1992)].13(6):3-4.Husband's Payments for Purchase of Solely OwnedBusiness Held not Deductible from Income in SpousalSupport Case. [Lehman v. Lehman, 431 Pa. Super. 450,636 A.2d 1172 (1994)]. 15(2):9-10.Interpretation of the Barletta Decision. [Ryan v. Ryan,528 Pa. 186, 596 A.2d 140 (1990)]. 12(6):3-4.Law Partnership Agreement Binding on Court inDivorce Case. [McCabe v. McCabe, 525 Pa. 25, 575A.2d 85 (1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:142-43.Professionals' Business Interests and EquitableDistribution. [Buckl v. Buckl, 373 Pa. Super. 521, 542A.2d 65 (1988)]. 8:1006-8.Separation Date Value Used in Valuing ProfessionalPractice. [Oppenheim v. Oppenheim, Lehigh Co., 81-c-3083 (June 21, 1989)]. 10:89.Spouse-Owned Business More Likely to be Valued asof Date of Separation, not Equitable Distribution.[Benson v. Benson, 357 Pa. Super. 166, 515 A.2d 917(1993)]. 14(4):7-8.Superior Court Rules That Relevant Valuation Date forClosely-Held Business Interest Controlled Exclusivelyby One Party Post-Separation is Date of Distribution.[Smith v. Smith, 904 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. AnnM. Funge. 28:96-97.Valuation of Closely Held Corporation. [Bowen v.Bowen, 96 N.j. 36, 473 A.2d 73 (N.J. 1984)]. 5:615-19.Value of Interest in Law Firm Controlled by PartnershipAgreement. [McCabe v. McCabe, Nos. 1353 & 1354Phil. 1986 (April 10, 1987)]. 8:995-97.Wife’s Business Interest Intended to be Her Asset/Husband’s Business Valuation not Based Upon Intentof Partnership Agreement. [Brody v. Brody, 758 A.2d1274 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Julie Auerbach. 23:7-8.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–GOODWILLCourt Holds Law Practice does not Have Goodwill.[Beasley v. Beasley, 115 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 99(1984)]. 5:612-14.Factors to be Considered in Determining If GoodwillExists. [Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa. Super. 483, 516A.2d 363 (1986)]. 7:908-12.Going Concern Value as Distinguished from Goodwillof Professional Practice is Marital Property. [Gaydos v.Gaydos, 143 P.L.J. 224 (Ally. Cy. (1995)]. Steven B.Schwartz. 18(2):9-11.Good Will has No Present Value for EquitableDistribution Purposes. [Demasi v. Demasi, 366 Pa.Super. 19, 530 A.2d 871 (1987)]. 8:988-95.Goodwill in a Closely Held Corporation. [Ullom v.Ullom, 384 Pa. Super. 514, 559 A.2d 555(1989)].10:90.Goodwill not Marital Property Subject to EquitableDistribution. [Beasley v. Beasley, 348 Pa. Super. 124,501 A.2d 679 (1985)]. 6:760-63.Goodwill of Accounting Practice Subject to EquitableDistribution, Superior Court Rules. [Butler v. Butler,423 Pa. Super. 530, 621 A.2d 659 (1993)]. 14(3):4-6.84

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTGoodwill Revisited–Dental Practice. [Fexa v. Fexa, 396Pa. Super. 481, 578 A.2d 1314 (1990)]. 11:184.Goodwill Valuation of Veterinary Practice. [Baker v.Baker, 861 A.2d 298 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Sally R.Miller. 27:7-8.Sole Proprietorship can Have Enterprise GoodwillUnder Facts of Some Cases (But not this One). [Gaydosv. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368 (1997)]. Patricia A. Miles.19:51-54.Sole Proprietorship does not Have Good Will. [Beasleyv. Beasley, 359 Pa. Super. 20, 518 A.2d 545 (1986)].8:940-46.Valuing Increase of Non-Marital Trust and NoGoodwill Value of Sole Owner of VeterinarianPractice. [Solomon v. Solomon, 531 Pa. Super. 113,611 A.2d 686 (1992)]. 13(4):2-3.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–INSURANCEChange in Beneficiary did not Violate Order EnjoiningHusband from Disposing of Marital Property. [Lindseyv. Lindsey, 342 Pa. Super. 72, 492 A.2d 396 (1985)].7:826-828Court Utilizes Equitable Powers to Impose ConstructiveTrust on Insurance Proceeds. [Beamer v. Beamer, 330Pa. Super. 154, 479 A.2d 485 (1984)]. 5:603-5Life Insurance Proceeds: Equitable Distribution.[Schubert v. Schubert, 398 Pa. Super. 284, 580 A.2d1351 (1990)]. 11:197-98.Property Settlement Agreement/life Insurance Policy:Separate and Distinct Documents. [Estate of Myers,375 Pa. Super. 351, 544 A.2d 506 (1988)]. 9:33.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–PENSIONS ANDRETIREMENT PLANSAttachment of School Teacher's Pension. [Millick v.Millick, 140 Pa. Cmwlth. 252, 592 A.2d 788 (1991)].12(4):3-4.Bankruptcy Discharge of Property SettlementAgreement Equitable Distribution ObligationsConfirmed by the State Court. [Hogg v. Hogg, 816A.2d 314 (Pa Super.2003)]. Kilbreth E. Barton-Rhea.25:68-69.Berrington & Brown in a Nutshell. [Berrington v.Berrington, 534 Pa. Super. 393, 633 A.2d 589 (1993);Brown v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super. 424, 669 A.2d 969(1995)]. Brian C. Vertz. 18(2):13-14.Berrington v. Berrington and Katzenberger v.Katzenberger. [Berrington v. Berrington, 409 Pa.Super. 355, 598 A.2d 31 (1991); Katzenberger v.Katzenberger, 534 Pa. Super. 419, 633 A.2d 602(1991)]. 12(5):2-3.Bigamy and Pension Benefits. [Board of Pensions andRetirement, City of Philadelphia v. Boelter, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 336, 573 A.2d 867 (1990)]. 11:148-49.Binding Effect of Agreement's Intentions andInteresting Pension Issues. [Lyons v. Lyons, 401 Pa.Super. 271, 585 A.2d 42 (1991)]. 12(3):4-6.Cornbleth has Exceptions. [McClain v. McClain, 693A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super. 1997)]. Daniel J. Clifford.19:57-58.Court's Equitable Distribution Order Dividing StatePension Held Valid. [Graham v. Graham, 416 Pa.Super. 118, 610 A.2d 999 (1990)]. 11:182.A Disability Pension or District Disability Portion of aPension is a Nonmarital Asset and not Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Cioffi v. Cioffi, 885 A.2d 45(Pa. Super. 2005)]. Loreen M. Burkett. 28:5-7.Disability Pension Subject to Equitable Distribution,Superior Court Declares. [Hayward v. Hayward, 428Pa. Super. 332, 630 A.2d 1275 (1993)]. 15(1):15-16.Early Retirement Incentive Benefits. [Meyer v. Meyer,561 Pa. 225, 749 A.2d 917 (2000)]. Gary L.Friedlander. 22:63-65.Equitable Distribution–Pensions. [Kikkert v. Kikkert,177 N. J. Super. 471, 427 A.2d 76 (1981)]. 2:218-20.Equitable Distribution/Validity of Waiver inAgreement. [Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751(Pa. Super.2004)]. Rochelle Grossman. 26:42-43.85

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTEquitable Distribution of Police Pension. [Endy v.Endy, 412 Pa. Super. 398, 603 A.2d 641 (1992)].13(2):2-3.ERISA Preempts Pennsylvania Law When It Comes toEmployer Sponsored Plans Designating Ex-Spouses asBeneficiaries. [In Re Estate of Paul J. Sauers, 971 A.2d1265 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Carla Marino. 30:148-50.ERISA Trumps State Law. [Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532U.S. 141, 149 L.Ed.2d 264, 121 S. Ct. 1322 (2001)].David I. Grunfeld. 23:37-38.Forfeiture of Marital Interest in Pension Too Harsh aRemedy for Failure to Satisfy Court’s QDRORequirements. [Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super.2007)]. Maris J. Weiner. 29:133-34.Future Social Security Earnings can Offset the Value ofCivil Service Pensions. [Rimel v. Rimel, 913 A.2d 289(Pa. Super. 2006)]. Julia Swain. 29:17-18.Husband's Pension Valuation is No Sweeter the SecondTime Around, the Superior Court Judges Declare.[Miller v. Miller, 421 Pa. Super. 23, 617 A.2d 375(1992)]. 14(2):4-5.Husband's Police Pension is Subject to Attachment.[Young v. Young, 507 Pa. 40, 488 A.2d 264 (1985)].6:700-1.Marital Property: CSRS Pension. [Cornbleth v.Cornbleth, 397 Pa. Super. 421, 580 A.2d 369 (1990)].11:182-83.McFadden v. McFadden: A Double Dip at the PensionWell. Patricia G. Miller. [McFadden v. McFadden, 386Pa. Super. 506, 563 A.2d 180 (1989)]. 10(4):110-11.Military Pensions Revisited with Respect to PersonalJurisdiction. [Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448, 768A.2d1112 (2001)]. Howard M. Spizer. 23:34-37.No "Dueling Experts" Needed to Ascertain PlainMeaning of Annuity Provision. [Krizovensky v.Krizovensky, 425 Pa. Super. 204, 624 A.2d 638(1993)]. 14(4):11-13.An Old Name from the Past-the Gordon Case. [Gordonv. Gordon, 436 Pa. Super. 126, 647 A.2d 530 (1994)].16(4):13.Pennsylvania’s Beneficiary Re-DesignationStatute–Does ERISA Preempt? [In Re Estate of Paul J.Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. SariniaM. Feinman. 31:91-92.Pension Benefits as Marital Property. [Miller v. Miller,395 Pa. Super. 255, 577 A.2d 205 (1990)]. 11:179-80.Pension Distribution: Credits Earned After Separation.[Holland v. Holland, 403 Pa. Super. 116, 588 A.2d 58(1991)]. 12(3):6-7.Pension Distribution Follows Berrington Analysis.[Katzenberger v. Katzenberger, 534 Pa. Super. 419,633 A.2d 602 (1993)]. 15(1):5.Pension Plans Acquired During Marriage are MaritalProperty. [King v. King, 22 Erie Co. L. J. 46 (1982)].4:422-26.Pension Valuation Case. [King v. King, 332 Pa. Super.526, 481 A.2d 913 (1984)]. 5:643-45.Pension Valuation: Equitable Distribution. [Zollars v.Zollars, 397 Pa. Super. 204, 579 A.2d 1328 (1990)].11:194-95.Pensions, Vested or Non-Vested, Matured orUnmatured, are Marital Property. [Braderman v.Braderman, 339 Pa. Super. 185, 488 A.2d 613 (1985)].6:716-19.Police Department Pension is not Subject to AttachmentPursuant to Equitable Distribution Order. [Young v.Young, 320 Pa. Super. 269, 467 A.2d 33 (1983)].4:481-83.Post-Divorce Increase in Pension Subject to Division.[Smith v. Boulding, 938 A.2d 276 (Pa. 2007)].Catherine McFadden. 30:76-79.Post-Separation Act 9 Enhancements to Marital StateEmployee Retirement System Benefits Found not toConstitute Marital Property Under new Section3501(c)(1) of the Divorce Code. [Smith v. Smith, 881A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Darren J. Holst. 28:3-5.Property Settlement Agreement Interpreted to Grant86

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTWife Share of Pension Rights Accruing After Divorce.[Matlock v. Matlock, 444 Pa. Super. 507, 664 A.2d 551(1995)]. 17(5):5.PSA Prevents Reduction of Wife’s Share of MilitaryPension. [Adams v. Adams, 725 A.2d 824 (Pa. Super.1999)]. Catherine M. McFadden. 21:71-73.Significance of Retirement Date in Pension Valuation.[DeMarco v. DeMarco, 787 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Super.2001)]. Julie A. Auerbach and William E. Ehrich. 24:8-9.State Employees Pension Contributions in Lieu ofSocial Security are not Marital Property Subject toEquitable Distribution. [Schneeman v. Schneeman, 420Pa. Super. 65, 615 A.2d 1369 (1992)]. 14(2):2-3.Superior Court Compares and Contrasts DefinedBenefit Plans and Defined Contributions Plans.[Paulone v. Paulone, 473 Pa. Super. 130, 649 A.2d 691(1994)]. 16(5):8-10.Supreme Court's Change in Pension Valuation forEquitable Distribution Causes Dates for Valuation tobe"Carved in Sand". [Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa.393, 633 A.2d 589 (1993)]. 15(1):2-4.Swain, Julia. Future Social Security Earnings can Offsetthe Value of Civil Service Pensions. [Rimel v. Rimel,913 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:17-18.Terms of Settlement Agreement Override Case LawRegarding Pension Valuation Date. [Bianchi v. Bianchi,859 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Mindi J. Hodge andRandi J. Silverman. 26:108-9.Valuing a Pension–New Jersey Court Uses "TotalOffset Method". [Dipietro v. Dipietro, 183 N. J. Super.69, 443 A.2d 244 (1981)]. 3:324-27.Vested and Non-Vested Pensions are Marital Property.[Kalinoski v. Kalinoski, Butler Co. (1982)]. 4:394-99.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–STOCKOPTIONSRuling fromPA Superior Court Determines When StockOptions Constitute Marital Property. [MacAleer v.MacAleer, 725 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. David J.Draganosky. 21:38-40.Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Treatment of UnvestedStock Options. [Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 769 A.2d1165 (2001)]. Sophie P. Paul and Gerald L. Shoemaker.23:32-34.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–WAGEATTACHMENTSAttachment of Wages: an Analysis. [Wilcox v. Wilcox,394 Pa. Super. 119, 575 A.2d 127 (1990)]. 11:159-60.Enforcement of Equitable Distribution: No WageAttachment. [Laughlin v. Laughlin, 372 Pa. Super. 24,538 A.2d 927 (1988)]. 9:21.Wage Attachment or Equitable Distribution Orders.[Laughlin v. Laughlin, 525 Pa. 141, 578 A.2d 922(1990)]. 11:183-84.EVIDENCEChange in Domicile Must be Proven by Clear andConvincing Evidence. [Bell v. Bell, 326 Pa. Super. 237,473 A.2d 1069 (1984)]5:555-59.Child Victim Exception in the Hearsay Rule. [In theInterest of Tina K. v. Montgomery County Office ofChildren and Youth, 390 Pa. Super. 94, 568 A.2d 210(1990)]. 11:137.Hearsay Exception: Unavailability for Trial. [Corl v.Kacmar, 391 Pa. Super. 376, 571 A.2d 417 (1990)].11:145.Hearsay Statements in Sexual Abuse Case.[Philadelphia County Department of Human Services,Division of Children and Youth v. Com.,Department ofPublic Welfare, 135 Pa. Comwlth. 542, 581 A.2d 704(1990)]. 12(1):8-9.Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights: CourtAdopts "Clear and Convincing Evidence" Standard.[Petition for Involuntary Termination of ParentalRights, Appeal of G.J.A., 304 Pa. Super. 21, 450 A.2d80 (1982)]. 3:361-62.Mass Media Expert not an Expert to Make Physical andPsychological Conclusions from Frequent Visits to87

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTPornography Internet Sites. [A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d744 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Erin Farabaugh. 30:88-90.Supreme Court Admits Parole Evidence to Define theTerm of Cohabitation in a Property SettlementAgreement. [Kripp v. Kripp, 849 A.2d 1159 (Pa.2004)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 26:41-42.The Tender Years Hearsay Act. [Fidler v. Cunningham-Small, 871 A.2d 231 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Joseph P.Martone. 27:56-57.Test for Hearsay Evidence in Sexual Abuse Cases.[G.W.K. v. Com. of Pa., Dept. of Welfare, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 512, 558 A.2d 151 (1989)]. 10(4):105-6.GRANDPARENTSAnalysis of Grandparent Visitation Rights. [Johnson v.Diesinger, 404 Pa. Super. 41, 589 A.2d 1160 (1991)].12(4):8-9." Domino Effect" of Grandparent's Visits on Mother'sDepression and Her Treatment of Child Bars Themfrom Visitation. [Norris v. Tearney, 422 Pa. Super. 246,619 A.2d 339 (1993)]. 14(3):12-13.Grandparents Action for Visitation Dismissed WhereBoth Parents are Alive. [Herron v. Seizak, 321 Pa.Super. 466, 468 A.2d 803 (1983)]. 5:560-61.Grandparent's Visitation Rights. [Bishop v. Piller, 399Pa. Super. 52, 581 A.2d 670 (1990)]. 12(1):9-10.Grandparents Visitation Act Interpreted. [Bishop v.Piller, 536 Pa. 41, 637 A.2d 976 (1994)]. 15(2):2-3.Mother of Custodial Parent has Standing to SeekVisitation of Grandchild in New Interpretation ofGrandparents' Visitation Act. [Hill v. Divecchio, 425Pa. Super. 355, 625 A.2d 642 (1993)]. 14(3):10-11.Supreme Court Gives Grandparents Equal Right toAdopt Grandchildren. [Adoption of Hess, 530 Pa. 218,608 A.2d 10 (1992)]. 13(3):3-5.GUARDIANSHIPForeign Guardianship Order not Entitled to Recognitionin Pennsylvania. [Hilkmann v. Hilkmann, 858 A.2d 58(Pa. 2004)]. Brian C. Vertz. 26:105-6.INCOMPETENCYAffirmative Showing Required to Have Adult ChildDeclared Incompetent. [In re Estate of Haertsch v.Haertsch, 415 Pa. Super. 598, 609 A.2d 1384 (1992)].13(4):9-10.INEFFECTIVE COUNSELIneffectiveness of Counsel: Dependency Hearing. [Inthe Matter of Price, 393 Pa. Super. 1, 573 A.2d 1057(1990)]. 11:146-47.LEGAL MALPRACTICESuperior Court En Banc Overrules Miller v. Berschler,and Limits Immunity from Malpractice of AttorneysCounseling Settlement Agreements. [McMahon v.Shea, 441 Pa. Super. 304, 657 A.2d 938 (1995)].17(3):2.Supreme Court Allows Legal Malpractice Claim WhereSettlement was Entered in Divorce. [McMahon v. Shea,547 Pa. 124, 688 A.2d 1179 (1997)]. Robb B. Bunde.19:33-34.MAILBOX RULEMailbox Rule Applied to Domestic Relation HearingNotices. [Murphy v. Murphy, 988 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super.2010)]. Elizabeth J. McCall. 32:70-71.NAME CHANGESName Change of Child. [In Re: Richie by Boehm, 387Pa. Super. 401, 564 A.2d 239 (1989)]. 10(4):111.Standard for Name Change. In Re: Grimes, 530 Pa.388, 609 A.2d 158 1992)]. 13(4):4.PALIMONYCourt Addresses Issue of Palimony Actions. [Knauer v.Knauer, Jr., 323 Pa. Super. 206, 470 A.2d 553 (1984)].5:530-36.Palimony in Pennsylvania? [Harz v. Stauffer, MonroeCo. 1313 Civil 1981 (1982)]. 3:368.88

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTPARTITIONIs a Partition Action Superseded by a Request forEquitable Distribution?–Not Quite. [Marinello v.Marinello, 354 Pa. Super. 471, 512 A.2d 635 (1986)].7:873-877Partition Action is Being Held to be Superseded byEquitable Distribution Provisions of the Divorce Code.[Pietsch v. Pietsch, Lancaster Co., Law, Equity No. 21(1981)]. 2:196.Partition is not Pre-Empted by Equitable DistributionNor does it Defeat Claims for Ancillary Relief Underthe Divorce Code of 1980. [Daniels v. Daniels, 73Berks Co. L.J. 319 (1981). 2:194-96.Partition Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code. [Ferri v.Ferri, 1 A.C.D.D. 122 (Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:229-30,232.Pursuant to Rules, All Co-Tenants Must be Joined inPartition Action Between Former Spouses. [Lohmillerv. Weidenbaugh, 503 Pa. 329, 469 A.2d 578 (1983)].5:569-71.Recent Partition Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Vento v.Vento, 256 Pa. Super. 91, 389 A.2d 615 (1978);Damirgian v. Damirgian, 262 Pa. Super. 463, 396 A.2d1263 (1978); Morris v. Morris, 104 Montg. Co. L. Rep.254 (1978); Fascione v. Fascione, 272 Pa. Super. 530,416 A.2d 1023 (1979); Gray v. Gray, 275 Pa. Super.131, 418 A.2d 646 (1980)]. 1:22-32.Specific Enforcement of Agreement. [Marcolongo v.Nicolai, 392 Pa. Super. 208, 572 A.2d 765 (1990)].11:163-64.Spouses may not Benefit by Their Own Wrongdoing.[Meno v. Meno, 18 D.&C.3d 250 (Washington Co.1981)]. 2:131.Subsequent Filed Divorce Action with Claim forEquitable Distribution does not Preempt or SupersedePrior Filed Partition Action. [Goldstein v. Goldstein,354 Pa. Super. 490, 512 A.2d 644 (1986)]. 7:868-73 .Vento is Dead!!!! [Platek v. Platek, 309 Pa. Super. 16,454 A.2d 1059 (1982)]. 4:389-90.PATERNITYBlood Tests Ordered Only When Paternity is a RelevantIssue. [Wachter v. Ascero, 379 Pa. Super. 618, 550A.2d 1019 (1988)]. 10:67.Doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel Examined. [In theMatter of Green v. McCoy, 437 Pa. Super. 606, 577A.2d 1341 (1994)]. 17(1):2-3.Doctrine of Presumption of Paternity is Alive but notKicking . [Miscovich v. Miscovich, 455 Pa. Super. 437,688 A.2d 726 (1997); Ruth F. v. Robert B., Jr. (Listedas Fish v. Behers)], 456 Pa. Super. 398, 690 A.2d 1171(1997)]. Dagmar W. Wolf. 19:27-29.No Third Blood Test Permitted: Paternity. [Deangelo v.Murray, 536 Pa. 206, 638 A.2d 966 (1994)]. 15(2):3-4.Once Jurisdiction Attaches, a Court Should Dispose ofAll Issues and Questions Relating to the Matter BeforeIt. [In Re: I.L.P. and I.L.P., Joint Petition on AssistedConception Birth Registration; Appeal of: C.-H.L. andT.J.P., G.S. and B.S., 965 A.2d. 251 (Pa. Super. 2009)].John P. Attiani. 31:99-100.Paternity and Visitation: Separate and Distinct Issues.[Mitchell v. Randall, 368 Pa. Super. 421, 534 A.2d 508(1987)]. 9(2):14-15.Paternity by Estoppel. [B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K.,954 A.2d 630 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Stephanie H.Winegrad. 30:203-5.Paternity by Estoppel: If one Waits, It may be TooLate! [Ellison v. Lopez 959 A. 2d 295 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 31:7-8.Paternity by Estoppel not Recognized to EstablishMaternity. [Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc. 819 A.2d 534(Pa. 2003)]. Loreen M. Burkett. 25:63-65.Paternity Case: Constitutional Right to Counsel.[Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 410 Pa. Super. 549, 600 A.2d589 (1991)]. 13(1):4-5.Paternity Issue Revisited. [Sanders v. Sanders, 384 Pa.Super. 311, 558 A.2d 556 (1989)]. 10:94.Paternity: Recent Opinions by the Superior Court.89

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT[McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super.2001), Tregoning v.Wiltsheck and Perez 782 A.2d1001 ( Pa. Super. 2001), and B.S. and R.S. v. T.M., 782A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. Caren E. Morrissey.23:56-58.Paternity: Right of Counsel for Indigent Defendants.[Corra v. Coll, 305 Pa. Super. 179, 451 A.2d 480(1982)]. 3:358-61.Paternity Statute: When does it Apply? . [Bowser v.Zachary, 375 Pa. Super. 481, 544 A.2d 1022 (1988)].9:37.Paternity Test Disallowed. [Donnelly v. Lindenmuth,409 Pa. Super. 341, 597 A.2d 1234 (1991)]. 13(1):5-6.Paternity Testing–Let the Games Begin. [Cable v.Anthou, 499 Pa. 553, 674 A.2d 732 (1997)]. Richard I.Moore. 19:76-77.Paternity: The Presumption of Legitimacy. [Scott v.Mershon, 441 Pa. Super. 551, 657 A.2d 1304 (1990)].11:162-63.Presumption of Paternity and Doctrine of EstoppelExplained. [Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d 721(1999)]. Ann V. Levin. 22:7-8.The Presumption of Paternity and the Doctrine ofPaternity by Estoppel Revisited. [Hamilton v. Hamilton,795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2002), T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Karl D. Cooper. 24:35-36.The Presumption of Paternity Lives. [Strauser v. Stahr,556 Pa. 83, 726 A.2d 1052 (1999)]. Kathryn G.Carlson. 21:73-75.Putative Father not Estopped from Raising Paternity,Supreme Court Rules. [Jefferson v. Perry, 432 Pa.Super. 651, 639 A.2d 830 (1994)]. 15(3):4.Rebuttable Presumption: Child Born During Marriageis Husband's Child. [Selm v. Elliot, 411 Pa. Super. 602,602 A.2d 358 (1992)]. 13(2):7-8.Right of Privacy v. Paternity Test: are They in Conflict?. [John M. v. Paula T., 377 Pa. Super. 72, 546 A.2d1162 (1988)]. 9:47-49.Son Adopted as Adult Can't Collect UnderGrandfather's Will. [Estate of Goal v. Hollifield, 380Pa. Super. 219, 551 A.2d 309 (1988)]. 10:68.Superior Court Rules No Due Process Violation in aPaternity Matter Where an Acknowledged Father didnot Receive Notice Nor a Timely Hearing WhenMother Filed for Child Support Against a Third Party.[Wieland v. Wieland, 948 Pa. Super. 863 (Pa. Super.2008)]. Ann M. Funge. 30:154-56.Superior Court Upholds Paternity by Estoppel andRelaxation of Wavier Doctrine Under Hybrid LocalProcedure. [Zadori v. Zadori, 443 Pa. Super. 192, 661A.2d 370 (1995) (1995)]. 17(4):5-6.Use of Blood Test to Rebut Presumption of MarriedFather's Paternity. [Faust v. Faggart, 406 Pa. Super.357, 594 A.2d 660 (1991)]. 12(5):6-7.PROTECTION FROM ABUSE ACTAppellant Ordered to Pay Damages for Violating theProvision to Return Property Pursuant to a Protectionfrom Abuse Order. [Gerace v. Gerace, 429 Pa. Super.203, 631 A.2d 1360 (1993)]. 15(1):8-9.Evidence of Alleged Prior Abuse Admissible in CurrentPFA Action. [Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A. 2d 1260(Pa. Super. 2008)]. Andrew D. Taylor. 31:10-11.Evidence Sufficient for Protection from Abuse OrderDespite Absence of Physical Injury. [Mescanti v.Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Darren J.Holst. 30:211-13.Pa. Supreme Court Creates a Per Se Rule for theExpungement of Certain Protection from AbuseRecords.[Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa.2002)]. Daivd J. Draganosky. 24:99-101.PFA Statute Applies to Abuse Between Child’s Motherand Paternal Grandfather. [DeBoer v. Slusser, 985 A.2d974 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Andrew D. Taylor. 32:17.Protection from Abuse Act: Financial Ability to Pay.[Eaches v. Steigerwalt, 391 Pa. Super. 15, 569 A.2d975 (1990)]. 11:147-48.Sexual Assault Alone Does not Establish Standing in90

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTProtection from Abuse Cases. [Scott v. Shay, 928 A.2d.312 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:137-39.Superior Court Affirms Order of Trial Court DirectingAbused Woman to Pay Perpetrator Money per theTerms of a Consent Order. [Lee v. Carney, 435 Pa.Super. 405, 645 A.2d 1363 (1993)]. 16(5):7-8.Violation of Abuse Act Order is Indirect CriminalContempt and Due Process Must be Afforded. [Vito v.Vito, 380 Pa. Super. 258, 551 A.2d 471 (1988)]. 10:65-66.Violation of the Protection of the Abuse Act: IndirectCriminal Contempt. [Wagner v. Wagner, 387 Pa. Super.246, 564 A.2d 162 (1989)]. 10(4):104-5.Where No Petition to Modify was Filed, the Trial CourtDismissal of the PFA Order was Improper. [Stamus v.Dutcavich, 938 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. John P.Attiani. 30:84-86.REPLEVINReplevin Action Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code.[Kramer v. Kramer, 110 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 135(1982)]. 3:338-39.RES JUDICATAChild Support Complaint Barred Based on ResJudicata, Superior Court Declares. [Scott v. Mershon,394 Pa. Super. 411, 576 A.2d 67 (1995)]. 17(4):6.SANCTIONParty Prejudice from Introducing Evidence as aJustifiable Discovery Sanction. [Hein v. Hein, 717 A.2d1053 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Stephanie H. Bacine. 21:4-5.SEPARATION AGREEMENTSSupreme Court Differentiates Between Postnuptial andSeparation Agreements. [Vaccarello v.Vaccarello, 563Pa. 93, 757 A.2d 909 (2000)]. Maribeth Blessing. 23:4-8.SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTSAgreements Which are Incorporated, but not Merged,are Non-Modifiable. [McGough v. McGough, 361 Pa.Super. 391, 522 A.2d 638 (1987)]. 8:958-59.Effect of 401.1(b) on Pre-1988 Property SettlementAgreements. [Brangs v. Brangs, 407 Pa. Super. 43, 595A.2d 115 (1991)]. 12(4):4-5.Enforcement Procedure of Pre-1988 UnmergedProperty Settlement Agreement. [Jackson v. Culp, 400Pa. Super. 519, 583 A.2d 1236 (1990)]. 12(2):2.Husband's "Guilt Trip" Against Well-informed WifeWon't Visciate Separation Agreement. [Adams v.Adams, 414 Pa. Super. 634, 607 A.2d 1116 (1992)].13(4):8-9.Incorporation or Merger: Modification of Agreement.[Ballestrino v. Ballestrino, 400 Pa. Super. 237, 583A.2d 474 (1990)]. 12(1):4-5.Marriage Settlement Agreement Upheld When Spouseof Business Owner Fully Engaged in Couple’s FinancialAffairs and Involved in Business. [Paroly v. Paroly, 876A.2d 1061 (Pa. Super. 2005)]. Christine Gale. 27:120-21.Modifiability of Property Settlement Agreement. [Com.ex rel. Tokach v. Tokach, 326 Pa. Super. 359, 474 A.2d41 (1984)]. 5:571-72.Punitive Damages: Failure to Fully Disclose. [Hess v.Hess, 397 Pa. Super. 395, 580 A.2d 357 (1990)].11:185.Stress but No Duress: Agreement Valid. [Adams v.Adams, 848 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Michael E.Bertin. 26:45-46.Superior Court Imposes Contractual Duty of GoodFaith and Fair Dealing in Performance and Enforcementon Parties to a Marriage Settlement Agreement.[Herzog v. Herzog, 887 A 2d. 313 (Pa. Super. 2005)].David C. Schanbacher. 28:8-10.Tokach is Overlooked. [D'huy v. D'huy, 390 Pa. Super.509, 568 A.2d 1289 (1990)]. 11:131-32.Trial Court had Jurisdiction to Enforce Marital PropertySettlement Agreement under Divorce Code WhereAgreement had not been Merged or Incorporated into91

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTFinal Divorce Decree. [Annechino v. Joire, 946 A.2d121 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Michele G. Bononi. 30:82-83.SLAYER'S ACTWhere Killing Done With "Will," There's No "Way"Killer can Take from Victim's Estate. (In re Estate ofBartolovich, 420 Pa. Super. 419, 616 A.2d 1043(1992)]. 14(2):15-16.SOCIAL SECURITYSocial Security Derivative Benefits can be Subject toLegal Process Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 659. [Silver v.Pinskey (731 MDA 2007)]. Jonathan T. Hoffman.32:23-25.SUPPORTAdministrative Error That Resulted in PrematureTermination of a Child Support Order May beCorrected Administratively as Well. [Castaldi v.Castaldi-Veloric, 993 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2010)].Lesley J. Beam. 32:76-78.Agreed Support in Conjunction With PropertySettlement Agreement not Modifiable. [Nessa v. Nessa,399 Pa. Super. 59, 581 A.2d 674 (1990)]. 11:194.Agreement on Child Support Binding. [Bell v. Bell, 390Pa. Super. 526, 568 A.2d 1297 (1990)]. Emanuel A.Bertin. 11:133.Alimony is Income to Non-Custodial Parent for ChildSupport Purposes, Divided Panel Declares. [Hyde v.Hyde, 421 Pa. Super. 415, 618 A.2d 406 (1992)].14(1):4-5.Attachment of Personal Injury/Workers’ CompensationAwards to Satisfy Support Arrears. [Faust v. Walker,945 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Stephanie H.Winegrad. 30:83-84.Base All Orders for Support on Specific IncomeFindings. [Dalessandro v. Dalessandro, 366 Pa. Super.479, 531 A.2d 518 (1987]. 9:4.Bonuses: a Proper Consideration for Support Orders.[Fichthorn v. Fichthorn, 368 Pa. Super. 305, 533 A.2d1388 (1987)]. 9:2.Burden of Proof for Support Petition: Legal Cause.[Clendenning v. Clendenning, 392 Pa. Super. 33, 572A.2d 18 (1990)]. 11:161-62.Child Support Agreement Between Parents: Is itBinding? [Roberts v. Furst, 385 Pa. Super. 530, 561A.2d 805 (1989)]. 10(4):103.Child Support and Paternity by Estoppel. [Barr v.Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Christian V.Badali. 29:97-98.Child Support Award Based on Earning Capacity Heldto be Applicable only in Cases Where There is a Pre-Existing Court Order. [Klahold v. Kroh, 437 Pa. Super.150, 649 A.2d 701 (1994)]. 17(1):7-8.Child Support Case. [Groner v. Groner, 328 Pa. Super.191, 476 A.2d 957 (1984)]. 5:594-96.Child Support Complaint Barred Based on ResJudicata, Superior Court Declares. [Scott v. Mershon,(1995)]. 17(4):6.The Child Support Implications of the Second Family.[Frankenfield v. Fesser, 449 Pa. Super. 47, 672 A.2d1347 (1996); Elias v. Spencer, 449 Pa. Super. 359, 673A.2d 982 (1996)]. Steven B. Schwartz. 18(4):6-7.Child Support Modification Retroactive to Date ofMisrepresentation. [Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. Michael E. Bertin. 30:79-81.Child Support Obligations Terminates Upon Death.[Benson v. Pastterson, 782 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super.2001)]. Julie A. Auerbach. 23:55-56.Child Support Order Vacated Due to Trial Court'sFailure to Follow Melzer Formula. [Weckerly v.Weckerly, 357 Pa. Super. 644, 513 A.2d 1182 (1986)].7:864.Child Support: Supplemental Needs Trust DistributionsConsidered Income. [Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294(Pa. Super. 2007)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:134-36.Child Support-Two Kids: Separate Households.[Blaisure v. Blaisure, 395 Pa. Super. 473, 577 A.2d 64092

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECT(1990)]. 11:173-74.Child Support Where Father was Sperm Donor andDetermined to be an Indispensable Party in Mother’sAction to Obtain Child Support from Former Same-SexPartner. [Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob-Jacob & Frampton, 923A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Christian V. Badali.29:48-49.Clarification for Those Pre-1988 Support Agreements.[Nicholson v. Combs, 550 Pa. 23, 703 A.2d 407(1997). Lorraine W. Mervan. 20:3.Court Establishes Formula for Child Support. [Melzerv. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984)].5:588-91.Courts may not Divide Social Security Benefits inSupport. [Silver v. Pinskey, not reported in A.2d, 2008WL 902715 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2008), rearg. En bancgranted May 30, 2008]. Natalie Famous. 30:86-87.Daughter's Needs Outweigh Dinners Out. [Opie v.Richart, 410 Pa. Super. 380, 599 A.2d 1348 (1991)].13(1):7.Deceased Parent's Estate not Required to Pay ChildSupport, Superior Court Rules. [Garney v. Estate ofHain, 439 Pa. Super. 42, 653 A.2d 21 (1995)]. 17(2):2-3.Denial of Child Support as a Result of the Doctrine ofJudicial Immunity. [Clodgo v. Bowman, 411 Pa. Super.267, 601 A.2d 342 (1992)]. 13(2):6-7.Direct Payment to Public Assistance Recipient of ChildSupport Arrearages Gets No Credit from DPW,Commonwealth Court Rules. [Long v. Thomas, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 416, 619 A.2d 394 (1992)]. 14(1):8.Directly or Indirectly, Parents Cannot Avoid SupportObligations by Contract. [Miesen v. Frank, 361 Pa.Super. 204, 522 A.2d 85 (1987)]. 9:7-8.Does the Nurturing Parent Doctrine Still Exist inPennsylvania? [Doherty v. Doherty, 859 A.2d 811 (Pa.Super. 2004)]. Caren E. Morrissey. 26:107-8.Domestic Relations Subpoena Approved For Use atSupport Hearing. [Knight v. Northwest savings Bank,et al., 747 A.2d 384 (Pa. Super. 2000)]. Jeffrey M.Williams. 22:38.Earning Capacity and Nurturing Parent Doctrine inSupport Cases. [Kelly v. Kelly, (1993)]. 14(5):3-4.Effectiveness of Varying State Child Support OrdersEvaluated. [Com. ex rel. Brendel v. Brendel, 429 Pa.Super. 319, 632 A.2d 876 (1993)]. 15(1):9-10.Emancipated Child May Intervene in EnforcementProceedings to Litigate and Receive Retroactive ChildSupport. [Chen v. Chen, 840 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super.2003)]. Jennifer A. Brandt. 26:5-6."Entitlement" Still an Issue in Spousal Support Cases.[Myers v. Myers, 405 Pa. Super. 290, 592 A.2d 339(1991)]. 12(5):3-4.Equal Amenities at Both Parents’ Houses not theStandard for Child Support in High Income Cases inPennsylvania. [Rich v. Rich, 967 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Melissa M. Boyd. 31:18-19.Explanatory Comments to Revised Rule 1910.19(f)Prevent Arrears to be Remitted During Obligor’sIncarceration. [Nash v. Herbster, 932 A.2d 183 (Pa.Super. 2007)]. Linda A. Kerns. 29:125-26.Father Ordered to Pay More than $200,000 in SupportArrearages Dating Back to the 1950's. [Bullock v.Bullock, 432 Pa. Super. 643, 639 A.2d 826 (1994)].15(3):9-10.Getting Sirious.[Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. David J. Draganosky. 30:159-63.If Adult Child's Handicap Prevents Independent Living,Parent's Support Obligation Continues. [Hanson v.Hanson, 425 Pa. Super. 508, 625 A.2d 1212 (1993)].14(4):14-15.Imprisonment and Child Support Payment. [Leasure v.Leasure, 378 Pa. Super. 613, 549 A.2d 225 (1988)].9:50.Imputed Income fromSecond Full-Time Job in SupportCases. [Haselrig v. Haselrig, 840 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super.2003)]. Sandra E. Davis. 26:8-9.93

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTIn Loco Parentis Status Provides Same Rights as aParent in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings. [In re D.K.& W.K., 922 A.2d 929 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Sarinia A.Michaelson. 29:100-01.Indemnification Provision for Child Support Liabilityis Unenforceable and Against Public Policy. [Frank v.Miesen, 361 Pa. Super. 204, 522 A.2d 85]. 8:957-58.Inheritance does not Equate to Income for SupportPurposes. [Humphries v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281 (Pa.2002)]. Elisabeth Pride. 24:32-34.Interlocutory Order for APL/Spousal Support isUnappealable Within 30 Days of the Entry of the FinalDecree in Divorce or Annulment. [Costlow v. Costlow,914 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Jennifer A. Brandt.29:14-15.Is There an Obligation for Support Arrearages WhenParental Rights have been Terminated? [MonroeCounty Children and Youth Services v. Werkheiser,409 Pa. Super. 508, 598 A.2d 313 (1991)]. 13(1):8.Judgment Stricken on Lump Sum Certification ofSupport Arrears. [Welz v. Stump, 403 Pa. Super. 93,588 A.2d 47 (1991)]. 12(3):8-9.Kerns, Linda A. Explanatory Comments to RevisedRule 1910.19(f) Prevent Arrears to be Remitted DuringObligor’s Incarceration. [Nash v. Herbster, 932 A.2d183 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. 29:125-26.Laches–Collection of Support Arrearages. [Patten v.Vose, 404 Pa. Super. 426, 590 A.2d 1307 (1991)].12(4):10-11.Lump Sum Personal Injury Settlement ConstitutesIncome for Support Calculations. [Darby v. Darby, 455Pa. Super. 63, 686 A.2d 1346 (1996)]. James H.Richardson. 19:29-31.Minimum Contacts Established in Support Action.[Baronti v. Baronti, 381 Pa. Super. 134, 552 A.2d 1131(1989)]. 10:64.Mortgage Adjustment in Child Support Case AfterDecree in Divorce. [Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178(Pa Super. 2003)]. Sandra E. Davis. 25:69-72.Neither IVF, Nor a Preconception Oral Agreement Northe Mother’s Intentional Deception Bars a SpermDonor’s Adjudication as the Child’s Legal FatherObligated to Pay Child Support. [Ferguson v.McKiernan, 855 A.2d 121 (Pa Super. 2004)]. CharlesS. Cusick, Jr. 26:109-10.No Child Support Duty after Death. [Benson ex rel.Patterson v. Patterson, 830 A.2d 966 (Pa 2003)]. LoriK. Shemtob. 25:95-96.No Child Support Obligation When Child VoluntarilyLeaves Home. [Oeler v. Oeler, 527 Pa. Super. 532, 594A.2d 649 (1991)]. 12(4):11-12.No Income Imputed to "Stay-at-home" Parent ofChronically Ill Toddler. [Singleton v. Waites, 420 Pa.Super. 184, 616 A.2d 644 (1992)]. 13(6):9-10.No Modification of Support When Reasons not on theRecord. [Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 412 Pa. Super. 382,603 A.2d 633 (1992)]. 13(2):5-6.A Noncustodial Parent is Obliged to Pay Child SupportUntil a Child Reaches Age 18 or GraduatesfromHighSchool, Whichever Occurs Later in Time. [Robinson-Austin v. Robinson-Austin, 921 A.2d 1246 (Pa. Super.2007)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr. 29:55.Notes of Other Support Cases. Support–Arrearages.Com. ex rel. Belin v. Belin, 268 Pa. Super. 428, 408A.2d 862 (1979); Com. ex rel. Cragle v. Cragle, Pa.Super., 419 A. 2d 1179 (1980)]. 1:58-59.Obligation to Support Child of Second MarriageConstitutes a Change in Circumstance.[Fortune/Forsythe v. Fortune, 352 Pa. Super. 547, 508A.2d 1205 (1986)]. 7:861-63.Orders Granting Interim Relief are Interlocutory. [Friedv. Fried, 509 Pa. 89, 501 A.2d 211 (1985)]. 6:772-75.Pa.R.A.P. 1701: An Analysis. [Schoff v. Richter, 386Pa. Super. 289, 562 A.2d 912 (1989)]. 10(4):115.Panel Postpones Re-examination of Welfare ChildSupport Relationship. [Com., Dept. of Public Welfareex rel. Dessus v. Chamberlain, 421 Pa. Super. 137, 617A.2d 762 (1992)]. 14(1):9-10.94

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTParents' Child Support Obligations; Age of Child is aFactor. [Dewalt v. Dewalt, 365 Pa. Super. 280, 529A.2d 508 (1987)]. 8:1009-11.Parties can Obtain Both Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport. [Com. ex rel. Homsher v. Homsher]. 289 Pa.Super. 112, 432 A.2d 1076 (1981)]. 2:197."Paving Over" Expenditures for Equipment Doesn'tCreate Avenue for Changed Circumstances or ReducedSupport Obligations. [McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 418 Pa.Super. 39, 613 A.2d 20 (1992)]. 13(6):5-6.Payments from Special Needs Trust Considered Incomefor Support Purposes. [Mencer v. Ruch 928 A.2d 294(Pa. Super. 2007)]. Darren Oglesby. 29:95-96.Pennsylvania Superior Court Extends Contractual ChildSupport After Death of Obligor. [In Re: Estate ofJohnson, 970 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Jessica F.Moyer. 31:89-91.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Establishes the “NoJustification” Rule to Preclude Incarcerated ParentfromModifying or Terminating Child Support BasedUpon Modification of Child Support. [Yerkes v.Yerkes, 824 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2003)]. Loreen M. Burkett.26:4-5.Pension and Profit Sharing not Exempt fromAttachment for Purposes of Satisfying Familial SupportObligations. [Hopkinson v. Hopkinson, 323 Pa. Super.404, 470 A.2d 981]. 4:509-12.Pension Attachable for Purpose of Enforcing SupportOrder. [Hollman v. Hollman, 515 Pa. 288, 528 A.2d146 (1987)]. 8:1004-5.Pension Payment not Attachable to Satisfy ArrearagesDue and Owing Under Support Agreement. [Hollmanv. Hollman, 511 Pa. Super. 362, 513 A.2d 1380 4(1986)]. 7:796-802.Presumption Exists that Support Order Should beRetroactive. [Shovlin v. Shovlin, 318 Pa. Super. 516,465 A.2d 673 (1983)]. 4:471-72.Prior Support Hearing Stipulation as to EarningCapacity not Binding in New Petition for Modification.[Baehr v. Baehr, 889A.2d. 1240 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Pamela L. Purdy. 28:10-13.Proceeds of Equitable Distribution are not Income forSupport Purposes. [Miller v. Miller, 783 A29.832 (Pa.Super. 2001)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 24:10-11.Recent Support Decision to be Noted by PennsylvaniaPractitioners. [Com. ex rel. Bulson v. Bulson, 278 Pa.Super. 6, 419 A.2d 1327 (1980)]. 1:57-58Recent Support Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Paul v. Paul,279 Pa. Super. 458, 425 A.2d 289 (1980); Com. ex rel.Werline v. Werline, 280 Pa. Super. 572, 421 A.2d 1080(1980); Long v. Long, 280 Pa. Super. 477, 421 A.2d822 (1980); Lundy v. Com., Dept. of Public Welfare,54 Pa. Commw. 1, 419 A.2d 801 (1980); Battle v.Com., Dept. of Public Welfare, 541 Pa. Cmwlth. 1, 419A.2d 801 (1980)]. 1:78-82.Recent Support Entitlement Decisions to be Noted byFamily Law Practitioners. [Hellman v. Hellman, 246Pa. Super. 36, 371 A. 2d 964 (1977); Com. ex rel.D'andrea v. D'andrea, 262 Pa. Super. 302, 396 A. 2d765 (1978); Com. ex rel. Carmack v. Carmack, 268 Pa.Super. 198, 407 A.2d 1314 (1979); Com. ex rel. Englev. Engle, Montg. Co., No. 1087-77 (1978); Com. ex rel.Behr v. Behr, Montg. Co., No. 1814-77 (1979);Narbesky v. Narbesky, 255 Pa. Super. 48, 386 A. 2d129 (1978); Com. ex rel. Stein v. Stein, 487 Pa. 1, 406A. 2d 1381 (1979)]. 1:14-19.Retroactive Application of Support Order Denied.[Hainaut v. Hainaut, 410 Pa. Super. 316, 599 A.2d1009 (1991)]. 13(1):6-7.Retroactive Suspension of a Support Order WithoutModification Petition. [Calloway v. Calloway, 406 Pa.Super. 454, 594 A.2d 708 (1991)]. 12(6):5-6.Role of Trusts Under UGMA in Support Actions.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 489 Pa. Super. 764, (1985)]. 6:705-13.Role Reversal: Wife Supports Husband. [McWilliamsv. McWilliams, 370 Pa. Super. 595, 537 A.2d 35(1988)]. 9:23.Rule 1910.19(f) Permits Suspension of Support Orderand Remission of Arrears When There is No95

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTReasonable Prospect of Recovery. [Plunkard v.Mcconnell, 962 A.2d 1227(Pa. Super. 2008)]. SophiaPaige Paul. 31:13-14.Rule 1910.23: not a Tool to Change a Support Order.[O'neill v. Gioffre, 384 Pa. Super. 579, 559 A.2d 588(1989)]. 10(4):103-4.Same Sex Domestic Partner’s in Loco Parentis StandingCarries a Child Support Obligation. [L.S.K. v. H.A.N.,813 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Margaret T. Lucasand H. William White, III. 25:12-13.Section 501(f) of Divorce Code Permits Enforcement ofSupport Obligations Made Subject to a Consent DecreeUnder §503 of Divorce Code. [Hopkinson v.Hopkinson, 112 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 351 (1983)].4:490.Seizing of Personal Settlement Proceeds Permitted forChild Support Enforcement. [Campbell v. Walker;Appeal of: Department of Public Welfare, 982 A.2d1013 (Pa. Super. 2009)]. Christine Gale. 32:5-7.A Severance Payment and Distribution of an AccuralAccount Income for Support or Assets for EquitableDistribution? [Berry v. Berry 898 A.2d. 1100 (Pa.Super. 2006)]. David C. Schanbacher. 28:102-4.Sperm Donor not Liable for Child Support. [Fergusonv. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa. 2007)]. Bruce L.Wilder. 30:10-11.Spousal Support Order Entered During PendingDivorce Case Unappealable. [Leister v. Lesiter, 453 Pa.Super. 576, 684 A.2d 192 (1996)]. Rochelle B.Grossman. 19:3-5."Stay at Home Mom" of Second Marriage Toddler hasNo Support Obligation for First-marriage TeenagerTriggering Debate by Divided Panel. [Atkinson v.Atkinson, 420 Pa. Super. 146, 616 A.2d 22 (1992)].14(1):5-6.Superior Court Addresses Appealability of SpousalSupport Orders. [Calibeo v. Calibeo, 443 Pa. Super.694, 663 A.2d 184 (1995)]. 17(4):7.Superior Court Affirms Modification of Support OrderDue to Changed Circumstances. [Farbaugh v. Killen,436 Pa. Super. 480, 648 A.2d 60 (1994)]. 16(5):6-7.Superior Court Disapproves Practice of Including SetPercentage of the Income of a Parent's New SpouseWhen Calculating Support. [McCarty v. Smith, 440 Pa.Super. 280, 655 A.2d 563 (1995)]. 17(3):5-6.Superior Court does Away With Unallocated SupportOrders in Divorce Actions. [Dubin v. Dubin, 372 Pa.Super. 84, 538 A.2d 1362 (1988)]. 9(2):12.Superior Court Finds Condonation is an AdequateDefense to Adultery as it Precludes Spousal Support.[Hoffman v. Hoffman, 762 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super.2000)]. Jean Gilroy Gavlick. 23:9-10.Superior Court Finds Four Year Statute of LimitationsInapplicable to Registration of Foreign SupportJudgments Act. [Stewart v. Stewart, 743 A.2d 955 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. Joel S. Todd. 22:36-38.Superior Court Holds that Non-Custodial Parent is notEntitled to Reduction in Child Support Proportionate tothe Amount of Time Non-Custodial Parent has Custodyof Children. [Connor v. Connor, 434 Pa. Super. 288,642 A.2d 1136 (1994)]. 16(4):6-7.Superior Court Holds that South Carolina Court hasJurisdiction Over Support Action Under the Provisionof Uresa. [Bratton v. Jury, 435 Pa. Super. 110, 644A.2d 1259 (1994)]. 16(4):8-9.Superior Court Upholds Trial Court Order AwardingSpousal Support to Wife Who Left Marital Residenceupon Disclosure that Husband was a Transvestite.[McKolanis v. McKolanis, 435 Pa. Super. 103, 644A.2d 1256 (1994)]. 16(4):4-6.Support Action Brought Under New Statute ofLimitations Survives Despite Res Judicata RulingUnder Former Statute. [Fornwalt v. Follmer, 420 Pa.Super. 413, 616 A.2d 1040 (1992)]. 14(1):7-8.Support–Arrearages–Proceeds from Post-DivorcePartition can be Used to Satisfy Arrearages. [Moyer v.Moyer, 292 Pa. Super. 434, 437 A.2d 752 (1981)].2:216-18.Support Case–Hearing De Novo Means Hearing Anew.[D'Arciprete v. D'Arciprete, 323 Pa. Super. 430, 47096

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTA.2d 995 (1984)]. 5:572-73.Support Case–Loss of Employment Due to WillfulMisconduct does not Constitute Change inCircumstances. [Schad v. Schaffner, Allegh. Co., FD81-5256 (1984)]. 5:632.Support Continues until Entry of a Divorce Decree andan Appeal Stays the Effect of a Divorce Decree. [Tosev. Tose, Montg. Co. (April 30, 1981)]. 2:184-86.Support–Court Discusses Factors to be Considered inDetermining Earning Capacity. [Boni v. Boni, 302 Pa.Super. 102, 448 A.2d 547 (1982)]. 3:306-9.Support Modification: Kinden Payments, EarningCapacity and Federal Tax Liability. [Adams v. Adams,387 Pa. Super. 1, 563 A.2d 913 (1989)]. 10:123-25. CkKinden?Support Order: Physical or Financial Separation.[Shilling v. Shilling, (1990)]. 11:161.Support Order Runs from Date of Filing of Complaintin Support until Entry of Divorce Decree. [Noldy v.Noldy, 340 Pa. Super. 588, 490 A.2d 1376 (1985)].7:828-29.Support Procedures: Appointment of District Attorney.[Steenland-Parker v. Parker, 375 Pa. Super. 457, 544A.2d 1010 (1988)]. 9:36.Support–Property Settlement Agreement–Incorporationvs. Merger. [Brown v. Hall and Com. ex rel. Hallv. Hall, 495 Pa. 635, 435 A.2d 859 (1981)]. 2:214-16.Support Provisions Under Post-Nuptial AgreementSurvive Despite Fact Other Provisions may be Illegal.[Huber v. Huber, 523 Pa. Super. 530, 470 A.2d 1385(1984)]. 5:583-85.Superior Court Affirms Trial Court’s Dismissal ofFather’s Petition for Modification of Child Support.[McClain v. McClain, 872 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Mary H. Burchik. 27:115-17.Supreme Court Holds that Trial Court Erred in notConsidering Children and Youth Services of AlleghenyCounty v. Chorgo in Determining Whether Obligor forSupport is Entitled to Credit Due to Children's Receiptof Social Security Monies. [Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa.Super. 459, 646 A.2d 1186 (1994)]. 16(5):5.Temporary Award of Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport is not Appealable. [Lowenschuss v.Lowenschuss, Montg. Co., No. 81-17813 (1982)].3:310.Temporary Institutionalization Does not ConstitutePermanent Challenge in Circumstances. [R.C. v. J.S.,957 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2008). Scott L. Levine.30:215-16.Termination of Child Support Order Pursuant to Rule.[1]910.19(e) Does not Automatically Bar a Later Claimfor Post-Majority Support. [Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d403 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. Cheryl B. Krentzman. 30:208-11.Termination of Support on Remarriage. [Purdue v.Purdue, 398 Pa. Super. 228, 580 A.2d 1146 (1990)].11:196-97.‘Tis not the “Season” for Calculating Support, CourtTells Recission Victim Father. [Paulus v. Paulus, 413Pa. Super. 230, 604 A.2d 1103 (1992)]. 13(3):5-6.To Merge or not to Merge: Modifiability of SupportAgreement at Stake. [McGough v. McGough, 361 Pa.Super. 391, 522 A.2d 638 (1987)]. 9:7.Transfer of Support Action. [Altschuler v. Altschuler,334 Pa. Super. 111, 482 A.2d 1106 (1984)]. 5:653-54.Trial Court Must Keep its Eye on Ball in EvaluatingSupport Cases. [Seman v. Seman, 419 Pa. Super. 20,614 A.2d 1189 (1992)]. 13(6):7.Two Agreements–Two Enforcement Cases OneSuccess-One Failure. [Thomson v. Rose, 698 A.2d1321 (Pa. Super. 1997) and Gaster v. Gaster, 703 A.2d513 (Pa. Super. 1997)]. Lise A. Fisher. 19:79-81.Typical Support Case Clarifies Law Regarding EarningCapacity, Employee Perquisites, Bonuses, 401(K)Contributions, Employer Matches, Exemptions andChild Care Expenses. [Portugal v. Portugal, 798 A.2d246 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Elisabeth Bennington. 24:97-99.97

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTUnauthorized Appeal Results in Ruling that Parent withDe Jure, But not De Facto, Custody has Standing toSeek Child Support. [Seder v. Seder, 841 A.2d 1074(Pa. Super. 2004)]. Ann M. Funge. 26:9-11.Value of Employee Benefits Package and UndistributedAnnuity Interest Must be Included as Income Availablefor Child Support Purposes. [Arbet v. Arbet, 803 A.2d34 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Darren J. Holst. 27:4-7.Wife's Settlement to Spousal Support When SheVacates the Home. [Rock v. Rock, 385 Pa. Super. 126,560 A.2d 199 (1989)]. 10:93.Wife's Waiver of Child Support Determined to beInvalid Because Payments Were Equitable Distributionand not Child Support. [Kraisinger V. Kraisinger, 928A.2d 333 (Pa. Super 2007)]. Michael Viola. 29:93-95.SUPPORT–EDUCATIONAct 62 is Applied Retroactively, the Superior CourtDeclares. [Hecker v. O'connell, 427 Pa. Super. 608,629 A.2d 1036 (1993)]. 14(4):2.Agreement to Pay Post-Secondary EducationalExpenses is Valid & Binding. [Goss v. Timblin, 424Pa. Super. 216, 622 A.2d 347 (1993)]. 14(3):3-4.A Brief History of the Law of College Support inPennsylvania. [Colantoni v. Colantoni, 220 Pa. Super.46, 281 A. 2d 662 (1971); Grallnick v. Grallnick, 279Pa. Super. 347, 421 A.2d 232 (1980); Ross v. Ross,167 N. J. Super. 441, 400 A. 2d 1233 (1979)]. 1:62-64.College Education: A Basic Necessity. [Milne v. Milne,383 Pa. Super. 177, 556 A.2d 854 (1987)]. 9:3-4.College Education: Estrangement. [In the Matter ofFager v. Fatta, 395 Pa. Super. 152, 576 A.2d 1089(1990)]. 11:174-75.College Expenses: Father's Obligation. [Schumacker v.Hanna, 377 Pa. Super. 301, 547 A.2d 379 (1988)].9:49.College Support Allowed for Children Over 23 andChildren Who Have Become Parents. [Griffin v.Griffin, 384 Pa. Super. 210, 558 A.2d 86 (1988)]. 9:36-37.College Support Award. [Monsky v. Sacks, 403 Pa.Super. 40, 588 A.2d 19 (1990)]. 12(1):3-4.College Support: Estrangement and Undue Hardship.[Bedford v. Bedford, 386 Pa. Super. 349, 563 A.2d 102(1989)]. 10(4):101.College Support: Need and Undue Hardship. [Chesonisv. Chesonis, 372 Pa. Super. 113, 538 A.2d 1376(1988)]. 9(2):13.College Support Ordered Since No Funding of WillfulEstrangements, Superior Court Declares. [McGettiganv. McGettigan, 433 Pa. Super. 102, 639 A.2d 1231(1994)]. 15(2):4-5.College Support Takes Backseat to Minor Child'sSupport. [Horst v. Horst, 406 Pa. Super. 188, 593 A.2d1299 (1991)]. 12(4):11.College Support–Weighing All Factors. [Pharoah v.Lapes, 391 Pa. Super. 585, 571 A.2d 1070 (1990)].11:143-44.Court Finds Child has a Right to be Supported inVocational School. [Maurer v. Maurer, 382 Pa. Super.468, 555 A.2d 1294 (1989)]. 10(2):77-78.Court Finds Father Obligated to Support Son AttendingLaw School. [Brown v. Brown, 8 A.C.D.D. 199(1983)]. 4:438-39.Court Finds No Obligation to Support EmancipatedChild in Professional School. [Brown v. Brown, 327Pa. Super. 51, 474 A.2d 1168 (1984)]. 5:581-82.Current Standard of Living and Child’s NeedsControlling in Private School Tuition Case WhereChild did not Attend Private School Prior to Separation.[Gibbons v. Kugle, 908 A.2d 916 (Pa. Super. 2006)].Al Shemtob. 29:9.Death, Depression, Delays Expand College SupportObligation. [McCabe v. Krupinski, 413 Pa. Super. 59,604 A.2d 732(1992)]. 13(3):5-6.Educational Support Case Remanded, Where TrialCourt Incorrectly Considered Items Such as PersonalExpenses, Clothing and Travel Expenses, and WhereCourt Proceeded in the Absence of a Critical Child98

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTWitness. [Grieve v. Mankey, 443 Pa. Super. 101, 660A.2d 1367 (1995)]. 17(5):4.Estrangement Defense Held Inapplicable in HigherEducation Support Case, Where Estrangement was notProven to be Unilateral on the Part of the Child.[Rudick v. Rudick, 441 Pa. Super. 558, 657 A.2d 1307(1995)]. 17(5):4.Estrangement is a Consideration in Awarding CollegeSupport. [Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177, 556A.2d 854 (1989)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 10:88-89.Estrangement is a Two-Way Street for Father Seekingto Avoid Child's College Tuition. [Reif v. Reif, 426 Pa.Super. 14, 626 A.2d 169 (1993)]. 14(4):13-14.Father Ordered to Contribute Toward Tuition forPrivate School for Emotionally Disturbed Daughter.[Stredny v. Gray, 353 Pa. Super. 376, 510 A.2d 359(1986)]. 7:879-81.No College Support for Emancipated Son. [Marino v.Marino, 411 Pa. Super. 424, 601 A.2d 1240 (1992)].13(2):3-5.No Supercessive Effect of Trust on Preexisting CollegeSupport Agreement. [Frank v. Frank, 402 Pa. Super.458, 587 A.2d 340 (1991)]. 12(3):7-8.PA Superior Court Reiterates the Rules of LawRegarding Oral Agreements on College Expenses,Definition of Earning Capacity and Net IncomeCalculations. [Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529 (Pa.Super. 2009)]. Joo Y. Park. 32:14-16.Pa. Supreme Court Declares Pennsylvania CollegeSupport Statute Unconstitutional. [Curtis v. Kline, 542Pa. 249, 666 A.2d 265 (1995)]. 17(5):2-3.Parents Who Signed Agreements to Educate ChildrenGet No Relief from the Blues, Lower Courts Declare.[Trunkwalter v. Trunwalter, 421 Pa. Super. 308, 617A.2d 1308 (1992)]. 14(1):2.Parents' Post-High School Education SupportObligation Ends With Bachelor's Degree, DividedPanel Rules. [delCastillo v. delCastillo, 420 Pa. Super.520, 617 A.2d 26(1992)]. 14(1):3.Parochial School is Private School Under PA SupremeCourt Support Guidelines. [Teresa Lynn Knapp vs.John Gordon Knapp, 756 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super.2000)]. Joseph P. Martone. 23:11.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Throws out CollegeSupport. [Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 661 A.2d 628(1992)]. 13(5):2.Successful Physician Held to be Responsible to ReturnFunds Borrowed from His Father-in-law While aMedical Student. [Hornyak v. Sell v. Sell, 427 Pa.Super. 356, 627 A.2d 138 (1993)]. 14(5):8-9.Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's Issuance ofPreliminary Injunction and Imposition of ConstructiveTrust of Children's Educational Funds. [Robbins v.Kristofic, 434 Pa. Super. 392, 643 A.2d 1079 (1994)].15(3):5-7.Support for Child in College by Way of Alimony.[Barrone v. Barrone, 2 A.C.D.D. 188 (1982)]. 3:366-367.SUPPORT–GUIDELINESThe Battle of the County Support Guidelines–WhichCounty Should be Used? [Szillery v. Wheaton, 382 Pa.Super. 394, 555 A.2d 237 (1989)]. 10(2):80.Child’s Special Needs Disability Trust is not Factor tobe Considered for Deviating from Support Guidelines.[Ricco v. Novitski, 874 A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. 2005)].Julia Swain. 27:112-14.Computing Income for a Business Owner Pursuant toMelzer. [Calabrese v. Calabrese, 448 Pa. Super. 166,670 A.2d 1161 (1996); Kessler v. Helmick, 449 Pa.Super. 113, 672 A.2d 1380 (1996), Calabrese v.Calabrese, 452 Pa. Super. 497, 682 A.2d 393 (1996)].Steven B. Schwartz. 18(4):7-10.Equitable Estoppel Doctrine: Child Support byStepparents. [Denomme v. Denomme, 375 Pa. Super.212, 544 A.2d 63 (1988)]. 9:35.The Guidelines are the Guidelines are the Guidelines.[Terpak v. Terpak, 697 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super. 1997)].Carol S. Mills McCarthy. 19:77-79.99

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTGuidelines Deviation in Support Cases Must beSubstantiated. [Anzalone v. Anzalone, 449 Pa. Super.201, 673 A.2d 377 (1996)]. David L. Ladov. 18(3):3-5.Important Criteria in Child Support Orders. [Funk v.Funk, 376 Pa. Super. 76, 545 A.2d 326 (1988)]. 9:33-35.Melzer Analysis Requires Calculation of Children’sReasonable Needs Separate from Those of theCustodial Parent’s. [Chapman-Rolle v. Rolle, 893A.2d770 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Andrew D. Taylor. 28:104-5.Melzer Guidelines: A New Analysis. [Olson v. Olson,(1989)]. 10:92-93.Melzer Guidelines Revisited. [Marshall v. Ross, 373Pa. Super. 235, 540 A.2d 954 (1988)]. 9:22-23.Melzer not Applicable to High-Income Spousal SupportCases, says Supreme Court. [Mascaro v. Mascaro, 803A.2d 1186 (Pa. 2002)]. Brian C. Vertz. 24:102-04.Modification of Support Award: Statewide Guidelines.[Keating v. Keating, 407 Pa. Super. 31, 595 A.2d 109(1991)]. 12(6):6-7.New Support Guidelines to be Applied Retroactively.[Caplan v. Caplan, 400 Pa. Super. 352, 583 A.2d 823(1990)]. 12(2):6.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Guidelines Order. [Landisv. Landis, 456 Pa. Super. 727, 691 A.2d 939 (1997);Rodrigues v. Rodrigues, Allegheny County FD 86-0293(1997)]. 19:55-57.Self-Created Economic Hardship Sabotages ColonnaSupport Deviation Request. [Saunders v. Saunders, 908A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. Darren J. Holst. 29:3-5.Spousal Support Shall be Based Upon ReasonableNeeds in High Income Cases, not Guideline Formula.[Mascaro v. Mascaro, 764 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super.2000)]. Rochelle B. Grossman. 23:13-15.SSI Considered Other Household Income for Deviationfrom Pennsylvania Supreme Court Guidelines Order.[Landis v. Landis, 456 Pa. Super. 727, 691 A.2d 939(1997); Rodrigues v. Rodrigues, Allegheny County, FD86-0293 (1997)]. Martha B. Walker. 19:55-57.Superior Court Upholds Child Support Award Based onPresumptive Minimum Uniform Guidelines EvenThough Child's Actual Expenses Were One-fifth of thePresumptive Minimum Amount. [Gowdy v. Kesserling,455 Pa. Super. 57, 686 A.2d 1343 (1996)]. David J.Steerman. 19:31-33.Support Award: Interplay of Melzer Formula andStatewide Support Guidelines. [Seawalt v. Muldoon,(1991)]. 12(5):4-5.Support Guidelines Reign Supreme. 13(6):6-7.Support Guidelines: Two Part Test. [Shutter v. Reilly,372 Pa. Super. 251, 539 A.2d 424 (1988)]. 9(2):12-13.Supreme Court Limits Fact Finder's Discretion inDeviating from the Support Guidelines. [Ball v.Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 648 A.2d 1192 (1994)]. 16(5):2-4.Trial Court Finds Tax Consequences AlreadyCalculated into Support Guidelines. [Reisinger v.Reisinger, 3 A.C.D.D. 65 (1984)]. 5:582.SUPPORT–INCOMECorpus of Inheritance Included as Income inCalculating Child Support. [Humphreys v. DeRoss, 737A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. Gerald J. Schorr. 21:111-14.Pre-Separation Voluntary Reduction of IncomeUnpersuasive–Prior Earning Capacity Prevails. [Neil v.Neil, 731 A.2d 156 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. Maris J. W.Gill. 21:114-15.Superior Court Reverses Trial Court’s Inclusion ofRetained Earnings in Computing Disposable Income forSupport. [Fennell v. Fennell, 753 A.2d 866 (Pa. Super.2000)]. Carolyn Moran Zack. 22:59-61.The Supreme Court Considers Deprecation in theCalculation of Income Available for Support. [Labar v.Labar, 557 Pa. 54, 731 A.2d 1252 (1999)]. Carol S.Mills McCarthy. 21:76-78.SUPPORT–JURISDICTIONIn Personam Jurisdiction–When does it Exists? [Textor100

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTv. Textor, 9 A.C.D.D. 116 (1987)]. 8:1008-9.In Support Action, Party's Domicile Continues untilNew Domicile is Affirmatively Proven. [McLarin v.McLarin, 350 Pa. Super. 153, 504 A.2d 291 (1986)].7:824-26.Local Rule Which Limits Right to a Hearing De NovoDeclared Invalid. [Warner v. Pollock, 434 Pa. Super.551, 644 A.2d 747 (1994)]. 16(4):9-10.Minimum Contacts: Personal Jurisdiction Reviewed.[Baronti v. Baronti, 381 Pa. Super. 134, 552 A.2d 1131(1989)]. 10(2):79.Personal Jurisdictional: Service of Process. [Ditzler v.Kameran, 384 Pa. Super. 184, 557 A.2d 1107 (1989)].10:93-94.SUPPORT–STOCK OPTIONSStock Options are Income for Support Purposes.[Mackinly v. Messerschmidt, 814 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super2002)]. Joseph P. Marton. 25:9-10.SUPPORT–SPOUSALRule 1910.16-4(E) Spousal Support Calculations WhenObligor is the Primary Custodian. [Diament v.Diament, 816 A.2d 256 (Pa Super.2003)]. Gerald L.Shoemaker, Jr. 25:73-76.SUPPORT–TAXATIONTax Consequences Must be Considered in SettingSupport Orders. [Reisinger v. Reisinger, 324 Pa. Super.223, 471 A.2d 544 (1984)]. 5:529-30.TAXATIONPa. Courts Empowered to Allocate DependencyExemptions. [Miller v. Miller, 744 A.2d 778 (Pa.Super. 1999)]. Debra Denison Cantor. 22:3-5.Tax Liability is Attributable to Year in Which Incomeis Earned in Determining Income Available forSupport. [Spahr v. Spahr, 869 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super.2005)]. Carolyn Moran Zack. 27:58-59.U.S. Court of Appeals Upheld Tax Court Ruling ThatUnallocated Pendente Lite Support Award was ProperlyDeductible as Alimony to Payor and Income to Payee.[Patricia Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue;Robert W. Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,rd407 F.3d 186 (3 Cir. 2005)]. Albert Shemtob. 27:117-18.TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGESLimited Testimony of Social Worker Allowed OverMother’s Objection. [In the Matter of L.F., Appeal ofL.W., 995 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010)]. Amy J.Phillips. 32:139-41.VISITATIONAnalysis of Grandparent Visitation Rights. [Johnson v.Diesinger, 404 Pa. Super. 41, 589 A.2d 1160 (1991)].12(4):8-9."Domino Effect" of Grandparent's Visits on Mother'sDepression and Her Treatment of Child Bars Themfrom Visitation. [Norris v. Tearney, 422 Pa. Super. 246,619 A.2d 339 (1993)]. 14(3):12-13.Father Denied Visitation Rights With Incapacitated 25-Year Old Daughter Pursuant to Her Wishes. [Estate of:Haertsch, Sr., Appeal of, 437 Pa. Super. 187, 649 A.2d719 (1994)]. 17(1):4.Father Imprisoned for His Child's Mother's Murder is"Barred" from Visiting Child. [Green v. Sneeringer,431 Pa. Super. 66, 635 A.2d 1074 (1993)]. 15(1):13-14.Grandparent Visitation Statute Regarding Children ofSeparated or Divorced Parents is Constitutional, Doesnot Violate Equal Protection Rights. [Schmehl v.Schmehl, 927 A. 2d 183 (Pa. 2007)]. Ann M. Funge.29:91-92.Grandparents Action for Visitation Dismissed WhereBoth Parents are Alive. [Herron v. Seizak, 321 Pa.Super. 466, 468 A.2d 803 (1983)]. 5:560-61.Grandparents Visitation Act Interpreted. [Bishop v.Piller, 536 Pa. 41, 637 A.2d 976 (1994)]. 15(2):2-3.Grandparent's Visitation Rights. [Bishop v. Piller, 399101

Pa. Super. 52, 581 A.2d 670 (1990)]. 12(1):9-10.CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTHe Who Hesitates in Establishing Paternity is LostWith Respect to Visitation, Panel Declares. [Everett v.Anglemeyer, 425 Pa. Super. 587, 625 A.2d 1252(1993)]. 14(4):15-16.Legal Standing for Visitation Rights Foster Parent.[Wilson v. Wilson, 406 Pa. Super. 473, 594 A.2d 717(1991)]. 12(6):910.Mother of Custodial Parent has Standing to SeekVisitation of Grandchild in New Interpretation ofGrandparents' Visitation Act. [Hill v. Divecchio, 425Pa. Super. 355, 625 A.2d 642 (1993)]. 14(3):10-11.Paternity and Visitation: Separate and Distinct Issues.[Mitchell v. Randall, 368 Pa. Super. 421, 534 A.2d 508(1987)]. 9(2):14-15.Priority: Termination Petition vs. Visitation Petition.[Appeal Of: G.F., 396 Pa. Super. 661, 570 A.2d 1092(1990)]. 11:158-59.Restriction on Lesbian Mother's Visitation onConflicting Testimony of Child and Experts is Abuse ofDiscretion, Panel Declares. [Blew v. Verta, 420 Pa.Super. 528, 617 A.2d 31 (1992)]. 14(2):12-13.Standing Denied to Stepgrandfather Under GrandparentVisitation Act After Parties had Reconciled. [Helsel v.Puricelli and Puricelli, 927 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. 2007)Reargument Denied 2007 Pa. Super. Lexis 2206 (Filed7/30/07)]. Carolyn Moran Zack. 29:87-88.Superior Court Affirms Denial of Visitation to Parentsof Biological Father, Whose Parental Rights Had BeenTerminated. [Rigler v. Treen, 442 Pa. Super. 533, 660A.2d 111 (1995)]. 17(5):7.Superior Court Denies Visitation Rights to Sister. [KenR., on Behalf of His Daughter, C. C.R. v. Arthur Z. andMary Jane Z., (1994)]. 17(2):5-6.Supreme Court Gives Grandparents Equal Right toAdopt Grandchildren. [Adoption of Hess, 530 Pa. 218,608 A.2d 10 (1992)]. 13(3):3-5.102

4. TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDA.D. v. M.A.B., 989 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 2010).32:68-70A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d 744 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:88-90Adams v. Adams, 387 Pa. Super. 1, 563 A.2d 913(1989). 10:123-25Adams v. Adams, 414 Pa. Super. 634, 607 A.2d1116 (1992). 13(4):8-9Adoption of Hess, 530 Pa. 218, 608 A.2d 10(1992). 13(3):3-5.Alfred v. Braxton, 442 Pa. Super. 381, 659 A.2d1040 (1995). 17(5):6-7Altschuler v. Altschuler, 334 Pa. Super. 111, 482A.2d 1106 (1984). 5:653-54Amelio v. Amelio, 18 D.&C.3d 673 (Lehigh Co.,(1981). 2:182Anderson v. Ciliberti, 374 Pa. Super. 228, 542A.2d 580 (1988). 9:45Annechino v. Joire, 946 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super.2008). 30:82-83Anthony v. Anthony, 355 Pa. Super. 589, 514A.2d 91 (1986). 7:884-92Anzalone v. Anzalone, 449 Pa. Super. 201, 673A.2d 377 (1996). 18(3):3-5Appeal of: Haertsch Sr., 437 Pa. Super. 187, 649A.2d 719 (1994). 17(1):4Appeal of: G.F., 396 Pa. Super. 661, 570 A.2d1092 (1990). 11:158-59Argenio v. Fenton, 703 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super.1998). 20:38-40Ashford v. Ashford, 395 Pa. Super. 125, 576 A.2d1076 (1990). 11:157-58Atkinson v. Atkinson, 420 Pa. Super. 146, 616A.2d 22 (1992). 14(1):5-6B.C.S. v. J.A.S., 994 A.2d 200 (Pa. Super. 2010).32:137-38B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v. M.M.K., 954 A.2d 630 (Pa.Super. 2008). 30:203-5Bacchetta v. Bacchetta, 29 Chester Co. L. Rep.167 (1981). 2:154-55Bacchetta v. Bacchetta, 498 Pa. 227, 445 A.2d1194 (1982). 3:290-93Baines v. Williams, 431 Pa. Super. 72, 635 A.2d1077 (1993). 15(2):11-12Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654 (Pa. Super. 2010)32:195-96Ball v. Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 648 A.2d 1192(1994). 16(5):2-4Ball v. Ball, 5 A.C.D.D. 174 (1983). 4:512-14Ballestrino v. Ballestrino, 400 Pa. Super. 237, 583A.2d 474 (1990). 12(1):4-5Bank v. Bank, Phil. Co., Nov. Term 1980, No.2993 (1981). 2:178-80Baraff v. Baraff, 4 A.C.D.D. 1 (Allegh. Co.,1983). 4:409-13Barbara B. S. v. S. Allen S., Allegh. Co., 876 Oct.1977 (1982). 3:273-74Barletta v. Barletta, 506 Pa. 404, 485 A.2d 752(1984). 6:704-705Barndt v. Barndt, 397 Pa. Super. 321, 580 A.2d320 (1990). 11:185-87Barnhart v. Barnhart, 343 Pa. Super. 234, 494A.2d 443 (1985). 6:767-69Baronti v. Baronti, 381 Pa. Super. 134, 552 A.2d1131 (1989). 10:64, 10(2):79Barron v. Barron, 406 Pa. Super. 401, 594 A.2d682 (1991). 12(5):7103

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDBarrone v. Barrone, 2 A.C.D.D. 188 (Allegh. Co.,1982). 3:366-67Battle v. Com., Dept. of Public Welfare, 541 Pa.Cmwlth. 1, 419 A.2d 801 (1980). 1:78-82Baum v. Baum, 395 Pa. Super. 182, 576 A.2d1104 (1990). 11:179Baumhor v. Baumhor, 407 Pa. Super. 276, 595A.2d 1147 (1991). 12(6):19-11Beamer v. Beamer, 330 Pa. Super. 154, 479 A.2d485 (1984). 5:603-5Beasley v. Beasley, 115 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 99(1984). 5:612-14Beasley v. Beasley, 348 Pa. Super. 124, 501 A.2d679 (1985). 6:760-63; 7:839Beasley v. Beasley, 359 Pa. Super. 20, 518 A.2d545 (1986).8:940-46Beck v. Beck, 86 N. J. 480, 432 A. 2d 63 (1982).3:314-15Beckett v. Laux, 395 Pa. Super. 563, 577 A.2d1341 (1990). 11:175-77Bedford v. Bedford, 386 Pa. Super. 349, 563 A.2d102 (1989). 10(4):101Beener v. Beener, 422 Pa. Super. 351, 619 A.2d713 (1992). 14(2):13-15Beers v. Beers, 710 A.2d 1206, (Pa. Super. 1998).20:35-38Bell v. Bell, 326 Pa. Super. 237, 473 A.2d 1069(1984). 5:555-59Bell v. Bell, 390 Pa. Super. 526, 568 A.2d 1297(1990). 11:133Bem v. Bem, 30 Chester Co. Rep. 276 (1982).3:340Benner v. Benner, 42 Bucks Co. L. R. 99 (1983).4:474-78Benson v. Benson, 357 Pa. Super. 166, 515 A.2d917 ((1993). 14(4):7-8Berks County Children and Youth Services v.Rowan, 428 Pa. Super. 448, 631 A.2d 615 (1992).15(1):6-8Berman v. Berman, 4 A.C.D.D. 102 (Allegh. Co.,1983). 4:450-51Berrington v. Berrington, 409 Pa. Super. 355, 598A.2d 31 ((1991). 12(5):2-3Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa. 393, 633 A.2d589 (1993). 15(1):2-4; 18(2):13-14Bickley v. Bickley, 301 Pa. Super. 396, 447 A.2d1025 (1982). 3:302-6Billhime v. Billhime, 952 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super.2008). 30:158, 31:95-96Bingaman, Jr. v. Bingaman, 980 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2009). 31:162-63Birkel v. Birkel, 3 A.C.D.D. 230 (Allegh. Co.1982). 4:436-38Bishop v. Piller, 399 Pa. Super. 52, 581 A.2d 670(1990). 12(1):9-10Bishop v. Piller, 536 Pa. 41, 637 A.2d 976 (1994).15(2):2-3Blackson v. Blackson, Mercer Co., 39 EQ 1978(1981). 3:341-42Blaisure v. Blaisure, 395 Pa. Super. 473, 577 A.2d640 (1990). 11:173-74Blatz v. Blatz, 412 Pa. Super. 449, 603 A.2d 666(1992). 13(3):7-8Blew v. Verta, 420 Pa. Super. 528, 617 A.2d 31(1992). 14(2):12-13Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 661 A.2d 628 (1992).13(5):2Blumberg v. Blumberg, 63 Del. Co. R. 158, 432104

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDA.2d 1076 (1980). 2:121-22Board of Pensions And Retirement, City ofPhiladelphia v. Boelter, 132 Pa. Cmwlth. 336, 573A.2d 867 (1990). 11:148-49Bold v. Bold, 358 Pa. Super. 7, 516 A.2d 741(1986).8:934-36Bold v. Bold, 374 Pa. Super. 317, 542 A.2d 1374(1988).9:21-22Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d (Pa. Super. 2007). 30:3-5Bolze v. Bolze, 427 Pa. Super. 599, 629 A.2d1031 (1993). 14(5):4Boni v. Boni, 302 Pa. Super. 102, 448 A.2d 547(1982). 3:306-9Bordner v. Bordner, 14 D.&C.3d 634 (LebanonCo. 1980). 1:84Boudwin v. Boudwin, 419 Pa. Super. 570, 615A.2d 786 (1992). 14(2):10-11Bouzos-Reilly v. Reilly 980 A.2d. 643 (Pa. Super.2009). 31:164-65Bowen v. Bowen, 96 N.J. 36, 473 A.2d 73 (1984).5:615-19Bowser v. Zachary, 375 Pa. Super. 481, 544 A.2d1022 (1988). 9:37Braderman v. Braderman, 339 Pa. Super. 185, 488A.2d 613 (1985). 6:716-19Brangs v. Brangs, 407 Pa. Super. 43, 595 A.2d115 (1991). 12(4):4-5Brasile v. Estate of Brasile, 354 Pa. Super. 400,512 A.2d 10 (1986). 7:877-78Bratton v. Jury, 435 Pa. Super. 110, 644 A.2d1259 (1994). 16(4):8-9Brennan v. Brennan, 281 Pa. Super. 362, 422A.2d 510 (1980). 2:114-16Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 701 A.2d 176(1997). 20:6-8Brojack v. Brojack, 385 Pa. Super. 502, 561 A.2d788 (1989). 10(4):102Brown v. Brown, 8 A.C.D.D. 199 (Allegh. Co.1983). 4:438-39Brown v. Brown, 327 Pa. Super. 51, 474 A.2d1168 (1984). 5:581-82Brown v. Brown, 352 Pa. Super. 267, 507 A.2d1223 (1986). 7:849-50Brown v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super. 424, 669 A.2d969 (1995). 18(2):11-13, 13-14Brown v. Hall, 495 Pa. 635, 435 A.2d 859(1981)]. 2:214-16Bruno v. Bruno, 296 Pa. Super. 90, 442 A.2d 3111 (1982). 3:293-94Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A. 2d 1260 (Pa.Super. 2008). 31:10-11Buckl v. Buckl, 373 Pa. Super. 521, 542 A.2d 65(1988). 8:1006-8Bullock v. Bullock, 432 Pa. Super. 643, 639 A.2d826 (1994). 15(3):9-10Burry v. Burry, 111 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 330(1982). 4:407-9Buskirk v. Buskirk, 378 Pa. Super. 418, 548 A.2d1270 (1991). 12(4):2-3Butler v. Butler, 423 Pa. Super. 530, 621 A.2d659 (1993). 14(3):4-6Butler v. Butler, 541 Pa. 364, 663 A.2d 148(1994). 18(1):7:18-20Cable v. Anthou, 499 Pa. 553, 674 A.2d 732(1997). 19:76-77Calabrese v. Calabrese, 448 Pa. Super. 166, 670A.2d 1161 (1996). 18(4):7-10105

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDCalabrese v. Calabrese, 452 Pa. Super. 497, 682A.2d 393 (1996). 18(4):7-10Calibeo v. Calibeo, 443 Pa. Super. 694, 663 A.2d184 (1995). 17(4):7Calloway v. Calloway, 406 Pa. Super. 454, 594A.2d 708 (1991). 12(6):5-6Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa. Super. 483, 516A.2d 363 (1986). 7:908-12Campbell v. Walker, 982 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super.2009). 32:5-7Cann v. Cann, 429 Pa. Super. 234, 632 A.2d 322(1993). 15(1):14-15Canute v. Canute, 384 Pa. Super. 60, 557 A.2d772 (1989). 10:91-92Caplan v. Caplan, 400 Pa. Super. 352, 583 A.2d823 (1990). 12(2):6Cardamone v. Elshoff, 442 Pa. Super. 263, 659A.2d 575 (1995). 17(4):2-3Carney v. Carney, Erie Co., Civ. Div. No. 8420-A1980 (1981). 2:166-71Casey v. Casey, 1 A.C.D.D. 14, 18 D.&C.3d 24(Allegh. Co., 1980). 2:166-67Castaldi v. Castaldi-Veloric, 993 A.2d 903 (Pa.Super. 2010). 32:76-78Cerny v. Cerny, 440 Pa. Super. 550, 656 A.2d 507((1995). 17(3):5Chaney v. Chaney, 343 Pa. Super. 77, 493 A.2d1382 (1985). 6:740-43Chappell v. Chappell, 21 D.&C.3d 44 (1981).3:342-43Cheng v. Cheng, 347 Pa. Super. 515, 500 A.2d1175 (1985). 7:832-35Chesonis v. Chesonis, 372 Pa. Super. 113, 538A.2d 1376 (1988). 9(2):13Chester County Children and Youth Services v.Cunningham, 457 Pa. 525, 326 A.2d 377 (1994).15(2):7-8Choplosky v. Choplosky, 400 Pa. Super. 590, 584A.2d 340 (1990). 12(2):4-5Clapper v. Harvey, 716 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super.1998). 20:87-88Clendenning v. Clendenning, 392 Pa. Super. 33,572 A.2d 18 (1990). 11:161-62Clodgo v. Bowman, 411 Pa. Super. 267, 601 A.2d342 (1992). 13(2):6-7Cohen v. Goldberg, 695 A.2d 806 (Pa. Super.1997). 19:54-55Colagioia v. Colagioia, 362 Pa. Super. 213, 523A.2d 1158 (1987). 8:959-60Colantoni v. Colantoni, 220 Pa. Super. 46, 281A.2d 662 (1971). 1:62-63Coleman v. Coleman, 361 Pa. Super. 446, 522A.2d 1115 (1987). 8:964-70Com. v. Ortiz, 391 Pa. Super. 15, 569 A.2d 975(1990). 11:147-48Com. ex rel. Behr v. Behr, Montg. Co. No. 1814-77 (1979). 1:17Com. ex rel. Belin v. Belin, 268 Pa. Super. 428,408 A.2d 862 (1979). 1:58-59Com. ex rel. Brendel v. Brendel, 429 Pa. Super.319, 632 A.2d 876 (1993). 15(1):9-10Com. ex rel. Bulson v. Bulson, 278 Pa. Super. 6,419 A.2d 1327 (1980). 1:57-58Com. ex rel. Carmack v. Carmack, 268 Pa. Super.198, 407 A.2d 1314 (1979). 1:16Com. ex rel. Cragle v. Cragle, 277 Pa. Super. 349,419 A.2d 1179 (1980). 1:59Com. ex rel. D'Andrea v. D'Andrea, 262 Pa.106

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDSuper. 302, 396 A. 2d 765 (1978). 1:15-16Com. ex rel. Engle v. Engle, Montg. Co., No.1087-77 (1978). 1:16-17Com. ex rel. Hall v. Hall, 495 Pa. 635, 435 A.2d859 (1981)]. 2:214-16Com. ex rel. Homsher v. Homsher, 289 Pa. Super.112, 432 A.2d 1076 (1981). 2:197Com. ex rel. Robinson v. Robinson, 505 Pa. 226,478 A.2d 800 (1984). 5:591-93Com. ex rel. Stein v. Stein, 487 Pa. 1, 406 A. 2d1381 (1979). 1:18-19Com. ex rel. Swank v. Swank, 266 Pa. Super. 94,403 A. 2d 109 (1979). 2:146-47Com. ex rel. Tokach v. Tokach, 326 Pa. Super.359, 474 A.2d 41 (1984). 5:571-72Com. ex rel. Werline v. Werline, 280 Pa. Super.572, 421 A.2d 1080 (1980). 1:78-80Com. of Pa., Public Welfare ex rel. Dessus v.Chamberlain, 421 Pa. Super. 137, 617 A.2d 762(1992). 14(1):9-10Conley v. Conley, 10 A.C.D.D. 162 (Allegh. Co.,1981). 2:190-92Connor v. Connor, 434 Pa. Super. 288, 642 A.2d1136 (1994). 16(4):6-7Conrad v. Conrad, 129 P.L.J. 46 (1980). 2:122-23Conrad v. Conrad, 293 Pa. Super. 558, 439 A.2d717 (1981). 3:255-56Constant A. v. Paul C. A., 344 Pa. Super. 49, 496A.2d 1 (1985). 6:748-54Cooper v. Cooper, 8 W.D. 1992 (March 11,1994). 15(2):2-3Cooper v. Oakes, 427 Pa. Super. 430, 629 A.2d144 (1993). 14(4):4-5Corl v. Kacmar, 391 Pa. Super. 376, 571 A.2d 417(1990). 11:145Cornbleth v. Cornbleth, 397 Pa. Super. 421, 580A.2d 369 (1990). 11:182-83Corra v. Coll, 305 Pa. Super. 179, 451 A.2d 480(1982). 3:358-61Coscia v. Hendrie, 427 Pa. Super. 585, 629 A.2d1024 (1993). 14(4):5-6Covington v. Covington, 421 Pa. Super. 328, 617A.2d 1318 (1992). 14(3):9-10Cox v. Cox, 255 Pa. Super. 508, 388 A. 2d 1082(1978). 1:2-3Cozad v. Amrhein, 714 A.2d 409 (Pa. Super.(1998). 20:57-59Cramer v. Zgela, 969 A.2d. 621 (Pa. Super. 2009).31:100-1Creach v. Creach, 361 Pa. Super. 482, 522 A.2d1133 (1987). 8:970-72Creeks v. Creeks, 422 Pa. Super. 432, 619 A.2d754 (1993). 14(3):8-9Crookes v. Crookes, 346 Pa. Super. 315, 499 A.2d626 (1985). 6:781-83Crowther v. Waida, 272 Pa. Super. 73, 414 A.2d675 (1979). 1:10Cumberland County Children & Youth Services v.Department of Public Welfare, 148 Pa. Cmwlth.479, 611 A.2d 1339 (1992). 13(4):13-15Curran v. Curran, 446 Pa. Super. 633, 667 A.2d1155 (1995). 18(2):6-7Curtis v. Kline, 542 Pa. 249, 666 A.2d 265(1995). 17(5):2-3Cyran v. Cyran, 389 Pa. Super. 128, 566 A.2d 878(1989). 11:134-35D'Arciprete v. D'Arciprete, 323 Pa. Super. 430,107

TABLE OF CASES REPORTED470 A.2d 995 (1984). 5:572-73D'Huy v. D'Huy, 390 Pa. Super. 509, 568 A.2d1289 (1990). 11:131-32Dalessandro v. Dalessandro, 366 Pa. Super. 479,531 A.2d 518 (1987). 9:4Damiano v. Damiano, 378 Pa. Super. 106, 548A.2d 298 (1988). 9:50-51Damirgian v. Damirgian, 262 Pa. Super. 463, 396A. 2d 1263 (1978). 1:24-26Daniels v. Daniels, 73 Berks 319 (1981). 2:194-96Danz v. Danz, 947 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:150-51Darby v. Darby, 455 Pa. Super. 63, 686 A.2d1346 (1996). 19:29-31Dean v. Dean, 2 A.C.D.D. 227 (Allegh. Co.1982). 4:447-49Deangelo v. Murray, 536 Pa. 206, 638 A.2d 966(1994). 15(2):3-4DeBoer v. Slusser, 985 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super.2009) 32:17Dech v. Dech, 342 Pa. Super. 17, 492 A.2d 41(1985). 7:803-4Deichert v. Deichert, 402 Pa. Super. 415, 587A.2d 319 (1991). 12(3):2-4delCastillo v. delCastillo, 420 Pa. Super. 520, 617A.2d 26 (1992). 14(1):3Delehanty v. Wozman, 7 A.C.D.D. 141, 133 P.L.J.263 (1985). 6:743-44DeMasi v. DeMasi, 366 Pa. Super. 19, 530 A.2d871 (1987). 8:988-95DeNomme v. DeNomme, 375 Pa. Super. 212, 544A.2d 63 (1988). 9:35Dettinger v. McCleary, 438 Pa. Super. 300, 652A.2d 383 (1994). 17(2):3-5DeWalt v. DeWalt, 365 Pa. Super. 280, 529 A.2d508 (1987). 8:1009-11Diamond v. Diamond, 360 Pa. Super. 101, 519A.2d 1012 (1987). 8:980-84Diamond v. Diamond, 715 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super.1998). 20:90-92Dincer v. Dincer, 549 Pa. 309, 701 A.2d 210(1997). 20:4-6DiPietro v. DiPietro, 183 N.J. Super. 69, 443 A.2d244 (1981). 3:324-27Ditzler v. Kameran, 384 Pa. Super. 184, 557 A.2d1107 (1989). 10:93-94Dolan v. Dolan, 378 Pa. Super. 321, 548 A.2d 632(1988). 9:46-47Donnelly v. Lindenmuth, 409 Pa. Super. 341, 597A.2d 1234 (1991). 13(1):5-6Dorsey v. Freeman, 438 Pa. Super. 26, 652 A.2d352 (1994). 17(2):6-7Downey v, Downey, 399 Pa. Super. 437, 582 A.2d674 (1990). 12(1):6-7Drumheller v. Marcello, 351 Pa. Super. 139, 505A.2d 305 (1986). 7:860-61Drummond v. Drummond, Montg. Co., Equity No.28 April Term 1960 (1979). 2:147-48Dubin v. Dubin, 372 Pa. Super. 84, 538 A.2d 1362(1988). 9(2):12Durham v. Durham, 6 A.C.D.D. 300, 132 P.L.J.448 (1984). 5:636-37Dye for McCoy v. McCoy, 423 Pa. Super. 334,621 A.2d 144 (1993). 14(3):6-7Eaches v. Steigerwalt, 391 Pa. Super. 15, 569A.2d 975 (1990). 11:147-48108

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDEck v. Eck, 327 Pa. Super. 334, 475 A.2d 825(1984). 5:606-7Eckell v. Wilson, 409 Pa. Super. 132, 597 A.2d696 (1991). 12(6):2-3Edelstein v. Edelstein, 399 Pa. Super. 536, 582A.2d 1074 (1990). 12(1):2Elias v. Spencer, 449 Pa. Super. 359, 673 A.2d982 (1996). 18(4):6-7Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A. 2d 512(1980). 1:67-69Ellison v. Lopez, 959 A. 2d 295 (Pa. Super. Oct.15, 2008). 31:7-8Endy v. Endy, 412 Pa. Super. 398, 603 A.2d 641(1992). 13(2):2-3Eonda v. Affinito, 427 Pa. Super. 317, 629 A.2d119 (1993). 14(5):6-8Estate of Kendall, Deceased, 982 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super. 2009). 31:165-66Estate of Myers, 375 Pa. Super. 351, 544 A.2d506 (1988). 9:33Estate of Goal v. Hollifield, 380 Pa. Super. 219,551 A.2d 309 (1988). 10:68Estep v. Estep, 326 Pa. Super. 404, 474 A.2d 302(1984). 5:637-642Everett v. Anglemeyer, 425 Pa. Super. 587, 625A.2d 1252 (1993). 14(4):15-16Ewiak v. Ewiak, 328 Pa. Super. 83, 476 A.2d 464(1984). 5:602Farbaugh v. Killen, 436 Pa. Super. 480, 648 A.2d60 (1994). 16(5):6-7Fascione v. Fascione, 272 Pa. Super. 530, 416A.2d 1023 (1979). 1:28-31Faust v. Faggart, 406 Pa. Super. 357, 594 A.2d660 (1991). 12(5):6-7Faust v. Walker, 945 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:83-84Fenstermaker v. Fenstermaker, 348 Pa. Super.237, 502 A.2d 185 (1985). 7:813-16Ferri v. Ferri, 1 A.C.D.D. 122 (Allegh. Co., 1981).2:229-230, 232Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa.2007). 30:10-11Fexa v. Fexa, 396 Pa. Super. 481, 578 A.2d 1314(1990). 11:184Fichthorn v. Fichthorn, 368 Pa. Super. 305, 533A.2d 1388 (1987). 9:2Fish v. Behers, 456 Pa. Super. 398, 690 A.2d1171 (1997). 19:27-29Fisher v. Fisher, 370 Pa. Super. 87, 535 A.2d 1163(1988). 9(2):13-14Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 412 Pa. Super. 382, 603A.2d 633 (1992). 13(2):5-6Foley v. Foley, 392 Pa. Super. 9, 572 A.2d 6(1990). 11:144-45Fornwalt v. Follmer, 420 Pa. Super. 413, 616 A.2d1040 (1992). 14(1):7-8Fortune/Forsythe v. Fortune, 352 Pa. Super. 547,508 A.2d 1205 (1986). 7:861-63Fox v. Fox, Montg. Co., No. 83-10430 (1984).5:540-42Frank v. Frank, 402 Pa. Super. 458, 587 A.2d 340(1991). 12(3):7-8Frank v. Miesen, 361 Pa. Super. 204, 522 A.2d 85(1987). 8:957-58Frankenfield v. Fesser, 449 Pa. Super. 47, 672A.2d 1347 (1996). 18(4):6-7Frantz v. Frantz, 972 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2009).31:102-3109

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDFratangelo v. Fratangelo, 360 Pa. Super. 487, 520A.2d 1195 (1987). 8:952-56Fried v. Fried, 326 Pa. Super. 271, 473 A.2d 1087(1984). 5:567-68Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89, 501 A.2d 211 (1985).6:772-75Funk v. Funk, 376 Pa. Super. 76, 545 A.2d 326(1988). 9:33-35G.B. v. M.M.B., 448 Pa. Super. 133, 670 A.2d714 (1996). 18(2):4-5G.W.K. v. Com. of Pa., Dept. of Welfare, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 512, 558 A.2d 151 (1989). 10(4):105-6Gancas v. Schultz, 453 Pa. Super. 324, 683 A.2d1207 (1996). 19:8-10Gantz v. Gantz, 338 Pa. Super. 528, 448 A.2d 17(1985). 6:696-697Garney v. Estate of Hain, 439 Pa. Super. 42, 653A.2d 21 (1995). 17(2):2-3Gaster v. Gaster, 703 A.2d 513 (1997). 19:79-81Gates v. Gates, 967 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2009).31:97-99Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368 (1997). 19:51-54Gaydos v. Gaydos, 143 P.L.J. 224 (1995).18(2):9-11Gerace v. Gerace, 429 Pa. Super. 203, 631 A.2d1360 (1993). 15(1):8-9Geraghty v. Geraghty, 411 Pa. Super. 53, 600A.2d 1261 (1991). 13(1):3-4Gerow v. Gerow, 962 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super.2008). 31:11-13Geyer v. Geyer, 310 Pa. Super. 456, 456 A.2d1025 (1983). 4:405-7Gioia v. Gioia, 382 Pa. Super. 538, 555 A.2d 1330(1989). 10(2):76-77Goldblum v. Goldblum, 416 Pa. Super. 438, 611A.2d 296 (1992). 13 (5):2-3Goldstein v. Goldstein, 354 Pa. Super. 490, 512A.2d 644 (1986). 7:868-73Goninen, Jr. v. Commissioner, 47 TCM 49,698(1983). 5:528Goodstein v. Goodstein, 422 Pa. Super. 331, 619A.2d 703 (1992). 14(2):6-8Gordon v. Gordon, 293 Pa. Super. 491, 439 A. 2d683 (1981). 3:246-53Gordon v. Gordon, 436 Pa. Super. 126, 647 A.2d530 (1994). 16(4):13Gordon v. Gordon, 545 Pa. 391, 681 A.2d 732(1996). 18(4):10-12Goss v. Timblin, 424 Pa. Super. 216, 622 A.2d347 (1993). 14(3):3-4Gowdy v. Kesserling, 455 Pa. Super. 57, 686 A.2d1343 (1996). 19:31-33Gradwell v. Strausser, 416 Pa. Super. 118, 610A.2d 999 (1992). 13(3):2Graham v. Graham, 416 Pa. Super. 118, 610 A.2d999 (1990). 11:182Grallnick v. Grallnick, 279 Pa. Super. 347, 421A.2d 232 (1980). 1:63Grandovic v. Grandovic, 387 Pa. Super. 617, 564A.2d 960 (1989). 10:121Gray v. Gray, 275 Pa. Super. 131, 418 A.2d 646(1980). 1:31-32Green v. Good, 704 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1998).20:40-42Green v. Sneeringer, 431 Pa. Super. 66, 635 A.2d1074 (1993). 15(1):13-14110

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDGrieve v. Mankey, 443 Pa. Super. 101, 660 A.2d1367 (1995). 17(5):4Griffin v. Griffin, 384 Pa. Super. 210, 558 A.2d86 (1988). 9:36-37Grippo v. Grippo, 331 Pa. Super. 553, 479 A.2d1112 (1984). 4:468-69Groner v. Groner, 328 Pa. Super. 191, 476 A.2d957 (1984). 5:594-96Gross v. Gross, Pa. Super., 421 A.2d 1139 (1980).1:84-85Gruver v. Gruver, 372 Pa. Super. 194, 539 A.2d395 (1988). 9(2):14Gula v. Gula, 551 A.2d 324 (Pa. Super. 1998).10:64Hainaut v. Hainaut, 410 Pa. Super. 316, 599 A.2d1009 (1991). 13(1):6-7Hall v. Hall, 333 Pa. Super. 483, 482 A.2d 974(1984). 5:650-52Hamilton v. Hamilton, 404 Pa. Super. 316, 591A.2d 720 (1991). 12(4):6Hamm v. Hamm, 431 Pa. Super. 283, 636 A.2d652 (1994). 15(2):10-11Hanson v. Hanson, 425 Pa. Super. 508, 625 A.2d1212 (1993). 14(4):14-15Harasym v. Harasym, 418 Pa. Super. 486, 614A.2d 742 (1992). 13(6):3-4Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super.2009). 32:9-12Harz v. Stauffer, Monroe Co. , 1313 Civil 1981(1982). 3:368Hattoum v. Hattoum, 295 Pa. Super. 169, 441A.2d 403 (1982). 3:282-85Havice v. Havice, 15 D.&C.3d 450 (Snyder Co.1980). 1:51-54Haviland v. Haviland, 333 Pa. Super. 162, 481A.2d 1355 (1984). 5:652-53Hayward v. Hayward, 428 Pa. Super. 332, 630A.2d 1275 (1993). 15(1):15-16Hecker v. O'Connell, 427 Pa. Super. 608, 629A.2d 1036 (1993). 14(4):2Hellman v. Hellman, 246 Pa. Super. 36, 371 A. 2d964 (1977). 1:14-15Herron v. Seizak, 321 Pa. Super. 466, 468 A.2d803 (1983). 5:560-61Hess v. Hess, 327 Pa. Super. 279, 475 A.2d 796(1984). 5:576-579Hess v. Hess, 397 Pa. Super. 395, 580 A.2d 357(1990). 11:185Hill v. Divecchio, 425 Pa. Super. 355, 625 A.2d642 (1993). 14(3):10-11Hill v. Hill, 422 Pa. Super. 533, 619 A.2d 1086(1993)]. 14(3):13Hockenberry v. Thompson, 428 Pa. Super. 403,631 A.2d 204 (1993). 14(5):5-6Hodge v. Hodge, 327 Pa. Super. 151, 486 A.2d401 (1984). 6:668-73Hodge v. Hodge, 513 Pa. 264, 520 A.2d 15(1986). 8:928-33Hoffman v. Hoffman, 350 Pa. Super. 1280, 504A.2d 356 (1986). 7:838Hogrelius v. Martin, 950 A.2d 345 (Pa. Super.2008). 30:156-57Holcomb v. Holcomb, 448 Pa. Super. 154, 670A.2d 1155 (1996). 18(3):5-6Holland v. Holland, 403 Pa. Super. 116, 588 A.2d58 (1991). 12(3):6-7Holland v. Holland, 444 Pa. Super. 251, 663 A.2d768 (1995). 18(2):7-9111

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDHollman v. Hollman, 511 Pa. 362, 513 A.2d 13804 (1986). 7:796-802Hollman v. Hollman, 515 Pa. 288, 528 A.2d 146(1987). 8:1004-5Holteen v. Holteen, 413 Pa. Super. 591, 605 A.2d1275 (1992). 13(3):7Holub v. Holub, 1 A.C.D.D. 31 (Allegh. Co.,1981). 2:172-76Homsher v. Homsher, 63 Del. Co. R. 158, 432A.2d 1076 (1980). 2:121-22Hooks v. Ellerbe, 257 Pa. Super. 219, 390 A. 2d791 (1978). 1:65-66Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:205-8Hopkinson v. Hopkinson, 112 Montg. Co. L. Rep.351 (1983). 4:490Hopkinson v. Hopkinson, 323 Pa. Super. 404, 470A.2d 981 (1984). 4:509-12Horn v. Horn, 388 Pa. Super. 46, 564 A.2d 995(1989). 10:123Horner v. Horner, 560 Pa. 559, 747 A.2d 337(1997). 20:42-43Hornyak v. Sell, 427 Pa. Super. 356, 627 A.2d138 (1993). 14(5):8-9Horst v. Horst, 406 Pa. Super. 188, 593 A.2d 1299(1991). 12(4):11Hovey v. Hovey, Warren Co., No. 417 of 1980(1981). 2:181-82Hovis v. Hovis, 6 A.C.D.D. 197 (Allegh. Co., .5:619-621Hovis v. Hovis, 518 Pa. 137, 541 A.2d 1378(1988). 9:20-21Huber v. Huber, 523 Pa. Super. 530, 470 A.2d1385 (1984). 5:583-85Hughes v. Hughes, 108 Montgomery Co. L. Rep.360 (1981). 2:155-57Hulek v. Hulek, 6 A.C.D.D. 294 (Allegh. Co.,1984). 6:699Hunsinger v. Hunsinger, 381 Pa. Super. 453, 554A.2d 89 (1989). 10(2):81-82Hurley v. Hurley, 342 Pa. Super. 156, 492 A.2d439 (1985). 6:756-57Hutnik v. Hutnik, 369 Pa. Super. 263, 535 A.2d151 (1987). 9:2-3Hyde v. Hyde, 421 Pa. Super. 415, 618 A.2d 406(1992). 14(1):4-5In Re: Adoption by Shives, 363 Pa. Super. 225,525 A.2d 801 (1987). 9:5-6In Re Adoption of F.D.S. and G.M.S., Appeal ofC.S.S., 490 Pa. 43, 415 A.2d 23 (1980). 1:94-95In Re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super.2010). 32:79-80In Re: Adoption of J.M.E., 416 Pa. Super. 110,610 A.2d 995 (1992). 13(4):10-11In Re: Adoption of K.S. v. T.P.D., 399 Pa. Super.29, 581 A.2d 659 (1990). 12(1):10-12In Re: Adoption of M.M., Appeal of J.M. andC.B., 492 Pa. 457, 424 A.2d 1280 (1981). 2:130In Re: Adoption of S.B., 979 A.2d 925 (Pa. Super.2009). 31:157-58In Re: Adoption of Steven S., 417 Pa. Super. 247,612 A.2d 465 (1992). 13(4):11-13In Re: Adoption of Stickley v. McCook, 432 Pa.Super. 354, 638 A.2d 976 (1994). 15(2):8-9In Re: Baby Boy H., 401 Pa. Super. 530, 585 A.2d1054 (1991). 12(3):10-11In Re: Baby Boy S., 420 Pa. Super. 37, 615 A.2d1355 (1992). 14(2):8-9112

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDIn Re: Baby Girl D., 512 Pa. 449, 517 A.2d 925(1986). 8:946-50In Re: Bowman, III, Appeal of Bowman, II, 436Pa. Super. 10, 647 A.2d 217 (1994). 16(4):11-12In Re: Custody of Temos, 304 Pa. Super. 82, 450A.2d 111 (1982). 3:346-56In Re D.K.W., Appeal of C.J.W., 490 Pa. 134,415 A.2d 69 (1980). 1:93-94In Re: Davis v. Miller, 502 Pa. 110, 465 A.2d 614(1983). 4:493-502In Re: Estate of Bartolovich, 420 Pa. Super. 419,616 A.2d 1043 (1992). 14(2):15-16In Re: Estate of Geyer, 338 Pa. Super. 157, 487A.2d 901 (1985). 6:724-28In Re: Estate of Haertsch v. Haertsch, 415 Pa.Super. 598, 609 A.2d 1384 (1992). 13(4):9-10In Re: Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433 (Pa.Super. 2009). 31:89-91In Re: Estate of Sauers, 971 A.2d 1265(Pa. Super.2009). 30:148-50In Re Estate of Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa.Super. 2009). 31:91-92In Re: G.C., 449 Pa. Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932(1996). 18(3):8-11In Re: Grimes, 530 Pa. 388, 609 A.2d 158 (1992).13(4):4In Re: I.L.P. and I.L.P., Joint Petition on AssistedConception Birth Registration; Appeal of: C.-H.L.and T.J.P., G.S. and B.S., 965 A.2d. 251 (Pa.Super. 2009). 31:99-100In Re: In the Interest of M.B., K.B., J.B., L.B.,388 Pa. Super. 381, 565 A.2d 804 (1989). 11:135-36In Re J.C., 5 A.3d 284 (Pa. Super. 2010) 32:189-90In Re: J.P.; Appeal of Department of HumanServices, 998 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2010).32:144-45In Re: Jeffrey S. v. Kathleen S., 427 Pa. Super. 79,628 A.2d 439 (1993). 14(4):6-7In Re: K., 299 Pa. Super. 504, 445 A.2d 1243(1982). 3:315-18In Re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009).32:12-14In Re: L.A.G. Appeal of M.G.B., 490 Pa. 85, 415A.2d 44 (1980). 1:91-92In Re: M.A.K. and R.L.K., Appeal of AlleghenyCounty Institution District, 489 Pa. 597, 414 A.2d1052 (1980). 1:92-93In Re: M.L.H., Appeal of M.H. and J.H., 490 Pa.54, 415 A. 2d 29 (1980). 1:93In Re: Murray v. Murray and Ganz, 31 B.R. 499(1983). 4:473In Re: P.A.B.; M.E.B.; M.A.B., , 391 Pa. Super.79, 570 A.2d 522 (1990). 11:138-39In Re: R.J.T., 990 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2010).32:72-75In Re: R.P., 2008 Pa. Super. 196 (August 21,2008), 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008). 30:213-15In Re: Richie by Boehm, 387 Pa. Super. 401, 564A.2d 239 (1989). 10(4):111In Re Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights toMLO, Appeal of KO, 490 Pa. 237, 416 A. 2d 88(1980). 1:90-91In the Interest of C.L., P.G., Appeal of Pierson,436 Pa. Super. 630, 648 A.2d 799 (1994).16(5):11-12In the Interest of Garthwaite, 422 Pa. Super. 280,619 A.2d 356 (1993). 14(3):7-8113

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDIn the Interest of: J.R.W. v. V. F., 428 Pa. Super.597, 631 A.2d 1019 (1993). 15(1):11-13In the Interest of R.M.G., a Minor; Appeal of :York County Children and Youth Services, 997A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010) 32:193-94In the Interests of S.S.; Appeal of: Steven S. andLori S., 438 Pa. Super. 62, 651 A.2d 174 (1994).17(2):7-8In the Interest of Tina K. v. Montgomery CountyOffice of Children and Youth, 390 Pa. Super. 94,568 A.2d 210 (1990). 11:137In the Matter of Boylan, 395 Pa. Super. 380, 577A.2d 218 (1990) . 11:178In the Matter of C. W., 960 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super.2008). 31:8-10In the Matter of Fager v. Fatta, 395 Pa. Super.152, 576 A.2d 1089 (1990). 11:174-75In the Matter of Green v. McCoy, 437 Pa. Super.606, 577 A.2d 1341 (1994). 17(1):2-3In the Matter of Price, 393 Pa. Super. 1, 573 A.2d1057 (1990). 11:146-47J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa. Super. 78, 682 A.2d1314 (1996). 18(4):3-6J.C.S. v. D.M.S. and D.D, 227 Pa. Super. 612, 419A.2d 1319 (1980). 1:54-57J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 A.3d 902 (Pa. Super. 2010)32:191-92J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super. 2010).32:80-82J.S. v. Com., Department of Public Welfare, 528Pa. 243, 596 A.2d 1114 (1991). 12(6):4-5Jackson v. Culp, 400 Pa. Super. 519, 583 A.2d1236 (1990). 12(2):2Jakstys v. Jakstys, 326 Pa. Super. 367, 474 A.2d45(1984). 5:608-9Jawork v. Jawork, 378 Pa. Super. 89, 548 A.2d290 (1988). 9:51Jefferson v. Perry, 432 Pa. Super. 651, 639 A.2d830 (1994). 15(3):4John M. v. Paula T., 377 Pa. Super. 72, 546 A.2d1162 (1988), rev'd 524 Pa. 306, 571 A.2d 1380(1990). 9:47-49Johns v. Johns, Chester Co., No. 11 N 1979(1980). 1:86-87Johnson v. Diesinger, 404 Pa. Super. 41, 589 A.2d1160 (1991). 12(4):8-9Justice v. Justice, 417 Pa. Super. 581, 612 A.2d1354 (1992). 13(5):7-8K.S. v. Com., Dept. of Public Welfare, 129 Pa.Cmwlth. 31, 564 A.2d 561 (1989)]. 125-26Kalinoski v. Kalinoski, Butler Co., F.C. No. 80-530 (1982). 4:394-99Karis v. Karis, 353 Pa. Super. 561, 510 A.2d 804(1986). 7:900-2Karis v. Karis, 518 Pa. 601, 544 A.2d 1328(1988). 9:45-46Karkaria v. Karkaria, 405 Pa. Super. 176, 592A.2d 64 (1991). 12(4):6-8Kaskie v. Kaskie, 61 Wash. 67, 21 D.&C.3d 358(1980). 2:125-26Kaskie v. Kaskie, 295 Pa. Super. 523, 442 A.2d261 (1982). 3:256-57Kasloff v. Kasloff, Montg. Co., 81-5390, Equity(1982). 4:401-3Katz v. Katz, 356 Pa. Super. 461, 514 A.2d 1374(1986). 7:912-16Katzenberger v. Katzenberger, 534 Pa. Super.419, 633 A.2d 602 (1993). 15(1):5Kaufman v. Kaufman, 68 Del. Co. Rep. 326114

TABLE OF CASES REPORTED(1980). 2:163Keating v. Keating, 407 Pa. Super. 31, 595 A.2d109 (1991). 12(6):6-7Kelly v. Kelly, 430 Pa. Super. 31, 633 A.2d 218(1993). 14(5):3-4Ken R. v. Arthur Z., 438 Pa. Super. 114, 651 A.2d1119 (1994). 17(2):5-6Kennedy, Executrix of the Estate of Kennedy,Deceased v. Plan Administrator for DupontSavings and Investment Plan et al. 129 S. Ct.865(2009). 31:4-5Kessler v. Helmick, 449 Pa. Super. 113, 672 A.2d1380 (1996). 18(4):7-10Kiesel v. Kiesel, 19 D.&C.3d 792 (Montg. Co.,1981). 2:220-222Kikkert v. Kikkert, 177 N. J. Super. 471, 427 A.2d76 (1981). 2:218-220Kimmey v. Kimmey, 269 Pa. Super. 346, 409A.2d 1178 (1979). 1:9-10King v. King, 22 Erie Co. L. J. 46 (1982). 4:422-26King v. King, 332 Pa. Super. 526, 481 A.2d 913(1984). 5:643-45Klahold v. Kroh, 437 Pa. Super. 150, 649 A.2d701 (1994). 17(1):7-8Klein v. Klein, 1 A.C.D.D. 205 (Allegh. Co.,1980). 2:183-84Kline v. Kline, Lancaster Co., No. 166, Oct. Term1979 (1981). 2:180-81Knauer v. Knauer, Jr., 323 Pa. Super. 206, 470A.2d 553 (1984). 5:530-36Knisely v. Knisely, 295 Pa. Super. 240, 441 A.2d438 (1982). 3:321-22Kohl v. Kohl, 387 Pa. Super. 367, 564 A.2d 222(1989). 10(4):114Kopf v. Kopf, 2 A.C.D.D. 87 (Allegh. Co., 1982).3:322-23Kotzbauer v. Kotzbauer, 937 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super.2007)]. 30:5-7Kozich v. Kozich, 397 Pa. Super. 463, 580 A.2d390 (1990). 11:200Kramer v. Kramer, 110 Montg. Co. L.R. 135(1982). 3:338-39Kramer v. Kramer, 21 D.&C.3d 94 (Lehigh,1981). 3:323-24Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:79-81Krebs v. Krebs, 975 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2009).31:93-94Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 307 Pa. Super. 499, 453A.2d 998 (1982). 4:417-18Krenzelak v. Krenzelak, 503 Pa. 373, 469 A.2d987 (1983). 4:505-509Krizovensky v. Krizovensky, 425 Pa. Super. 204,624 A.2d 638 (1993). 14(4):11-13Kurtas v. Kurtas, 521 Pa. 105, 555 A.2d 804(1989). 10(2):78-79Kutzer v. Kutzer, Montg. Co., No. 79-396 (1982).3:262-265Labuda v. Labuda, 349 Pa. Super. 524, 503 A.2d971 (1986). 7:808-10Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, 344 Pa. Super. 154,496 A.2d 56 (1985). 6:736-40Lambert v. Lambert, 409 Pa. Super. 552, 598 A.2d561 (1991). 12(6):7-9Lambert v. Lambert, 422 Pa. Super. 444, 619 A.2d761 (1993). 14(3):11-12115

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDLampus v. Estate of Lampus, 541 Pa. 67, 660A.2d 1308 (1995). 17(5):6Landis v. Landis, 456 Pa. Super. 727, 691 A.2d939 (1997). 19:55-57Lane v. Lane, 111 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 244 (1981).3:265-266Larson v. Diveglia, 549 Pa. 118, 700 A.2d 931(1997). 20:8-9Laub v. Laub, 351 Pa. Super. 110, 505 A.2d 290(1986). 7:851-52Laughlin v. Laughlin, 372 Pa. Super. 24, 538 A.2d927 (1988). 9:21Laughlin v. Laughlin, 525 Pa. 141, 578 A.2d 922(1990). 11:183-184Lawrence v. Lawrence, 347 Pa. Super. 57, 500A.2d 154 (1985). 7:811-813Laxton v. Laxton, 345 Pa. Super. 450, 498 A.2d909 (1985). 7:840-841Lazovitz v. Lazovitz, 307 Pa. Super. 341, 453A.2d 615 (1982). 4:391-393Leasure v. Leasure, 378 Pa. Super. 613, 549 A.2d225 (1988). 9:50Lee v. Carney, 435 Pa. Super. 405, 645 A.2d 1363(1993). 16(5):7-8Lee v. Fontine, 406 Pa. Super. 487, 594 A.2d 724(1991). 12(4):9-10Lee v. Lee, 978 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2009).31:103-5Lehman v. Lehman, 431 Pa. Super. 450, 636 A.2d1172 (1994). 15(2):9-10Lehman, v. Lycoming County Children's ServicesAgency, 1980 U.S. App. Lexis 15451 (3d Cir.,1980). 1:95-96Lehmicke v. Lehmicke, 339 Pa. Super. 559, 489A.2d 782 (1985). 6:692-96Leister v. Lesiter 453 Pa. Super. 576, 684 A.2d192 (1996). 19:3-5Lewis v. Commissioner, 47 TCM 49,699 (1983).5:528Lewis v. Lewis, 267 Pa. Super. 235, 406 A. 2d781 (1979). 1:5-7Lewis v. Lewis, 271 Pa. Super. 519, 414 A.2d 375(1979). 1:10Lindsey v. Lindsey, 342 Pa. Super. 72, 492 A.2d396 (1985). 7:826-828Ling v. Ling, 442 Pa. Super. 106, 659 A.2d 805(1995). 18(1):7Litmans v. Litmans, 449 Pa. Super. 209, 673 A.2d382 (1996). 18(3):7-8Livingston v. Unis, 659 A.2d 606 (Pa. Cmwlth.1995). 17(4):4-5Lohmiller v. Weidenbaugh, 503 Pa. 329, 469 A.2d578 (1983). 5:569-571Lombardo v. Lombardo, 515 Pa. 139, 527 A.2d525 (1987). 9:5Long v. Long, 280 Pa. Super. 477, 421 A.2d 822(1980). 1:80-81Long v. Thomas, 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 416, 619 A.2d394 (1992). 14(1):8Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, Montg. Co., No.81-17813 (1982). 3:310Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 323 Pa. Super. 381,470 A.2d 970 (1983). 5:543-546Lowenschuss v. Lowenschuss, 396 Pa. Super. 531,579 A.2d 377 (1990). 11:154-155Lower v. Lower, 401 Pa. Super. 158, 584 A.2d1028 (1991). 12(2):3116

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDLozinak v. Lozinak, 390 Pa. Super. 597, 569 A.2d353 3 (1990). 11:133-134Luiziaga v. Psolka, 432 Pa. Super. 26, 637 A.2d645 (1994). 15(2):5-6Lundy v. Com., Dept. of Public Welfare, 54 Pa.Cmwlth. 1, 419A.2d 801 (1980). 1:78Lyons v. Lyons, 401 Pa. Super. 271, 585 A.2d 42(1991). 12(3):4-6M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 2010).32:20-21M.C. v. R.W., 398 Pa. Super. 183, 580 A.2d 1124(1990). 12(1):7-8Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super.2009). 32:14-16Madden v. Madden, 336 Pa. Super. 552, 486 A.2d951 (1984). 6:673-675Manbeck v. Manbeck, 339 Pa. Super. 493, 489A.2d 748 (1985). 6:728-732Mandia v. Mandia, 341 Pa. Super. 116, 491 A.2d177 (1985). 6:779-781Marcolongo v. Nicolai, 392 Pa. Super. 208, 572A.2d 765 (1990). 11:163-164Marinello v. Marinello, 354 Pa. Super. 471, 512A.2d 635 (1986). 7:873-877Marino v. Marino, 411 Pa. Super. 424, 601 A.2d1240 (1992). 13(2):3-5Marshall v. Ross, 373 Pa. Super. 235, 540 A.2d954 (1988). 9:22-23Martin v. Martin, 385 Pa. Super. 554, 561 A.2d1231 (1989). 10(4):100-101Martin v. Martin, 386 Pa. Super. 328, 562 A.2d1389 (1989). 10(4):112-114Martin v. Martin, 710 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super.(1998). 20:57-59Martin B. v. Jane B, 1 A.C.D.D. 199 (Allegh. Co.,1981). 3:269-270Matlock v. Matlock, 444 Pa. Super. 507, 664 A.2d551 (1995). 17(5):5Maurer v. Maurer, 382 Pa. Super. 468, 555 A.2d1294 (1989). 10(2):77-78Mayer v. Garman, 590 Pa. 268, 912 A.2d 762(2006). 28:100-2Mayercheck v. Wood, 526 Pa. 477, 587 A.2d 696(1991). 12(3):9-10Mayhue v. Mayhue, 336 Pa. Super. 188, 485 A.2d494 (1984). 6:754-756McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 418 Pa. Super. 39, 613A.2d 20 (1992). 13(6):5-6McBride v. McBride, 335 Pa. Super. 296, 484A.2d 141 (1984). 6:697-698McCabe v. Krupinski, 413 Pa. Super. 59, 604A.2d 732 (1992). 13(3):5-6McCabe v. McCabe, Nos. 1353 and 1354 Phil.1986 (April 10, 1987). 8:995-97McCabe v. McCabe, 374 Pa. Super. 451, 543A.2d 558 (1988) 9:20McCabe v. McCabe, 525 Pa. 25, 575 A.2d 85(1990). 11:142-143McCann v. McCann, 19 D.&C.3d 234 (ChesterCo. 1981). 2:148-149McCarty v. Smith, 440 Pa. Super. 280, 655 A.2d563 (1995). 17(3):5-6McClain v. McClain, 693 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super.1997). 19:57-58McFadden v. McFadden, 386 Pa. Super. 506, 563A.2d 180 (1989). 10(4):111-112McGettigan v. McGettigan, 433 Pa. Super. 102,639 A.2d 1231 (1994). 15(2):4-5117

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDMcGinn v. McGinn and Dowling, Chester Co.,234 Dec. 1980 (1981). 2:157-161McGough v. McGough, 361 Pa. Super. 391, 522A.2d 638 (1987). 8:958-959; 9:7McKelvey v. McKelvey, 16 D.&C.3d 611(Armstrong Co. 1980). 2:132-133McKolanis v. McKolanis, 435 Pa. Super. 103, 644A.2d 1256 (1994). 16(4):4-6McLarin v. McLarin, 350 Pa. Super. 153, 504A.2d 291 (1986). 7:824-826McMahon v. McMahon, 417 Pa. Super. 592, 612A.2d 1360 (1992). 13(5):4-6McMahon v. Shea, 441 Pa. Super. 304, 657 A.2d938 (1995). 17(3):2McMahon v. Shea, 547 Pa. 124, 688 A.2d 1179(1997). 19:33-34McMillen v. McMillen, 529 Pa. 198, 602 A.2d845 (1992). 13(2):8-9McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 769 (Pa. 2009).32:18-20McNaughton v. McNaughton, 412 Pa. Super. 409,603 A.2d 646 (1992). 13(4):3McWilliams v. McWilliams, 370 Pa. Super. 595,537 A.2d 35 (1988). 9:23Melzer v. Witsberger, 299 Pa. Super. 153, 445A.2d 499 3 (1982). 3:285-287Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991(1984). 5:588-591Meno v. Meno, 18 D.&C.3d 250 (Washington Co.1981). 2:131Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super.2008). 30:211-13Messa v. Messa, 110 Montg. Co. L.Rep. 192(1981). 3:327-331Meyerl v. Meyerl, 129 P.L.J. 397, 1 A.C.D.D. 100(1981). 2:224-227Miesen v. Frank, 361 Pa. Super. 204, 522 A.2d 85(1987). 9:7-8Miller v. Miller, 353 Pa. Super. 194, 509 A.2d291 (1986). 7:856-858Miller v. Miller, 395 Pa. Super. 255, 577 A.2d205 (1990). 11:179-180Miller v. Miller, 421 Pa. Super. 23, 617 A.2d 375(1992). 14(2):4-5Miller v. Miller, 423 Pa. Super. 162, 620 A.2d1161 (1993). 14(3):2-3Miller v. Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. Super. 2009).32:7-8Millick v. Millick, 140 Pa. Cmwlth. 252, 592 A.2d788 (1991). 12(4):3-4Millili v. Millili, 24 D.&C.3d 479 (Montg. Co.1982). 3:270-273Millstein v. Millstein, 311 Pa. Super. 495, 457A.2d 1291 (1983). 4:432-435Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177, 556 A.2d 854(1989). 9:3-4; 10:88-89Miscovich v. Miscovich, 455 Pa. Super. 437, 688A.2d 726 (1997). 19:27-29Mitchell v. Randall, 368 Pa. Super. 421, 534 A.2d508 (1987). 9:14-15Monroe County Children And Youth Services v.Werkheiser, 409 Pa. Super. 508, 598 A.2d 313(1991). 13(1):8Monsky v. Sacks, 403 Pa. Super. 40, 588 A.2d 19(1990). 12(1):3-4Moran v. Moran, 417 Pa. Super. 549, 612 A.2d1075 (1992). 13(6):2Moritz v. Moritz, Allegh. Co., FD 82-07811118

TABLE OF CASES REPORTED(1984). 5:630-632Mormello v. Mormello, 452 Pa. Super. 590, 682A.2d 824 (1996). 19:6-8Morris v. Morris, 104 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 254(1978). 1:26-28Morrison v. Miller, 397 Pa. Super. 153, 579 A.2d976 (1990). 11:187-188Motheral v. Motheral, 7 A.C.D.D. 103, 133 P.L.J.116 (1984). 5:655-656Moyer v. Moyer, 292 Pa. Super. 434, 437 A.2d752 (1981). 2:216-218Murphy v. Murphy, 988 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super.2010). 32:70-71Murphy v. McDermott, 979 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super.2009). 31:159-62Musko v. Musko, 447 Pa. Super. 150, 668 A.2d561 (1995). 18(1):20Musko v. Musko, 548 Pa. 378, 697 A.2d 255(1997). 19:75-76Myers v. DiDomenico, 441 Pa. Super. 341, 657A.2d 956 (1995). 17(3):3-4Myers v. Myers, 379 Pa. Super. 450, 580 A.2d384 (1990). 11:197Myers v. Myers, 405 Pa. Super. 290, 592 A.2d339 (1991). 12(5):3-4N.H.M. v. P.O.T., 947 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super.2008). 30:152-54Naddeo v. Naddeo, 426 Pa. Super. 131, 626 A.2d608 (1993). 14(4):3-4Narbesky v. Narbesky, 255 Pa. Super. 48, 386 A.2d 129 (1978). 1:17-18Nessa v. Nessa, 399 Pa. Super. 59, 581 A.2d 674(1990). 11:194Newby v. Newby, Mercer Co., No. 1135 C.D.1980 (1981)]. 2:192-194Nicholas v. Nicholas, 63 Del. Co. R. 138 (1980).2:120-121Nicholson v. Combs, 437 Pa. Super. 334, 650A.2d 55 (1994). 17(1):9-11Nicholson v. Combs, 550 Pa. 23, 703 A.2d 407(1997). 20:3-4Noldy v. Noldy, 340 Pa. Super. 588, 490 A.2d1376 (1985). 7:828-829Norris v. Tearney, 422 Pa. Super. 246, 619 A.2d339 (1993). 14(3):12-13Nufher v. Nufher, 410 Pa. Super. 380, 599 A.2d1348 (1991). 13(1):3Nuttall v. Nuttall, 386 Pa. Super. 148, 562 A.2d841 (1989). 10:126-127O'Brien v. O'Brien, 359 Pa. Super. 594, 519 A.2d511 (1985). 7:820-824O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 530 Pa. 176, 607A.2d 735 (1992). 13(4):8O'Neill v. Gioffre, 384 Pa. Super. 579, 559 A.2d588 (1989). 10(4):103-104Oatman v. Oatman, Erie Co., 599 A of 1981(1982). 4:400Oeler v. Oeler, 527 Pa. 532, 594 A.2d 649 (1991).12(4):11-12Oliver v. Oliver, 39 Bucks Co. L.R. 130 (1982).3:341Olson v. Olson, 384 Pa. Super. 224, 558 A.2d 93(1989). 10:92-93Opie v. Richart, 410 Pa. Super. 52, 598 A.2d 1321(1991). 13(1):7Oppenheim v. Oppenheim, Lehigh Co., 81-C-3083(June 21, 1989). 10:89119

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDOrange v. Orange, Westmoreland Co., 5949 Civil1980 (1981). 2:205-6Orr v. Orr, 315 Pa. Super. 168, 461 A.2d 850(1983). 4:466-67Orr v. Orr, 110 Montg. Co. L.R. 273, 461 A.2d850 (1982). 3:298-300Ottolini v. Barrett, 954 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super.2008). 30:217-19P.T. & K.T. v. M.H., 953 A.2d 814 (Pa. Super.2008). 31:6-7Pacella v. Pacella, Allegh. Co., No 517 of 1979(1982). 4:441-44Pacella v. Pacella, 342 Pa. Super. 178, 492 A.2d707 (1985). 7:835-37Palladino v. Palladino, 713 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super.1998). 20:64-65Palmer v. Tovarek, 279 Pa. Super. 458, 421 A.2d289 (1980). 1:69-73Pangallo v. Pangallo, Westmoreland Co., 8650 of1979 (1983) . 4:444-47Pangallo v. Pangallo, 329 Pa. 25, 477 A.2d 885(1984). 5:600-2Pascoe v. Pascoe, 7 A.C.D.D. 51 (Allegh. Co.1984). 6:719-22Pastuszek v. Pastuszek, 346 Pa. Super. 416, 499A.2d 1069 (1985). 6:777-79Patten v. Vose, 404 Pa. Super. 426, 590 A.2d1307 (1991). 12(4):10-11Paul v. Paul, 279 Pa. Super. 458, 425 A.2d 289(1980). 1:78Paulone v. Paulone, 473 Pa. Super. 130, 649 A.2d691 (1994). 16(5):8-10Paulus v. Paulus, 413 Pa. Super. 230, 604 A.2d1103 (1992). 13(3)5-6Perrott v. Perrott, 713 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 1998).20:59-61Peterson v. Peterson, 427 Pa. Super. 572, 629A.2d 1017 (1993). 14(5):2-3Petition for Involuntary Termination of ParentalRights, Appeal of G.J.A., 304 Pa. Super. 21, 450A.2d 80 (1982). 3:361-62Pharoah v. Lapes, 391 Pa. Super. 585, 571 A.2d1070 (1990). 11:143-44Philadelphia County Department of HumanServices, Division of Children and Youth v. Com.,Department of Public Welfare, 135 Pa. Comwlth.542, 581 A.2d 704 (1990). 12(1):8-9Pietsch v. Pietsch, Lancaster Co., Law, Equity No.21 (1981). 2:196Platek v. Platek, 309 Pa. Super. 16, 454 A.2d1059 (1982). 4:389-90Plunkard v. Mcconnell, 962 A.2d 1227(Pa. Super.2008). 31:13-14Polito v. Polito, 440 Pa. Super. 328, 655 A.2d 587(1995). 17(3):7Powell v. Powell, 395 Pa. Super. 345, 577 A.2d576 (1990). 11:171-73Powers v. Powers, 419 Pa. Super. 464, 615 A.2d459 (1992). 14(1):6Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa. Super. 459, 646 A.2d1186 (1994). 16(5):5Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2007).29:133-34Prozzoly v. Prozzoly, 327 Pa. Super. 326, 475A.2d 820 (1984). 5:579-81Purdue v. Purdue, 398 Pa. Super. 228, 580 A.2d1146 (1990). 11:196-97R v. Com., Department of Public Welfare and120

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDMontgomery County Office of Children andYouth, 535 Pa. 440, 636 A.2d 142 (1994).15(3):11-17R.A.R. v. T.M., 434 Pa. Super. 592, 644 A.2d 767(1994). 16(4):3-4R.C. v. J.S., 957 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:215-16R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super2009). 32:22-23Raiken v. Mellon, 399 Pa. Super. 192, 582 A.2d11 (1990). 12(1):2-3Ratarsky v. Ratarsky, 383 Pa. Super. 445, 557A.2d 83 (1989). 10:90-91Ravetz v. Ravetz, Montg. Co., No. 80-10116(1981). 2:186-187Reese v. Reese, 109 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 295(1981). 2:222-223Reese v. Reese, 351 Pa. Super. 521, 506 A.2d 471(1986). 7:847-849Reese v. Reese, 406 Pa. Super. 214, 593 A.2d1312 (1991). 12(6):5Regli v. Regli, 111 Montg. Co. L.Rep 119 (1982).3:362-66Reif v. Reif, 426 Pa. Super. 14, 626 A.2d 169(1993). 14(4):13-14Reifsneider v. Reifsnider, 108 Montg. Co. L. Rep.257 (1981). 2:163Reimer v. Reimer, 442 Pa. Super. 689, 660 A.2d663 (1995). 17(3):6Reisinger v. Reisinger, 3 A.C.D.D. 65 (Allegh.Co., 1982). 3:335-336.Reisinger v. Reisinger, 324 Pa. Super. 223, 471A.2d 544 (1984). 5:529-530Reisinger v. Reisinger, Allegh. Co., 1256 January1981 (1984). 5:582Remick v. Remick, 310 Pa. Super. 23, 456 A.2d163 (1983). 4:429-432Rennie v. Rosenthol, 995 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super.2010). 32:141-44Restifo v. Restifo, 339 Pa. Super. 352, 489 A.2d196 (1985). 6:675-76Rich v. Rich, 967 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super. 2009).31:18-19Rigler v. Treen, 442 Pa. Super. 533, 660 A.2d 111(1995). 17(5):7Robbins v. Kristofic, 434 Pa. Super. 392, 643A.2d 1079 (1994). 15(3):5-7Roberts v. Furst, 385 Pa. Super. 530, 561 A.2d805 (1989). 10(4):103Robertson v. Davis, 397 Pa. Super. 292, 580 A.2d39 (1990). 11:201Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 645 A.2d 836(1994). 16(4):2-3Rock v. Rock, 385 Pa. Super. 126, 560 A.2d 199(1989). 10:93Rodrigues v. Rodrigues, Allegh. Co., FD 86-0293(1997). 19:55-57Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 410 Pa. Super. 549, 600A.2d 589 (1991). 13(1):4-5Rohrer v. Rohrer, 715 A.2d 463 (Pa. Super. 1998).20:88-90Romeo v. Romeo, 42 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 39(1983). 4:487-89Rosen v. Rosen, 520 Pa. 19, 549 A.2d 561(1987). 9:44-45Ross v. Ross, 167 N. J. Super. 441, 400 A. 2d1233 (1979). 1:63-64121

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDRoussos v. Roussos, 7 Family L. Rep. 2157(1985). 2:149-150Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pa. 443, 668 A.2d. 126(1995). 18(1):6-7Rudick v. Rudick, Lackawanna Co., 80 CW 4753(1981).2:207-10Rudick v. Rudick, 441 Pa. Super. 558, 657 A.2d1307 (1995). 17(5):4Rueckert v. Rueckert, 1 A.C.D.D. 55, 20 D.&C.3d191 (Allegh. Co., 1981).2:161-63Rupel v. Bluestein, 280 Pa. Super. 65, 421 A. 2d406 (1980).2:116-119Rupp v. Rupp, 268 Pa. Super. 467, 408 A.2d 883(1979). 1:7-9Ruth v. Ruth, 67 Lancaster L. Rev. 461 (1981).3:274-276Ruth v. Ruth, 316 Pa. Super. 282, 462 A.2d 1351(1983). 4:453-458Ryan v. Ryan, 391 Pa. Super. 327, 571 A.2d 392(1990). 11:130-131Ryan v. Ryan, 528 Pa. 186, 596 A.2d 140 (1990).12(6):3-4Sadlek v. Sadlek, 4 A.C.D.D. 64, 131 P.L.J. 419(1983). 4:449-450Salemo v. Salemo, 381 Pa. Super. 632, 554 A.2d563 (1989). 10(2):80-81Sanders v. Sanders, 384 Pa. Super. 311, 558 A.2d556 (1989). 10:94-95Sands v. Sands, 112 Montg. Co. L.R. 287 (1983).4:469-471Sawko v. Sawko, 425 Pa. Super. 450, 625 A.2d692 (1993). 14(4):8-10Schad v. Schaffner, Allegh. Co., FD 81-5256(1984). 5:632Schneeman v. Schneeman, 420 Pa. Super. 65, 615A.2d 1369 (1992). 14(2):2-3Schoff v. Richter, 386 Pa. Super. 289, 562 A.2d912 (1989). 10(4):115Schuback v. Schuback, 412 Pa. Super. 233, 603A.2d 194 (1992). 13(3):6-7Schubert v. Schubert, 398 Pa. Super. 284, 580A.2d 1351 (1990). 11:197-98Schumacker v. Hanna, 377 Pa. Super. 301, 547A.2d 379 (1988).9:49.Schwartz v. Schwartz, Montg. Co., 81-3684, InDivorce A.V.M. (1981). 2:210-212Sclocchini v. Sclocchini, 68 Del. Co. Rep. 326(1980). 2:163Scott v. Mershon, 441 Pa. Super. 551, 657 A.2d1304 (1995). 17(4):6Scott v. Scott, 190 N. J. Super. 189, 462 A.2d 614(1983). 4:502-3Scott v. Mershon, 394 Pa. Super. 411, 576 A.2d67 (1990). 11:162-63Seawalt v. Muldoon, 406 Pa. Super. 94, 593 A.2d886 (1991). 12(5):4-5Selm v. Elliot, 411 Pa. Super. 602, 602 A.2d 358(1992). 13(2):7-8Seman v. Seman, 419 Pa. Super. 20, 614 A.2d1189 (1992). 13(6):7Semasek v. Semasek, 331 Pa. Super. 1, 479 A.2d1047 (1984). 5:624-30Semasek v. Semasek, 509 Pa. 282, 502 A.2d 109(1985). 6:775-77Sergi v. Sergi, 351 Pa. Super. 521, 506 A.2d 928(1986). 7:844-47Sherwood v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. 1979-149(1979).2:135-136122

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDShilling v. Shilling, 394 Pa. Super. 154, 575 A.2d145 (1990). 11:161Shovlin v. Shovlin, 318 Pa. Super. 516, 465 A.2d673 (1983). 4:471-472Shuda v. Shuda, 283 Pa. Super. 253, 423 A.2d1242 (1980).2:124Shutter v. Reilly, 372 Pa. Super. 251, 539 A.2d424 (1988).9:12-13Siciliano v. Siciliano, 3 A.C.D.D. 72 (Allegh. Co.,1982). 3:334-335Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super.1998). 20:61-63Silver v. Pinskey, not reported in A.2d, 2008 WL902715 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2008), rearg. En bancgranted May 30, 2008]. 30:86-87Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009).32:23-25Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162(1990). 11:170-171Simpkins v. Disney, 416 Pa. Super. 243, 610 A.2d1062 (1992). 13(5):6-7Simpkins v. Dodolak, Clearfield Co., 79-751-CD(1980).2:131Simpson v. Simpson, Westmoreland Co., 268 of1982-D (1983). 5:552-554Singleton v. Waites, 420 Pa. Super. 184, 616 A.2d644 (1992). 13(6):9-10Sinha v. Sinha, 341 Pa. Super. 440, 491 A.2d1399 (1985). 6:764-767Sinha v. Sinha, 515 Pa. 14, 526 A.2d 765(1987).8:997-999Sipe v. Shaffer, 261 Pa. Super. 150, 396 A. 2d1359 (1979). 1:3-5Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:159-63Smedley v. Lowman, 2 A.3d 1226 (Pa. Super.2010) 32:188-89Smith v. Boulding, 938 A.2d 276 (Pa. 2007).]30:76-79Smith v. Smith, 307 Pa. Super. 544, 453 A.2d1020 (1983). 4:418-422Smolinsky v. Smolinsky, Philadelphia Co., FamilyDiv., No. 3347 Aug. 1980 (1981). 2:170-171Soby v. Soby, 113 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 406 (1983).5:596-597Sohmer v. Sohmer, 318 Pa. Super. 500, 465 A.2d665 (1983). 4:465-466Solomon v. Solomon, 531 Pa. 113, 611 A.2d 686(1992). 13(4):2-3Soncini v. Soncini, 417 Pa. Super. 393, 612 A.2d998 (1992). 13(4):6-7Songster v. Mumma, 380 Pa. Super. 18, 550 A.2d1341 (1988). 10:66-67Spink v. Spink, 422 Pa. Super. 126, 619 A.2d 277(1992). 14(2):5-6Spitzkopf v. Spitzkopf, 3 A.C.D.D. 42 (Allegh.Co., 1982). 3:337-38Stamus v. Dutcavich, 938 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super.2007). 30:84-86Stanton v. Stanton, 112 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 234(1985). 4:484-487Stapleton v. Stapleton, 32 Chester Co. 338 (1984).5:568-569Staub v. Staub, 960 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2008).31:20-21Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 714A.2d 1016 (1998). 20:92-94123

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDSteenland-Parker v. Parker, 375 Pa. Super. 457,544 A.2d 1010 (1988). 9:36Stern v. Stern, Montg. Co., No. 84-3570 (1985).6:784-85Stipp v. Stipp, 31 Chester Co. L. Rep. 172 (1983).4:483-84Stone v. Stone, Monroe Co., Civ. No. 510 (1980).2:119-20Stowell v. Stowell, 3d Cir., No. 84-1037 (Oct. 26,1984). 5:656-58Stredny v. Gray, 353 Pa. Super. 376, 510 A.2d359 (1986). 7:879-881Stuckart v. Stuckart, Monroe Co., Civ. No494(1980). 2:119-120Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2008).30:208-11Sutliff v. Sutliff, 326 Pa. Super. 496, 474 A.2d599 (1984). 5:564-567Sutliff v. Sutliff, 339 Pa. Super. 523, 489 A.2d764 (1985). 6:705-713Sutliff v. Sutliff, 515 Pa. 393, 528 A.2d 1318(1987). 8:976-80Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534(1988). 9:32Szillery v. Wheaton, 382 Pa. Super. 394, 555 A.2d237 (1989). 10(2):80T.J.B. v. E.C., 438 Pa. Super. 529, 652 A.2d 936(1995). 17(2):9-12Tanker v. Tanker, Phil. Co., F.D. Dec. 1979, No.2210 (1980). 1:83-84Taylor v. Taylor, 1 A.C.D.D. 82 (Allegh. Co.,1981).2:202-5Terpak v. Terpak, 697 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super.1997). 19:77-79Textor v. Textor, 9 A.C.D.D. 116 (Allegh. Co.,(1987). 8:1008-1009Thoma v. Thoma, 284 Pa. Super. 249, 425 A.2d797 (1981).2:133-134Thomas v. Thomas, 335 Pa. Super. 41, 483 A.2d945 (1984). 5:648-650Tompkins v. Tompkins, 355 Pa. Super. 589, 514A.2d 91 (1986). 7:884-892Thomson v. Rose, 698 A.2d 1321 (Pa. Super.1997). 19:79-81Tocco v. Tocco, 389 Pa. Super. 310, 567 A.2d303 (1989). 10:121-122Toll v. Toll, No. 73-8806. 2:163Toll v. Toll, 293 Pa. Super. 549, 439 A. 2d 712(1981). 3:253-254Tompkins v. Tompkins, 355 Pa. Super. 589, 514A.2d 91 (1986). 7:884-892Tonetti v. Tonetti, 39 Lehigh Law J. 535 (1982).3:294-298Tose v. Tose, 63 Del. Co. R. 309 (1981).2:167-170Tose v. Tose, Montg. Co. 498 Sept. 1971 (April30, 1981). 2:184-86Tose v. Tose, 297 Pa. Super. 592, 441 A.2d 790 1(1982). 3:257-58Treasure v. Treasure, 2 A.C.D.D. 170 (Allegh. Co.1982). 3:306Trembach v. Trembach, 419 Pa. Super. 80, 615A.2d 33 (1992). 13(6):8Trosky v. Mann, 398 Pa. Super. 369, 581 A.2d177 (1990). 11:198-199Trunkwalter v. Trunwalter, 421 Pa. Super. 308,617 A.2d 1308 (1992). 14(1):2124

TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDUhler v. Uhler, 406 Pa. Super. 414, 594 A.2d 688(1991). 12(5):5Ullom v. Ullom, 384 Pa. Super. 514, 559 A.2d555 (1989). 10:90Vankirk v. Vankirk, 336 Pa. Super. 502, 485 A.2d1194 (1984). 5:654-655Vento v. Vento, 256 Pa. Super. 91, 389 A. 2d 615(1978). 1:22-23Vicki N. v. Josephine N., 437 Pa. Super. 166, 649A.2d 709 (1994). 17(1):5-6Viles v. Viles, 416 Pa. Super. 95, 610 A.2d 988(1991). 13(4):4-6Vito v. Vito, 380 Pa. Super. 258, 551 A.2d 473(1998). 10:65-66Vivian B. v. Raymond B., 129 P.L.J. 410 (1981).2:227-229Wachter v. Ascero, 379 Pa. Super. 618, 550 A.2d1019 (1988). 10:67Waddington v. Waddington, 425 Pa. Super. 241,624 A.2d 657 (1993). 14(4):10-11Wagner v. Wagner, 387 Pa. Super. 246, 564 A.2d162 (1989). 10:104-5Wagoner v. Wagoner, 538 Pa. 265, 648 A.2d 299(1994). 17(1):12-14Walters v. Walters, 109 Montg. Co. 466 (1981).3:266-269Warman v. Warman, 294 Pa. Super. 285, 439A.2d 1203 (1982). 3:278-82Warner v. Pollock, 434 Pa. Super. 551, 644 A.2d747 (1994). 16(4):9-10Weber v. Weber, 272 Pa. Super. 88, 414 A.2d 682(1979). 1:10-11Weckerly v. Weckerly, 357 Pa. Super. 644 , 513A.2d 1082 (1986). 7:864Weinzetl v. Weinzetl, 452 Pa. Super. 271, 681A.2d 813 (1996). 19:5-6Welz v. Stump, 403 Pa. Super. 93, 588 A.2d 47(1991). 12(3):8-9Wenz v. Schwartze, 598 P.2d 1086 (Mont. (1979),cert. den'd 100 S.Ct. 1015 (1980). 1:46-48Wertz v. Anderson, 352 Pa. Super. 572, 508 A.2d1218 (1986). 7:858-60White v. White, 382 Pa. Super. 478, 555 A.2d1299 (1989). 10:76Wichers v. Wichers, 6 A.C.D.D. 67, 132 P.L.J.146 (1984). 5:546-49Wieland v. Wieland, 948 Pa. Super. 863 (Pa.Super. 2008). 30:154-56.Wilcox v. Wilcox, 394 Pa. Super. 119, 575 A.2d127 (1990). 11:159-160Williams v. Williams, 31 Chester Co. L. Rep. 82(1982). 4:458-60Williams v. Williams, 108 PDDRR 87 p.321].30:219-20Wilson v. Wilson, 67 Del. Co. R. 724 (1980).1:85-86Wilson v. Wilson, 406 Pa. Super. 473, 594 A.2d717 (1991). 12(6):910Winpenny v. Winpenny, 434 Pa. Super. 348, 643A.2d 677 (1994). 15(3):7-9Winters v. Winters, 355 Pa. Super. 64, 512 A.2d1124 (1986). 7:902-4Wiskoski v. Wiskoski, 427 Pa. Super. 531, 629A.2d 996 (1993). 14(5):9-12Witcher v. Witcher, 433 Pa. Super. 14, 639 A.2d1187 (1994). 15(3):2-4Wolfe v. Wolfe, 341 Pa. Super. 313, 491 A.2d281 (1985). 6:763-764125

Wolk v. Wolk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 464 A.2d 1359(1983). 4:460-62Woodings v. Woodings, 411 Pa. Super. 406, 601A.2d 854 (1992). 13(1):2Woods v. Cicierski, 937 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super.2007). 30:7-8Yates v. Yates, 936 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Super 2007).30:9-10Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2008).31:15-18Young v. Young, 320 Pa. Super. 269, 467 A.2d 33(1983). 4:481-83Young v. Young, 507 Pa. 40, 488 A.2d 264(1985). 6:700-1Zadori v. Zadori, 443 Pa. Super. 192, 661 A.2d370 (1995). 17(4):5-6Zaubi v. Zaubi, Appeal of Hojme, 530 Pa. 831,423 A.2d 333 (1980). 1:48-51Zernhelt v. Lehigh County Office of CYS, 659A.2d 89 (1994). 17(4):3-4Zollars v. Zollars, 397 Pa. Super. 204, 579 A.2d1328 (1990). 11:194-195Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa. Super. 113, 576 A.2d 1000(1990). 11:156-157Zullo v. Zullo, 531 Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992).13(6):10-11Zummo v. Zummo, 394 Pa. Super. 30, 574 A.2d1130 (1990). 11:143TABLE OF CASES REPORTED126

5. ARTICLES AND COMMENTSByrne, Harry M., Jr., Editor. 27:12-17, 85-94, 122-29; 28:17-27, 109-27; 29:22-27, 56-60, 102-6, 138-47;30:12-29.Byrne, Harry M., Jr., Co-Editor and Benjamin E. Orsatti, Co-Editor. 30:90-122, 163-82; 31:21-34, 55-64, 106-128, 167-72; 32:24-52, 83-110, 146-66, 196-223.5A. ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHOR* In listing multiple-authored articles, I haveidentified the first author with an * for a properbibliographical citation.Adams, James R. Soldiers’ and Sailors’ CivilRelief Act–A Followup. 26:124.Ade, Mary V. In Case You Were Wondering…Retirement Plans and Plan Participants’ Deaths.32:35-38, 85-88.Ade, Mary V. The Taxing Side of Divorce:Taking Advantage of Tax Saving Measures inDivorce. 32:35-38.Altschuler, Kenneth P.*, Hesper Schleiderer-Hardy, Jay Sanders. Determining and EvaluatingPersonal and Enterprise Goodwill in the DivorceCase. 30:166-73.Altschuler, Mark K. Age Patterns in Divorce.28:114-118.Altschuler, Mark K.* and Jeffrey M. Williams.The Demarco Case and Delayed Retirement.24:51-52.Altschuler, Mark K.* and Toby Dickman. EarlyRetirement Window Enhancements and Divorce.20:44-45.Altschuler, Mark K. Formula Enhancements to aDefined Benefit Pension: Berrington, Brown,Gordon, and Meyer. 23:39-41.Altschuler, Mark K. How to Determine a QDROAward Under Act 175. 31:62-64.Altschuler, Mark K. and Julie Auerbach.* ThePalladino Conundrum Unraveled. 21:14-15.Altschuler, Mark K. Past Payments. 30:12-14.Altschuler, Mark K.* and Mary J. B. Eidelman.Pension Valuation and Deferred DistributionUnder Act 175. 28:17-27.Anders, Geoff and Anne McSorley.* MedicalPractice Valuation: Why and How. 9:59-60.Ashton, Mark R. A Form to Beat a Headache:Solving the Joint Escrow Problem. 25:41-42.Ashton, Mark R. Reforming Pennsylvania'sSupport Modification Laws. 18(4):23-24.Ashton, Mark R. Settlement Strategies: When DueDiligence can be Dangerous. 22:43-44.Ashton, Mark R., David Draganosky, and Susan J.Smith. The Third Circuit Decides the Role ofCustody Evaluators. 24:16-18.Ashton, Mark R. Understanding College Funding:What the Divorce Practitioner Needs to Know.27:122-23.Auerbach, Julie A. New Federal RegulationsToughen the Requirements for the Issuance ofPassports to Minors. 24:42-46.Auerbach, Julie* and Mark K. Altschuler. ThePalladino Conundrum Unraveled. 21:14-15.Baer, Max. Custody Wars–The Creation of a NewWeapon of Mass Destruction. 21:121-125.Baer, Max. Family Law and Civility–Can TheyCo-Exist? 24:13-16.Barenbaum, Les* and Bonnie O'Rourke.Analyzing and Quantifying Sweat Equity.127

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHOR18(1):12-13.Barenbaum, Lester. Executive Stock OptionsValuation Issues. 20:16-17.Barenbaum, Les* and Brian G. Lunney. Views onFisher v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 2001)–StockOptions. 23:74-76.Beaver, Becky, Rachel M. Baccari, LeeVanderburg, Haran Levy. Clash of Tax andDivorce Planning. 30:108-16.Beckert, Susan J., Debra K. Lillie, Catherine M.McFadden,* and Judith A. Bretz. EquitableDistribution: Mixed Assets. 19:13-14.Begler, Ann Lee. Open the Door for Children: ACounterpoint to Closing the Door on OpenAdoption. 18(3):19-21.Begler, Ann Lee. Professionalism, CommonDecency and the Family in Family Law. 18(1):16.Bennett, Elizabeth L. The Discovery Rule andChild Abuse. 12(1):12.Bennett, Elizabeth L. Divorce, Older Women andAlimony. 16(5):15-17.Bennett, Elizabeth L. Evidence: NewDevelopments in Child Abuse Proceedings. 10:72-73.Bernbaum, Joel B. Bits and Bytes. 19:82.Bertin, Emanuel A. Editor's Rebuttal to Dr. Crews'"In the Best Interest of the Child: A Legal Term ofArt." 10:70.Blechman, Jay A. Brown v. Brown: More onDeferred Distribution of Pension Benefits inEquitable Distribution. 18(2):15-16.Bloam, Brittany M. In Pennsylvania, ApparentlyDivorce Agreements are Sufficient to WaiveERISA Pension Plan Benefits. 31:110-12.Brandt, Jennifer A. Misuse of UnlawfullyObtained Documents. 32:150-51.Bretz, Judith A., Susan J. Beckert, Debra K. Lillieand Catherine M. McFadden*. EquitableDistribution: Mixed Assets. 19:13-14.Bronstein, Peter E*. and David A. Typermass.Business Valuation Reports—The Importance ofProactive Lawyering. 32:99-104.Brown, Neil S. Life Insurance as an Asset. 26:52-53.Brown, Neil S.*, Joan K. Crain and WendiMurphy. The Marital Residence: Asset…OrLiability? 32:108-10.Brown, Neil S. Not All Assets are TreatedEqually. 26:51-52.Brown, Neil S. and Joan K. Crain*. ReviewingEstate Plans in Connection With Divorce. 28:113-114.Brown, Neil S. and Joan K. Crain*. SpecialConsiderations for Retirement Plans DuringDivorce. 29:56-57Brown, Neil S., Richard C. Thomas. & Joan K.Crain*. Tax Considerations When NegotiatingDivorce Settlements. 29:142-44.Buettner, Jeffrey S. and Robert F. Reilly.Estate/Gift Tax Valuation–Professional Guidancefrom IRS Publications. 25:21-24.Bunde, Robb D. Relocation Orders, Like anyInterim Custody Order, are not Subject toImmediate Appeal. 20:100-101.Busch v. Busch. [732 A.2d 1274]. (Pa. Super.1999) 21:131-137.Byrne, Harry M., Jr. Delaware County OpposesPACSES Implement. 20:73-74.Byrne, Harry M. and David S. Pollock, David S.*Net Spendable Income Calculations in the Context128

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORof Depreciation and Business Expenses. 14(4):17-22.Byrne, Harry M., Jr.,* David S. Pollock and BrianC. Vertz. The Rainbow After the Storm? Post-Secondary Educational Support Legislation in theWake of Blue. 15(3):18-24.Cahouet, Ann P.*, Lisa M. Colautti, and RowenaE. Dodson. Simple Work, Big Rewards. 22:70-71.Casale, Helen E., Leslie A. Kramer, and Naomi B.Mendelsohn. Filing Action in Pennsylvania toDissolve a Same-Sex Relationship Created Underthe Law of Another State. 31:112-18.Casciato, Daniel. Collaborative Law. 29:141-42.Celentino, Christopher. Portions of the 2005Bankruptcy Reform Legislation of Interest toFamily Law Practitioners. 30:106-7.Clifford, Daniel J. Dissolving Borders, DefiningBoundaries. 32:148-49.Colautti, Lisa M., Rowena E. Dodson, and Ann P.Cahouet.* Simple Work, Big Rewards. 22:70-71.Crain, Joan K.* and Richard C. Thomas. Divorceand the Key Nest Eggs: The Family Home andInvestment Portfolio. 30:163-65.Crain, Joan K., Wendi Murphy, and Neil S.Brown.* The Marital Residence: Asset…OrLiability? 32:108-10.Crain, Joan K.* and Neil S. Brown. ReviewingEstate Plans in Connection With Divorce. 28:113-114.Crain, Joan K.* and Neil S. Brown. SpecialConsiderations for Retirement Plans DuringDivorce. 29:56-57Crain, Joan K.*, Neil S. Brown & Richard C.Thomas. Tax Considerations When NegotiatingDivorce Settlements. 29:142-44.Crews, Wanda J. In the Best Interest of the Child:A Legal Term of Art. 10:68-70.Cushing, James W. Do Non-Parents HaveCustodial Rights Over a Child? 32:160-61.Cushing, James W. I Now [Cannot] PronounceYou Man and Wife. 31:119-20.Damiano, Karen J. Eisenberg v. Commissioner:Court Allows Adjustment for Potential Built-inCapital Gains Tax. 21:10-11.Davis, Cami L. Economic Stimulus PackagePlaces New Obligations on Employers Covered byCOBRA. 31:118-19.Davis, Russ* and Donald Wochna. Computer asWitness–Should You Use It in Your Case? 30:26-29.DeCecco, Lisa L. Defining Abuse of Discretion:The Standard of Review in Custody Cases.16(4):14-15.DeGrazia, Donald J. How to Unwind andOtherwise Address Complex Estate Planning andAsset Protection Vehicles in Divorce. 30:117-22.Dickman, Toby and Mark Altschuler.* EarlyRetirement Window Enhancements and Divorce.20:44-45.Dischell, Mark B. The Four-Way Conference:And Why Not? 26:50-51.Dodds, Deborah D. and Peggy Lynn Ferber.*Estate Planning and the Family Lawyer. 13(2):9-11.Dodson, Rowena E., Ann P. Cahouet*, and LisaM. Colautti. Simple Work, Big Rewards. 22:70-71.Doherty, Mary Cushing* and Jeannine Turgeon.Partnership Means Progress for Family CourtReform. 25:43-44.Doherty, Mary Cushing. Practical Suggestions for129

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORMatrimonial Arbitration. 31:27-29.Durst, Robert J. Custody Relocation: New JerseyStyle. 21:126-129.Edelson, Gary. Qualified Domestic RelationsOrders–When can the Alternative Payee GetControl of Her Money. 9:9.Egler, Joseph M.* and Edward A. Wilusz. TheSize of the Marketability Discounts in AppraisingClosely Held Businesses. 18(1):13-14.Egler, Joseph M.* and Andrew M. Wilusz.Valuing Employee Stock Options. 19:81-82.Eidelman, Mary J. B. Aand Mark K. Altschuler.*Pension Valuation and Deferred DistributionUnder Act 175. 28:17-27.Elliott, Kate Ford. Keynote Address: Kate FordElliott at PBA Family Law Section PittsburghWinter Meeting January 18, 1997. 19:14-17.Elovitz, Shelley W. How Long is the Long inYour Long-Term Disability Insurance? 32:161-62.Elovitz, Shelley W. The Interplay of Long-TermDisability and Social Security DisabilityInsurances. 32:98-99.Ethics Opinion 95-134 Temporarily Withdrawn.18(2):22.Feder, Robert D. Attorney's Fees and RestitutionAwards in Child Kidnapping Cases. 12(2):6-7.Feder, Robert D. Divorce Actions–A FamilyAffair? 13(2):11-12, 13(3):9-10.Feder, Robert D. Interest–An Unused Remedy.11:202-203.Ferber, Peggy Lynn* and Deborah D. Dodds.Estate Planning and the Family Lawyer. 13(2):9-11.Fischer, Ellen S. A Helpful Solution forSupervised Visitation and Difficult CustodyExchanges. 29:27.Fischer, Ellen S. Woman Convicted of ViolatingOwn Protection Order. 25:109-10.Fishman, Joel. Divorce, Support and CustodyLaws & Related Subjects in Pennsylvania (1980-2005): A Bibliography. 28:50-91.Forbes, Jennifer H. and David N. Wecht.* Hastecan Make Waste: Speedy Trials and Custody.32:83-85.Forbes, Jennifer H. and David N. Wecht,*Parenting Coordinators Revisited. 32:146-47.Frank, Barry H. Alimony Revised Under TaxReform Act of 1986. 8:933-934.Frank, Barry S. Periodic Payments–NewGuidelines Issued by the Internal Revenue Service3:368-371 .Frumkes, Melvyn B. A Divorce’s RetroactiveModification will not Change Taxability ofPayments. 29:26.Frumkes, Melvyn B. Income Tax Treatment ofUnallocated Alimony and Child Support ( FamilySupport). 25:107-9.Gabrielson, Jan C. Wisdom of the Sages. 21:137-138.Gaffen, Gregg S. Evaluating the Expertise andCredentials of Business Valuation Practitioners.25:34-40.Galzerano, Mark R. The Roth IRA Conversion.29:105-6.Garland, Pamela J.* and Ashley L. Reilly.Discount for Lack of Voting Rights/Premium forVoting Rights Study. 26:67-83.Garrigan-Nass, Michele and David L. Ladov.*Another Piece of the Marital Pie: StockOptions. 9:52-53.130

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORGlasser, Daniel H. Advances Against EquitableDistribution: Protecting the AdvancingParty. 20:46-48.Glasser, Daniel H. Response to the Response.20:69.Glasser, Daniel H. Solomonic Resolution ofCustody Case–Israeli Style. 20:97-98.Gold-Bikin, Lynne Z. "Relocation" Now hasGuidelines. 12(2):8.Greenbaum, Jeffrey and Ken Kilimnik.*International Enforcement of Family Support: TheView from Pennsylvania. 9:55-59.Grinberg, Edwin I. Permission Slip. 29:103-5.Gross, Dodi Walker and Miller, Patricia G.*Stinner v. Stinner: Who Decides When a CourtOrder Qualifies as a Qualified Domestic RelationsOrder? 10:82-84.Gruener, Harry J. Close the Door on OpenAdoptions. 18(3):18-19.Gruener, Harry J. Discovery can be Taxing.18(2):22.Gruener, Harry J. Nothing Personal. 19:20.Gruener, Harry J. An Uncommon Law MarriageCase. 20:94-95.Grunfeld, David L. Caution: Sex With Clients.27:123-24.Grunfeld, David L. Family Law and the NewBankruptcy Code. Amendments . 17(1):16.Hitzemann, Diane D. Collaborative Practice–AChoice for Families. 29:24-25.Hofstein, David N.* and Kevin C. McCullough.Contingent Fees in Domestic Relations Matters.9:37-39.Hofstein, David N. Custody Litigation—The Roleof the Child. 20:10-14.Hofstein, David N. and Joanne Ross Wilder.*PBA Opinion Re: Inquiry #95-134 (Revised7/31/96). 20:14-15.Hofstein, David N. Stipulation for CustodyEvaluation. 21:129-130.Hostetter, David L.* and Wm. H. Nast.Applicability of 1988 Divorce Code Amendmentsto Pending Cases and Causes of Action AccruingPrior to Their Effective Date. 9:23-26.Howett, John C., Jr. A Practical View of the Effectof the 1988 Divorce Code Amendments onPending Cases. 9:26-28.Howett, John C. Response to Daniel H. Glasser,“Advances Against EquitableDistribution–Protecting the Advancing Party.”.20:67-69.Jones, Daniel* and Tracy Stewart. What Does theHealthcare Reform Bill Mean for DivorcingCouples? 32:163-64.Jones, G. Daniel* and Joseph McCaffrey. CapitalGain & “Principal Residence” Capital GainChange–Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. 20:20-22.Jones, G. Daniel. Federal Income Taxes. 24:46-50.Kennedy, G. William. Dissecting BusinessValuation Report. 30:100-6.Kilimnik, Ken* and Jeffrey Greenbaum.International Enforcement of Family Support: TheView from Pennsylvania. 9:55-59.Kindler, Alex M.* Greg Voss, and Reid B.Roberts. It is Time to Revisit Hovis. 21:12-13.King, Mark. Comment: ‘Qualified Professional.’.29:23-24.Klein, Howard B. What to do When the IRSAgents Come Calling. 20:48-49.131

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORLadov, David L.* and Michele Garrigan-Nass.Another Piece of the Marital Pie: StockOptions. 9:52-53.Ladov, David L. Divorce–Israeli Style. 29:102-3.Ladov, David L.* & Kenneth Spiegel. Parentshave a Constitutional Right to Inculcate TheirReligious Beliefs upon Their Children. 11:167-168.Ladov, David L.* and Kenneth Spiegel. ValuingMarital Assets After Sutliff. 11:148.Landy, Joni. Compliance Dates Approaching onThree More Laws Affecting Group Health Plans.31:59-62.Lang, Brian R. Which Businesses Qualify for theValuable New Tax Break? 32:164-66.Lear, Richard E., Diane N. Rallis, and John J.Monaghan*. Ponzi Schemes and Clawbacks:Investors Pay Twice for the Crime of Others.31:121-28.Leichter, Alexandra. The Effect of Islamic FamilyLaw on North American Family Law Issues.32:41-52.Leichter, Alexandra. The Effect of Jewish DivorceLaw on Family Law Litigation. 32:90-97.Leichter, Alexandra. Issues and SolutionsRegarding Jewish Premarital Agreements. 32:152-59.Levandowski, Mike and Dennis McGee.*Guideline Triple X. 22:42-43.Levine, Dana A.* and Brian C. Vertz. Analysis ofa Support Case. 32:29-34.Levine, Dana A. Public Access to PrivateInformation on Online Dockets: A BalanceBetween Freedom of Access to Information andProtecting the Privacy of Clients. 27:128-29.Levitske, John and Nina Vitek.* Stock Optionsand Post-Retirement Maintenance PaymentsAccording to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.32:106-7.Lillie, Debra K., Catherine M. McFadden,*, JudithA. Bretz, and Susan J. Beckert. EquitableDistribution: Mixed Assets. 19:13-14.Long, Brenden D. Prenuptial Agreement is notVoidable Under the Theory of FraudulentMisrepresentation as to the Value of Assets Unlessthe Party Attacking the Agreement ProvesJustifiable Reliance on the Misrepresentation:Porreco v. Porreco. 26:58-67.Lovewell, Matthew B. Divorce, Refinance, &Title: Acquiring New Income. 32:104-5.Luccino, F. J. Uptown Legal Clinic. 27:16-17.Lunney, Brian G. and Les Barenbaum*. Views onFisher v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 2001)–StockOptions. 23:74-76.Mahood, James E. Do Common Pleas Courts haveConstitutional Authority to Prescribe by GeneralOrder or Local Rule Seminars or Counseling forParents Involved in Divorce? 20:70-73.Mahood, James E. Early Retirement Incentives arenot Deferred Compensation. 20:18-20.Mahood, James E. Reading Between the Lines:The Supreme Court's Decision in Gordon v.Gordon. 18(4):12-14.Mahood, James E. Relocation Orders areImmediately Appealable. 20:99-100.Mahood, James E. Some Reflections on SocialSecurity Offsets: Cornbleth to McClain toCohenour. 19:58-60.Majumder, Mary Anderlik. Genetic Ties and theFuture of the Family. 25:78-80.Markovitz, Robert S.* and Timothy A. Taylor.What is the Definition of Cash Flow Available forSupport and What is Support? 23:67-68.132

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORMcCaffrey, Joseph and G. Daniel Jones.* CapitalGain & “Principal Residence” Capital GainChange–Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. 20:20-22.McCullough, Kevin C. and David N. Hofstein.*Contingent Fees in Domestic Relations Matters.9:37-39.McCurdy, Dennis W. Terminating the ParentalRights of the Incarcerated Parent: Clarity andGuidance fromthe Superior Court. 27:13-15.McFadden, Catherine M. Age and Alimony.17(2):13-15.McFadden, Catherine M. ALI Principles Suggesta New Approach to Separate Property. 18(3):12-16.McFadden, Catherine M. Colonna Considered.26:49-50.McFadden, Catherine M. Don't Let Your ClientShoot Himself in the Foot. 12(5):9-11.McFadden, Catherine M. Dramatic ChangesProposed in Child Support Guidelines. 26:11-19.McFadden, Catherine M.,* Judith A. Bretz, SusanJ. Beckert and Debra K. Lillie. EquitableDistribution: Mixed Assets. 19:13-14.McFadden, Catherine M. How Costs of Childrenare Calculated. 26:19-23.McFadden, Catherine S. Millick v. Millick: A Spurto Pension Reform, not a Reason for Applause.12(5):14-15.McFadden, Catherine. Pension Valuation Issues.11:189-91.McFadden, Catherine M. Retirement AgeArguments. 12(3):11-14.McFadden, Catherine M. Speculative or Not,Indefinite Tax Ramifications Must be Considered.32:196-200.McFadden, Catherine M. Standard of Practice forPension Valuation Adoption. 22:44-46.McFadden, Catherine M. Stay Now, Pay Later.14(1):10-11.McFadden, Catherine M. Study of PA SCDUReveals Problems and Peculiarities. 22:65-69.McFadden, Catherine M. There is No Such Thingas an Accrued Benefit (Or Why CovertureFractions Make Sense). 12(3):14-16.McFadden, Catherine M. U.S. Supreme CourtIdentifies Pension Issues: Kennedy & ProgenyPost-Decision Guidance. 31:107-10.McFadden, Catherine M. Valuing and DistributingIncreases and Decreases. 15(2):13-15.McGee, Dennis* and Mike Levandowski.Guideline Triple X. 22:42-43.McSorley, Anne* and Geoff Anders. MedicalPractice Valuation: Why and How. 9:59-60.Meck, John F. Estate Planning and the Tax Act of2001—What to do in 2002. 24:18-20.Mezzy, Gary. Is APL Automatic? 27:90-91.Michaelson, Sarinia A. and Kathleen B. Vetrano*New QDRO Costs to be Factored in DivorcePractice Pointer. 27:12-13.Montella, Susan M. The “Computer Service Fee”Charged by Philadelphia Domestic RelationsDeters Established of Child Support. 25:13-14.Mroz, Kelly A. Paternity by Estoppel and Fraud.25:81-82.Midkiff, David W. Considering Divorce: ShouldYou Leave the Marital Residence? 13(6):12-13.Miles, Patricia A. Howett Appoints DiscoveryTask Force. 18(1):8-9.Miller, Patricia G. A Conversation With My Cat133

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORAbout Pension/Double-Dip Issues. 30:90-91.Miller, Patricia G. Gordon v. Gordon: AnythingNew on Coverture Fractions? 16(4):19-20.Miller, Patricia G. Holland v. Holland: An Assortmentof Post-Separation Eggs in the MaritalProperty Basket. 12(4):13-14.Miller, Patricia G. Karkaria: A New and UncertainTest for Pennsylvania Antenuptial Agreements.9:29-30.Miller, Patricia G. McFadden v. McFadden: ADouble Dip at the Pension Well. 10:110-111.Miller, Patricia G. Palladino: "A Chinese Menu"Approach Leads to an Illogical Result. 20:65-67.Miller, Patricia G. Schneeman v. Schneeman:Cornbleth Revisited-Or How to Make a ConfusingDecision Worse. 14(2):17.Miller, Patricia G. Simeone v. Simeone: ARejection of the Karkaria Test for PrenuptialAgreements. 10:71-72.Miller, Patricia G.* and Dodi Walker Gross.Stinner v. Stinner: Who Decides When a CourtOrder Qualifies as a Qualified Domestic RelationsOrder? 10:82-84.Miller, Patricia G. Yes, Virginia, There is Such aThing as an Accrued Benefit. 12(4):14-15.Molinaro, Nicole. Health Resources for UninsuredWomen. 27:15-16.[Momjian, Albert]. Barko. Help! I Need a Gal!27:126-27.Momjian, Mark. Lucky at Lotto, Unlucky at Love:Lottery Proceeds as a Factor in Support andEquitable Distribution Proceedings. 13(1):9-13.Monaghan, John J., Richard E. Lear, and Diane N.Rallis. Ponzi Schemes and Clawbacks: InvestorsPay Twice for the Crime of Others. 31:121-28.Montella, Susan M. The “Computer Service Fee”Charged by Philadelphia Domestic RelationsDeters Established of Child Support. 25:13-14.Mroz, Kelly A. Paternity by Estoppel and Fraud.25: 81-82.Mulroy, Thomas M. Commonwealth v. ThePsychologists. 13(6):13-14.Mulroy, Thomas M. Elian Go Home. 22:11-12.Mulroy, Thomas M. Federal Child SupportInitiatives: Unanswered Questions. 16(5):18-20.Mulroy, Thomas M. The Importance of BeingNice: Estrangement in the Educational SupportCase. 10:119-120.Mulroy, Thomas M. Joint Custody: The PendulumSwings. 19:11-13.Mulroy, Thomas M. Pennsylvania Fashions anApproach to Surrogacy. 9:15-16.Mulroy, Thomas M. Rowles–A Crack in the Dam.18(1):15-16.Mulroy, Thomas M. What is Wrong With theProposed Support Guidelines. 10:70-71.Mulroy, Thomas M. When Bad Families Happento Good Children. 19:64-65.Mulzet, C. Kurt. Drake v. Drake: Workers’Compensation Commutation Award AccruedDuring Marriage can be Marital Property Subjectto Equitable Distribution. 21:42-45.Munafo, Rachel. Supreme Court Decision LimitsSua Sponte Powers of Court. 10:95-96.Murphy, Wendi, Neil S. Brown,* and Joan K.Crain. The Marital Residence: Asset…OrLiability? 32:108-10.Nast, Wm. H. and David L. Hostetter.*Applicability of 1988 Divorce Code Amendmentsto Pending Cases and Causes of Action Accruing134

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORPrior to Their Effective Date. 9:23-26.Nelson, Sharon D.* and John W. Simek. Adulteryin the Electronic Era: Spyware, Avatars andCybersex. 30:19-26.O’Rourke, Bonnie and Les Barenbaum.*Analyzing and Quantifying Sweat Equity.18(1):12-13.Orsatti, Benjamin E. Practical Issues for thePennsylvania Family Law Attorney Concerningthe Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects ofInternational Child Abduction, Oct. 25,1980,T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (HagueConvention) International Child AbductionRemedies Act (ICARA), 42USC §11601 et seq.28:120-27.PACSES Deficiency Summary: ExecutiveSummary. 20:74-76.Pauker, Lawrence. Judicial Action Places Limitson Adoption. 9:53-55.PBA Fair a Roaring Success. 22:42.PBA Family Section Nominating CommitteeReport. 19:43.PBA FLS Paternity Task Force Report. 21:79-96.Pearson, Katherine C. A Midnight Tale of FilialSupport. 29:146-47.Philadelphia Family Court–Host to EasternDRAP. 20:69.Pisa, Anthony M. Suggestibility of the ChildWitness: Relevance to Sexual Abuse Allegationsin Custody Disputes. 16(4):15-18.Pollock, David S. Comments Re: KeynoteAddress. [Kate Elliott Ford]. 19:17.Pollock, David S. Judicial Intervention Revisitedin Parental Relocation Cases After Gruber.12(5):11-13.Pollock, David S. Judicial Intervention WhenCustodial Parent Seeks to Relocate MinorChildren Out of State. 11:164-167.Pollock, David S.* and Harry M. Byrne, Jr. NetSpendable Income Calculations in the Context ofDepreciation and Business Expenses. 14(4):17-22.Pollock, David S., Brian C. Vertz and Harry M.Byrne, Jr.* The Rainbow After the Storm? Post-Secondary Educational Support Legislation in theWake of Blue. 15(3):18-24.Pollock, David S. The Wisdom of SolomonFinally Settles the Confusion of Sutliff. 13(4):16-20.Pratt, Shannon P. The "Excess Earnings" Method:How to Get a Defensible Result. 19:35-38.Rains, Robert E. The Family Lawyer’s Guide toSocial Security Disability Insurance Benefits andSupplemental Security Income (SSI). 31:23-26.Rains, Robert E. House Judiciary CommitteeConsiders Amendment/Repeal of No FaultDivorce Law. 18(4):19-23.Rains, Robert E. The "Jen and Dave" Act–Act No.1996-119. 19:40-42.Rains, Robert E. Senate Bill 979—Expanding the“Jen & Dave” Act. 24:40-42.Rains, Robert E. To Rhyme or not to Rhyme: AnAppraisal. 26:53-57.Rallis, Diane N., Richard E. Lear, and John J.Monaghan*. Ponzi Schemes and Clawbacks:Investors Pay Twice for the Crime of Others.31:121-28.Reilly, Ashley L. and Pamela J. Garland*.Discount for Lack of Voting Rights/Premium forVoting Rights Study. 26:67-83.Richardson, James H., Jr. The Erie CountyCustody Mediation Process. 19:39-40.135

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORRoberts, Reid B., Alex M. Kindler M.*, and GregVoss. It is Time to Revisit Hovis. 21:12-13.Roosma, Jacob P. C Corporations withAppreciated Assets: Valuation Discount for Built-In Capital Gains. 25:15-20.Rounick, Jack. The New Divorce Reform Law ofPennsylvania. 1:34-44.Rubin, Frederic D. Response to Wilder'sMediation Piece. 11:130.Samuels, Kalman. Execution of U.S. SupportJudgments in the Province of Quebec. 26:126-27.Schorr, Gerald J. The 1988 Amendments: TenYears After. 20:103-108.Seigneur, Ronald L. and Kevin R. Yeanoplos*.What is Reasonable Compensation? 30:92-100,174-82.Serine, Charles K. Public Pension Funds andApproved Domestic Relations Orders. 21:45-65.Shah, Barbara J. Hayward v. OPM–QualifyingOrders on Civil Service Retirement SystemPensions. 31:170-72.Sheinvold, Arnold T. Dealing With DifficultClients: Personality Disordered Individuals.27:124-26.Shepard, Michael D. Oral Communications Underthe Wiretap Act. 18(2):19-21.Silberblatt, Jay N. Don't Get Caught Napping onAppeal. 19:65-66.Simek, John W. and Sharon D. Nelson.*Adulteryin the Electronic Era: Spyware, Avatars andCybersex. 30:19-26.Simpson, Craig E. Sex With Clients. 31:57-59.Sipos, Lawrence J. Valuation of Survivor Benefitfor Purposes of Equitable Distribution–Guidancefor Practitioners in the Post-Palladino Era. 21:15-16.Snyder, Bradley Z. Drafting a DRO for SERS andPSERs. 14(3):14-15.Snyder, Marvin. Comments on Pension ValuationProcedures in Divorce in Accord withPennsylvania Superior Court Opinion in Agatone.10:84.Snyder, Marvin. Letter to the Editor: ReMcFadden Pension Article. 12(4):15.Snyder, Marvin. Pennsylvania Supreme CourtDefines Divorce Pension Rights. 15(1):17.Snyder, Marvin. Pension Valuations WithInflation and Taxation. 9:40-41.Snyder, Marvin. Superior Court Finds a NewMethod to Allocate Marital Property in a DefinedContribution Plan. 17(1):15-16.Snyder, Marvin. Two Recent Superior CourtCases on Pensions in Divorce. 11:188.Snyder, Marvin. (What) Pension is MaritalProperty. 12(5):8.Spiegel, Kenneth and David L. Ladov.* Parentshave a Constitutional Right to Inculcate TheirReligious Beliefs upon Their Children. 11:167-168.Spiegel, Kenneth and David L. Ladov.* ValuingMarital Assets After Sutliff. 11:148.State Department's New Rules for Children'sPassports Intended to Augment Provisions ofChild-Custody Orders. [22 C.F.R. Part 51].18(3):17-18.Stewart, Tracy* and Daniel Jones. What Does theHealthcare Reform Bill Mean for DivorcingCouples? 32:163-64.Sullivan, Mark E. The New Service MembersCivil Relief Act. 27:92-94.136

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORSupreme Court Authorizes Discovery. [R.C.P.1930.5(b)]. 19:42.Taylor, Andrew D. Changes to PA. SupportGuidelines Affect High-Income Child, SpousalSupport Obligations. 32:26-28.Taylor, Timothy A. and Robert S. Markovitz.*What is the Definition of Cash Flow Available forSupport and What is Support? 23:67-68.Troyan, William M. Curriculum Vitae. 6:680-682.Troyan, William M. Drafting and Qualifying aCourt Order in a Domestic Relations Case. 7:896-900.Troyan, William M. Evaluation of QualifiedBenefit Plans as a Result of the Berringer andKatzenberger Decisions. 13(5):8-14.Troyan, William M. The Retirement Equity Actand Pension Evaluation. 6:682-690.Turgeon, Jeannine and Mary Cushing Doherty*.Partnership Means Progress for Family CourtReform. 25:43-44.Turgeon, Jeannine. PFA Court–A ProblemSolving Court. 23:69-74.Twerski, Abraham J. Denial: The Arch-Enemy ofRecovery. 23:66.Typermass, David A. and Peter E. Bronstein.*Business Valuation Reports—The Importance ofProactive Lawyering. 32:99-104.Update on Pa Supreme Court Support Guide-lines.20:98.Van Vleet, Daniel R. The Valuation of SCorporation Stock. 25:25-33.Vertz, Brian C. and Dana A. Levine.* Analysis ofa Support Case. 32:29-34.Vertz, Brian C. Are Capital Gains Considered“Income” in Child Support Actions? 29:58-59.Vertz, Brian C. Business Valuation Basics:Discount and Capitalization Rates. 29:144-45.Vertz, Brian C. Cash Flow for Support Purposes.22:39-41.Vertz, Brian C. Cash Flow for Support Purposes,Statutory Definition–23 Pa.C.S. §4302 RulesDefinition–PA.R.C.P. 1910-16-5(B). 19:61-6.Vertz. Brian C. Eight Landmines to Avoid inDivorce Litigation. 28:119-120.Vertz, Brian C. The Homemaker Contribution.31:167.Vertz, Brian C., Harry M. Byrne, Jr.* and DavidS. Pollock. The Rainbow After the Storm? Post-Secondary Educational Support Legislation in theWake of Blue. 15(3):18-24.Vetrano, Anthony J. The Marital Portion ofDefined Benefit Pension Plans: How is it to beDetermined? 18(2):16-19.Vetrano, Kathleen B. Elder Law and Divorce.16(5):13-15.Vetrano, Kathleen B.* and Sarinia A. Michaelson.New QDRO Costs to be Factored in DivorcePractice Pointer. 27:12-13.Vetrano, Kathleen B. Social Security in FamilyLaw: An Overview. 20:101-103.Viola, Michael L. At Your Service. 31:29-31.Viola, Michael L. End of Common-Law Unions?The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court GoesWhere Others have only Imagined. 25:104-6.Vitek, Nina* and John Levitske. Stock Optionsand Post-Retirement Maintenance PaymentsAccording to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.32:106-7.Vogelson, Andrew R. Disturbed Parent-ChildAlignment and Custody Litigation. 11:150.137

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORVoss, Greg, Alex M. Kindler*, and Reid B.Roberts. It is Time to Revisit Hovis. 21:12-13.Waldman, Lisa A. Unified Family Court forPennsylvania. 19:18-19.Walzer, Peter M. Advice to a Client BeforeSigning a Premarital Agreement. 27:85-90.Walzer, Peter M. Family Law and the EconomicDownturn. 31:56-57.Wecht, David N. Child Interviews in CustodyCases Involving Pro Se Parents. 31:106.Wecht, David N. Crimes, Counseling andCustody. 29:22-23.Wecht, David N. The Discipline of Rules. 29:138-40.Wecht, David N.* and Jennifer H. Forbes Hastecan Make Waste: Speedy Trials and Custody.32:83-85.Wecht, David N. A Judge’s Comment On “TrialAids.” 31:55-56.Wecht, David N. Overseas Deployments. 31:21-23.Wecht, David N. Parent Coordinators inPennsylvania: Some Initial Thoughts. 28:109-113.Wecht, David N.* and Jennifer H. Forbes.Parenting Coordinators Revisited. 32:146-47.Wecht, David N. The Unified Family Court.32:28.Weis, Philip J. Income Tax Treatment ofNonqualified Stock Options and DeferredCompensation in Divorce Established;FICA/FUTA Issues Considered. 24:50-51.Wettick, R. Stanton, Jr. Introductory Statement ofHonorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. at thePennsylvania Bar Association Family Law SectionToronto Meeting, July 12, 1996. 18(4):14-19.Wilder, Joanne Ross. Alternative DisputeResolution in Divorce Cases: The New Wave oran Ill Wind? 10:120.Wilder, Joanne Ross. Avoiding High DemandLow Return Clients. 21:17-19.Wilder, Joanne Ross. How to Look Like a Winner(Or at Least not Look Like a Loser). 13(1):14-15.Wilder, Joanne Ross* and David N. Hofstein.PBA Opinion Re: Inquiry #95-134 (Revised7/31/96). 20:14-15.Wilder, Joanne Ross. Relocation HearingsRelocated. 12(6):11-12.Wilder, Joanne Ross. The Right Man’s Burdenand Other Disorders of the Profession. 32:88-90.Wilusz, Andrew M. and Joseph M. Egler* ValuingEmployee Stock Options. 19:81-82.Wilusz, Edward A. and Joseph M. Egler.* TheSize of the Marketability Discounts in AppraisingClosely Held Businesses. 18(1):13-14.Winegrad, Stephanie H. The Soldier’s and Sailor’sRelief Act–What is It? 26:84-85.Wochna, Donald and Russ Davis.* Computer asWitness–Should You Use It in Your Case? 30:26-29.Women in the Profession Commission.Commission Addresses One Family/One JudgeSystem–May 15, 1997. 19:17-18.Yeanoplos, Kevin R.* and Ronald L. Seigneur.What is Reasonable Compensation? 30:92-100,174-82.Zabowski, Diane M. Coburn: An Analysis ofRecent Paternity Cases. 10:118.Zabowski, Diane M. Montgomery County AdoptsLocal Rule In Custody Cases. 12(4):16.Zack, Carolyn Moran. Do You Know Who has138

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY AUTHORAccess to Your Client’s Divorce Records?Protecting Your Client’s Personal Information inthe Information Age. 30:14-18.Zashin, Andrew A. and Christopher R. Reynolds.Our Ever-Expanding World: What ParentsRelocating Internationally Need to Know. 31:168-70.139

5B. ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEAdultery in the Electronic Era: Spyware, Avatarsand Cybersex. Sharon D. Nelson and John W.Simek. 30:19-26.Advances Against Equitable Distribution:Protecting the Advancing Party. Daniel H.Glasser. 20:46-48.Advice to a Client Before Signing a PremaritalAgreement. Peter M. Walzer. 27:85-90.Age and Alimony. Catherine M. McFadden.17(2):13-15.Age Patterns in Divorce. Mark K. Altschuler.28:114-18.ALI Principles Suggest a New Approach toSeparate Property. Catherine M. McFadden.18(3):12-16.Alimony Revised Under Tax Reform Act of 1986.Barry H. Frank. 8:933-34.Alternative Dispute Resolution in Divorce Cases:The New Wave or an Ill Wind? Joanne RossWilder. 10:120.Analyzing and Quantifying Sweat Equity. LesBarenbaum and Bonnie O'Rourke. 18(1):12-13.Another Piece of the Marital Pie: Stock Options.David L. Ladov and Michele Garrigan-Nass. 9:52-53.Applicability of 1988 Divorce Code Amendmentsto Pending Cases and Causes of Action AccruingPrior to Their Effective Date. David L. Hostetterand Wm. H. Nast. 9:23-26.Are Capital Gains Considered “Income” in ChildSupport Actions? Brian C. Vertz. 29:58-59.At Your Service. Michael L. Viola. 31:29-31.Attorney's Fees and Restitution Awards in ChildKidnapping Cases. Robert D. Feder. 12(2):6-7.Avoiding High Demand Low Return Clients.Joanne Ross Wilder. 21:17-19.Bits and Bytes. Joel B. Bernbaum. 19:82.Brown v. Brown: More on Deferred Distributionof Pension Benefits in Equitable Distribution. JayA. Blechman. 18(2):15-16.Bureau of Professional and Occupational AffairsPrepared to Suspend Licenses of SupportScofflaws. 18(1):10-11.Busch v. Busch. [732 A.2d 1274]. (Pa. Super.1999). 21:131-37.Business Valuation Basics: Discount andCapitalization Rates. Brian C. Vertz. 29:144-45.C Corporations with Appreciated Assets:Valuation Discount for Built-In Capital Gains.Jacob P. Roosma. 25:15-20.Capital Gain & “Principal Residence” CapitalGain Change–Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. G.Daniel Jones and Joseph McCaffrey. 20:20-22.Cash Flow for Support Purposes. Brian C. Vertz.22:39-41.Cash Flow for Support Purposes, StatutoryDefinition–23 Pa.C.S. §4302 Rules Definition–PA.R.C.P. 1910-16-5(B). Brian C. Vertz. 19:61-63.Caution: Sex With Clients. David L. Grunfeld.27:123-24.Child Interviews in Custody Cases Involving ProSe Parents. David N. Wecht. 31:106.Clash of Tax and Divorce Planning. BeckyBeaver, Rachel M. Baccari, Lee Vanderburg,Haran Levy. 30:108-16.Close the Door on Open Adoptions. Harry J.Gruener. 18(3):18-19.140

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLECoburn: An Analysis of Recent Paternity Cases.Diane M. Zabowski. 10:118.Collaborative Law. Daniel Casciato.29:141-42.Collaborative Practice–A Choice for Families.Diane D. Hitzemann. 29:24-25.Colonna Considered. Catherine M. McFadden.26:49-50.Comment: ‘Qualified Professional.’ Mark King.29:23-24.Comments on Pension Valuation Procedures inDivorce in Accord with Pennsylvania SuperiorCourt Opinion in Agatone. Marvin Snyder. 10:84.Comments Re: Keynote Address. [Kate ElliottFord]. David S. Pollock. 19:17.Commonwealth v. The Psychologists. Thomas M.Mulroy. 13(6):13-14.Compliance Dates Approaching on Three MoreLaws Affecting Group Health Plans. Joni Landy.31:59-62.Computer as Witness–Should You Use It in YourCase? Russ Davis and Donald Wochna. 30:26-29.The “Computer Service Fee” Charged byPhiladelphia Domestic Relations DetersEstablished of Child Support. Susan M. Montella.25:13-14.Considering Divorce: Should You Leave theMarital Residence? David W. Midkiff. 13(6):12-13.Contingent Fees in Domestic Relations Matters.David N. Hofstein and Kevin C. McCullough.9:37-39.A Conversation With My Cat AboutPension/Double-Dip Issues. Patricia G. Miller.30:90-91.Crimes, Counseling and Custody. David N.Wecht. 29:22-23.Curriculum Vitae. William M. Troyan. 6:680-82.Custody Litigation—The Role of the Child. DavidN. Hofstein. 20:10-14.Custody Relocation: New Jersey Style. Robert J.Durst. 21:126-29.Custody Wars–The Creation of a New Weapon ofMass Destruction. Max Baer. 21:121-25.Dealing With Difficult Clients: PersonalityDisordered Individuals. Arnold T. Sheinvold.27:124-26.Defining Abuse of Discretion: The Standard ofReview in Custody Cases. Lisa L. DeCecco.16(4):14-15.Delaware County Opposes PACSESImplementation. Harry M. Byrne, Jr. 20:73-74.The Demarco Case and Delayed Retirement. MarkK. Altschuler and Jeffrey M. Williams. .24:51-52.Denial: The Arch-Enemy of Recovery. AbrahamJ. Twerski. 23:66.Determining and Evaluating Personal andEnterprise Goodwill in the Divorce Case. KennethP. Altschuler, Hesper Schleiderer-Hardy, JaySanders. 30:166-73.The Discipline of Rules. David N. Wecht. 29:138-40.Discount for Lack of Voting Rights/Premium forVoting Rights Study. Pamela J. Garland andAshley L. Reilly. 26:67-83.Discovery can be Taxing. Harry J. Gruener.18(2):22.The Discovery Rule and Child Abuse. Elizabeth L.Bennett. 12(1):12.Dissecting Business Valuation Report. G. William141

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEKennedy. 30:100-6.Disturbed Parent-Child Alignment and CustodyLitigation. Andrew R. Vogelson. 11:150.Divorce Actions–A Family Affair? Robert D.Feder. 13(2):11-12; 13(3):9-10.Divorce and the Key Nest Eggs: The FamilyHome and Investment Portfolio. Joan K. Crain andRichard C. Thomas. 30:163-65.Divorce, Older Women and Alimony. Elizabeth L.Bennett. 16(5):15-17.Divorce, Support and Custody Laws & RelatedSubjects in Pennsylvania (1980-2005): ABibliography. Joel Fishman. 28:50-91.Divorce–Israeli Style. David L. Ladov. 29:102-3.A Divorce’s Retroactive Modification will notChange Taxability of Payments. Melvyn B.Frumkes. 29:26.Do Common Pleas Courts have ConstitutionalAuthority to Prescribe by General Order or LocalRule Seminars or Counseling for Parents Involvedin Divorce? James E. Mahood. 20:70-73 .Do You Know Who has Access to Your Client’sDivorce Records? Protecting Your Client’sPersonal Information in the Information Age.Carolyn Moran Zack. 30:14-18.Don't Get Caught Napping on Appeal. Jay N.Silberblatt. 19:65-66.Don't Let Your Client Shoot Himself in the Foot.Catherine M. McFadden. 12(5):9-11.Drafting a DRO for SERS and PSERs. Bradley Z.Snyder. 14(3):14-15 .Drafting and Qualifying a Court Order in aDomestic Relations Case. William M. Troyan.7:896-900.Drake v. Drake: Workers’ CompensationCommutation Award Accrued During Marriagecan be Marital Property Subject to EquitableDistribution. C. Kurt Mulzet. 21:42-45.Dramatic Changes Proposed in Child SupportGuidelines. Catherine M. McFadden. 26:11-19.Early Retirement Incentives are not DeferredCompensation. James E. Mahood. 20:18-20.Early Retirement Window Enhancements andDivorce. Mark Altschuler and Toby Dickman.20:44-45.Economic Stimulus Package Places NewObligations on Employers Covered by COBRA.Cami L. Davis. 31:118-19.Editor's Rebuttal to Dr. Crews' "In the BestInterest of the Child: A Legal Term of Art."Emanuel A. Bertin. 10:70-71.Eight Landmines to Avoid in Divorce Litigation.Brian C. Vertz. 28:119-20.Eisenberg v. Commissioner: Court AllowsAdjustment for Potential Built-in Capital GainsTax. Karen J. Damiano. 21:10-11.Elder Law and Divorce. Kathleen B. Vetrano.16(5):13-15.Elian Go Home. Thomas M. Mulroy. 22:11-12.End of Common-Law Unions? The PennsylvaniaCommonwealth Court Goes Where Others haveonly Imagined. Michael L. Viola. 25:104-6.Equitable Distribution: Mixed Assets. CatherineM. McFadden, Judith A. Bretz, Susan J. Beckertand Debra K. Lillie. 19:13-14.The Erie County Custody Mediation Process.James H. Richardson, Jr. 19:39-40.Estate/Gift Tax Valuation–Professional Guidancefrom IRS Publications. Jeffrey S. Buettner andRobert F. Reilly. 25:21-24.142

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEEstate Planning and the Family Lawyer. PeggyLynn Ferber and Deborah D. Dodds. 13(2):9-11.Estate Planning and the Tax Act of 2001—Whatto do in 2002. John F. Meck. 24:18-20.Ethics Opinion 95-134 Temporarily Withdrawn.18(2):22.Evaluating the Expertise and Credentials ofBusiness Valuation Practitioners. Gregg S. Gaffen.25:34-40.Evaluation of Qualified Benefit Plans as a Resultof the Berringer and Katzenberger Decisions.William M. Troyan. 13(5):8-14.Evidence: New Developments in Child AbuseProceedings. Elizabeth L. Bennett. 10:72-73.The "Excess Earnings" Method: How to Get aDefensible Result. Shannon P. Pratt. 19:35-38.Execution of U.S. Support Judgments in theProvince of Quebec. Kalman Samuels. 26:126-27.Executive Stock Options Valuation Issues. LesterBarenbaum. 20:16-17.Family Law and Civility–Can They Co-Exist?Max Baer. 24:13-16.Family Law and the Economic Downturn. PeterM. Walzer. 31:56-57.The Family Lawyer’s Guide to Social SecurityDisability Insurance Benefits and SupplementalSecurity Income (SSI). Robert E. Rains. 31:23-26.Federal Child Support Initiatives: UnansweredQuestions. Thomas M. Mulroy. 16(5):18-20.Federal Income Taxes. G. Daniel Jones. 24:46-50.Filing Action in Pennsylvania to Dissolve a Same-Sex Relationship Created Under the Law ofAnother State. Helen E. Casale, Leslie A. Kramer,and Naomi B. Mendelsohn. 31:112-18.A Form to Beat a Headache: Solving the JointEscrow Problem. Mark R. Ashton. 25:41-42.Formula Enhancements to a Defined BenefitPension: Berrington, Brown, Gordon, and Meyer.Mark K. Altschuler. 23:39-41.The Four-Way Conference: And Why Not? MarkB. Dischell. 26:50-51.Gordon v. Gordon: Anything New on CovertureFractions? Patricia G. Miller. 16(4):19-20.Guideline Triple X. Dennis McGee and MikeLevandowski. 22:42-43.Hayward v. OPM–Qualifying Orders on CivilService Retirement System Pensions. Barbara J.Shah. 31:170-72.Health Resources for Uninsured Women. NicoleMolinaro. 27:15-16.Help! I Need a Gal! [Albert Momjian]. 27:126-27.A Helpful Solution for Supervised Visitation andDifficult Custody Exchanges. Ellen S. Fischer.29:27.Holland v. Holland: An Assortment of Post-Separation Eggs in the Marital Property Basket.Patricia G. Miller. 12(4):13-14.The Homemaker Contribution. Brian C. Vertz.31:167.House Judiciary Committee ConsidersAmendment/ Repeal of No Fault Divorce Law.Robert E. Rains. 18(4):19-23.How Costs of Children are Calculated. CatherineM. McFadden. 26:19-23.How to Determine a QDRO Award Under Act175. Mark K. Altschuler. 31:62-64.How to Look Like a Winner (Or at Least not LookLike a Loser). Joanne Ross Wilder. 13(1):14-15.143

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEHow to Unwind and Otherwise Address ComplexEstate Planning and Asset Protection Vehicles inDivorce. Donald J. DeGrazia. 30:117-22.Howett Appoints Discovery Task Force. PatriciaA. Miles. 18(1):8-9.I Now [Cannot] Pronounce You Man and Wife.James W. Cushing. 31:119-20.The Importance of Being Nice: Estrangement inthe Educational Support Case. Thomas M.Mulroy. 10:119-20.In Pennsylvania, Apparently Divorce Agreementsare Sufficient to Waive ERISA Pension PlanBenefits. Brittany M. Bloam. 31:110-12.In the Best Interest of the Child: A Legal Term ofArt. Wanda J. Crews. 10:68-70.Income Tax Treatment of Nonqualified StockOptions and Deferred Compensation in DivorceEstablished; FICA/FUTA Issues Considered.Philip J. Weis. 24:50-51.Interest–An Unused Remedy. Robert D. Feder.11:202-3.International Enforcement of Family Support: TheView from Pennsylvania. Ken Kilimnik andJeffrey Greenbaum. 9:55-59.Introductory Statement of Honorable R. StantonWettick, Jr. at the Pennsylvania Bar AssociationFamily Law Section Toronto Meeting, July 12,1996. R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. 18(4):14-19.Is APL Automatic? Gary Mezzy. 27:90-91.It is Time to Revisit Hovis. Alex M. Kindler, GregVoss, and Reid B. Roberts. 21:12-13.The "Jen and Dave" Act–Act No. 1996-119.Robert E. Rains. 19:40-42.Joint Custody: The Pendulum Swings. Thomas M.Mulroy. 19:11-13.A Judge’s Comment On “Trial Aids.” David N.Wecht. 31:55-56.Judicial Action Places Limits on Adoption.Lawrence Pauker. 9:53-55.Judicial Intervention Revisited in ParentalRelocation Cases After Gruber. David S. Pollock.12(5):11-13.Judicial Intervention When Custodial Parent Seeksto Relocate Minor Children Out of State. David S.Pollock. 11:164-67.Karkaria: A New and Uncertain Test forPennsylvania Antenuptial Agreements. Patricia G.Miller. 9:29-30.Keynote Address: Kate Ford Elliott at PBAFamily Law Section Pittsburgh Winter MeetingJanuary 18, 1997. Kate Ford Elliott. 19:14-17.Letter to the Editor: Re McFadden PensionArticle. Marvin Snyder. 12(4):15.Life Insurance as an Asset. Neil S. Brown. 26:52-53.Lucky at Lotto, Unlucky at Love: LotteryProceeds as a Factor in Support and EquitableDistribution Proceedings. Mark Momjian. 13(1):9-13The Marital Portion of Defined Benefit PensionPlans: How is it to be Determined? Anthony J.Vetrano. 18(2):16-19.McFadden v. McFadden: A Double Dip at thePension Well. Patricia G. Miller. 10:110-11.Medical Practice Valuation: Why and How. AnneMcSorley and Geoff Anders. 9:59-60.A Midnight Tale of Filial Support. Katherine C.Pearson. 29:146-47.Millick v. Millick: A Spur to Pension Reform, nota Reason for Applause. Catherine S. McFadden.12(5):14-15.144

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEMontgomery County Adopts Local Rule inCustody Cases. Diane M. Zabowski. 12(4):16.Net Spendable Income Calculations in the Contextof Depreciation and Business Expenses. David S.Pollock and Harry M. Byrne, Jr. 14(4):17-22.The New Divorce Reform Law of Pennsylvania.Jack Rounick. 1:34-44.New QDRO Costs to be Factored in DivorcePractice Pointer. Kathleen B. Vetrano and SariniaA. Michaelson. 27:12-13.The New Service Members Civil Relief Act. MarkE. Sullivan. 27:92-94.The 1988 Amendments: Ten Years After. GeraldJ. Schorr. 20:103-8.Not All Assets are Treated Equally. Neil S.Brown. 26:51-52.Nothing Personal. Harry J. Gruener. 19:20.Open the Door for Children: A Counterpoint toClosing the Door on Open Adoption. Ann LeeBegler. 18(3):19-21.Oral Communications Under the Wiretap Act.Michael D. Shepard. 18(2):19-21.Our Ever-Expanding World: What ParentsRelocating Internationally Need to Know. AndrewA. Zashin and Christopher R. Reynolds. 31:168-70.Overseas Deployments. David N. Wecht. 31:21-23.PA Supreme Court Domestic Relations ProceduralRules Committee Changes Leadership. 21:96.PACSES Deficiency Summary: ExecutiveSummary. 20:74-76.Palladino: "A Chinese Menu" Approach Leads toan Illogical Result. Patricia G. Miller. 20:65-67.The Palladino Conundrum Unraveled. JulieAuerbach and Mark K. Altschuler. 21:14-15.Parent Coordinators in Pennsylvania: Some InitialThoughts. David N. Wecht. 28:109-13.Parents have a Custodial Right to Inculcate TheirReligious Beliefs upon Their Children. David L.Ladov & Kenneth Spiegel. 11:167-68.Partnership Means Progress for Family CourtReform. Mary Cushing Doherty and JeannineTurgeon. 25:43-44.Past Payments. Mark K. Altschuler. 30:12-14.Paternity by Estoppel and Fraud. Kelly A. Mroz.25:81-82.PBA Fair a Roaring Success. 22:42.PBA FLS Paternity Task Force Report. 21:79-96.PBA Opinion Re: Inquiry #95-134 (Revised7/31/96). Joanne Ross Wilder and David N.Hofstein. 20:14-15.PBA Working Rules for Professionalism.15(2):15.Pennsylvania Fashions an Approach to Surrogacy.Thomas M. Mulroy. 9:15-16.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Defines DivorcePension Rights. Marvin Snyder. 15(1):17.Pension Valuation and Deferred DistributionUnder Act 175. Mary J. B. Eidelman and Mark K.Altschuler. 28:17-27.Pension Valuation Issues. Catherine McFadden.11:189-91.Pension Valuations With Inflation and Taxation.Marvin Snyder. 9:40-41.Periodic Payments–New Guidelines Issued by theInternal Revenue Service. Barry S. Frank. 3:368-371 .145

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEPermission Slip. Edwin I. Grinberg. 29:103-5.PFA Court–A Problem Solving Court. JeannineTurgeon. 23:69-74.Philadelphia Family Court–Host to EasternDRAP. 20:69.Ponzi Schemes and Clawbacks: Investors PayTwice for the Crime of Others. John J. Monaghan,Richard E. Lear, and Diane N. Rallis. 31:121-28.Portions of the 2005 Bankruptcy ReformLegislation of Interest to Family LawPractitioners. Christopher Celentino. 30:106-7.Practical Issues for the Pennsylvania Family LawAttorney Concerning the Hague Convention on theCivil Aspects of International Child Abduction,Oct. 25, 1980,T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 19 I.L.M. 1501(Hague Convention) International ChildAbduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42USC§11601 et seq. Benjamin E. Orsatti. 28:120-27.Practical Suggestions for Matrimonial Arbitration.Mary Cushing Doherty. 31:27-29.A Practical View of the Effect of the 1988Divorce Code Amendments on Pending Cases.John C. Howett, Jr. 9:26-28.Prenuptial Agreement is not Voidable Under theTheory of Fraudulent Misrepresentation as to theValue of Assets Unless the Party Attacking theAgreement Proves Justifiable Reliance on theMisrepresentation: Porreco v. Porreco. BrendenD. Long. 26:58-67.Professionalism, Common Decency and theFamily in Family Law. Ann Lee Begler. 18(1):16.Public Access to Private Information on OnlineDockets: A Balance Between Freedom of Accessto Information and Protecting the Privacy ofClients. Dana A. Levine. 27:128-29.Public Pension Funds and Approved DomesticRelations Orders. Charles K. Serine. 21:45-65.Qualified Domestic Relations Orders–When canthe Alternative Payee Get Control of Her Money.Gary Edelson. 9:9.The Rainbow After the Storm? Post-SecondaryEducational Support Legislation in the Wake ofBlue. Harry M. Byrne, Jr., David S. Pollock andBrian C. Vertz. 15(3):18-24.Reading Between the Lines: The Supreme Court'sDecision in Gordon v. Gordon. James E. Mahood.18(4):12-14.Reforming Pennsylvania's Support ModificationLaws. Mark R. Ashton. 18(4):23-24.Relocation Hearings Relocated. Joanne RossWilder. 12(6):11-12."Relocation" Now has Guidelines. Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin. 12(2):8.Relocation Orders are Immediately Appealable.James E. Mahood. 20:99-100.Relocation Orders, Like any Interim CustodyOrder, are not Subject to Immediate Appeal. RobbD. Bunde. 20:100-1.Response to Daniel H. Glasser, “AdvancesAgainst Equitable Distribution–Protecting theAdvancing Party.” John C. Howett. 20:67-69.Response to the Response. Daniel H. Glasser.20:69.Response to Wilder's Mediation Piece. Frederic D.Rubin. 11:130.Retirement Age Arguments. Catherine M.McFadden. 12(3):11-14.The Retirement Equity Act and PensionEvaluation. William M. Troyan. 6:682-90.Reviewing Estate Plans in Connection WithDivorce. Joan K. Crain and Neil S. Brown.28:113-14.146

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLEThe Roth IRA Conversion. Mark R. Galzerano.29:105-6.Rowles–A Crack in the Dam. Thomas M. Mulroy.18(1):15-16.Schneeman v. Schneeman: Cornbleth Revisited-OrHow to Make a Confusing Decision Worse.Patricia G. Miller. 14(2):17.Senate Bill 979–Expanding the “Jen & Dave” Act.Robert E. Rains. 24:40-46.Settlement Strategies: When Due Diligence can beDangerous. Mark R. Ashton. 22:43-44.Sex With Clients. Craig E. Simpson. 31:57-59.Simeone v. Simeone: A Rejection of the KarkariaTest for Prenuptial Agreements. Patricia G. Miller.10:71-72.Simple Work, Big Rewards. Ann P. Cahouet, LisaM. Colautti, and Rowena E. Dodson. 22:70-71.The Size of the Marketability Discounts inAppraising Closely Held Businesses. Joseph M.Egler and Edward A. Wilusz. 18(1):13-14.Social Security in Family Law: An Overview.Kathleen B. Vetrano. 20:101-3.Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act–AFollowup. James R. Adams. 26:124.The Soldier’s and Sailor’s Relief Act–What is It?Stephanie H. Winegrad. 26:84-85.Solomonic Resolution of Custody Case–IsraeliStyle. Daniel H. Glasser. 20:97-98.Some Reflections on Social Security Offsets:Cornbleth to McClain to Cohenour. James E.Mahood. 19:58-60.Special Considerations for Retirement PlansDuring Divorce. Joan K. Crain and Neil S. Brown.29:56-57.Speculative or Not, Indefinite Tax RamificationsMust be Considered. Catherine M. McFadden.32:196-200.Standard of Practice for Pension ValuationAdoption. Catherine M. McFadden. 22:44-46.State Department's New Rules for Children'sPassports Intended to Augment Provisions ofChild-Custody Orders. [22 C.F.R. Part 51].18(3):17-18.Stay Now, Pay Later. Catherine M. McFadden.14(1):10-11.Stinner v. Stinner: Who Decides When a CourtOrder Qualifies as a Qualified Domestic RelationsOrder? Patricia G. Miller and Dodi Walker Gross.10:82-84.Stipulation for Custody Evaluation. David N.Hofstein. 21:129-130.Study of PA SCDU Reveals Problems andPeculiarities. Catherine M. McFadden. 22:65-69.Suggestibility of the Child Witness: Relevance toSexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes.Anthony M. Pisa. 16(4):15-18.Superior Court Finds a New Method to AllocateMarital Property in a Defined Contribution Plan.Marvin Snyder. 17(1):15-16.Supreme Court Authorizes Discovery. [R.C.P.1930.5(b)]. 19:42.Supreme Court Decision Limits Sua SpontePowers of Court. Rachel Munafo. 10:95-96.Tax Considerations When Negotiating DivorceSettlements. Joan K. Crain, Neil S. Brown &Richard C. Thomas. 29:142-44.Tax Notes. 1:11, 19-20, 2:134-36.Tax Planning and the Family Residence: §§1034,121, 453, and 1031. 1:73-76.147

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY TITLETerminating the Parental Rights of theIncarcerated Parent: Clarity and Guidance fromtheSuperior Court. Dennis W. McCurdy. 27:13-15.There is No Such Thing as an Accrued Benefit (OrWhy Coverture Fractions Make Sense). CatherineM. McFadden. 12(3):14-16.The Third Circuit Decides the Role of CustodyEvaluators. Mark R. Ashton, David Draganoksy,and Susan J. Smith. 24:16-18.To Rhyme or not to Rhyme: An Appraisal. RobertE. Rains. 26:53-57.Two Recent Superior Court Cases on Pensions inDivorce. Marvin Snyder. 11:188.U.S. Supreme Court Identifies Pension Issues:Kennedy & Progeny Post-Decision Guidance.Catherine M. McFadden. 31:107-10.An Uncommon Law Marriage Case. Harry J.Gruener. 20:94-95.Understanding College Funding: What theDivorce Practitioner Needs to Know. Mark R.Ashton. 27:122-23.Unified Family Court for Pennsylvania. Lise A.Waldman. 19:18-19.Update on Pa. Supreme Court Support Guidelines.20:98.Uptown Legal Clinic. F. J. Lucchino. 27:16-17.The Valuation of S Corporation Stock: The EquityAdjustment Multiple. Daniel R. Van Vleet. 25:25-33.Valuation of Survivor Benefit for Purposes ofEquitable Distribution–Guidance for Practitionersin the Post-Palladino Era. Lawrence J. Sipos.21:15-16.Valuing and Distributing Increases and Decreases.Catherine M. McFadden. 15(2):13-15.Valuing Employee Stock Options. Joseph M.Egler and Andrew M. Wilusz. 19:81-82.Valuing Marital Assets After Sutliff. David L.Ladov and Kenneth Spiegel. 11:148.Views on Fisher v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1165 (Pa.2001)–Stock Options. Les Barenbaum and BrianG. Lunney. 23:74-76.What is Reasonable Compensation? Kevin R.Yeanoplos and Ronald L. Seigneur. 30:92-100,174-82.What is the Definition of Cash Flow Available forSupport and What is Support? Robert S.Markovitz and Timothy A. Taylor. 23:67-68.What is Wrong With the Proposed SupportGuidelines. Thomas M. Mulroy. 10:70-71.(What) Pension is Marital Property. MarvinSnyder. 12(5):8.What to do When the IRS Agents Come Calling.Howard B. Klein. 20:48-49.When Bad Families Happen to Good Children.Thomas M. Mulroy. 19:64-65.The Wisdom of Solomon Finally Settles theConfusion of Sutliff. David S. Pollock. 13(4):16-20.Wisdom of the Sages. Jan C. Gabrielson. 21:137-38.Woman Convicted of Violating Own ProtectionOrder. Ellen S. Fischer. 25:109-10.Women in the Profession Commission.Commission Addresses One Family/One JudgeSystem–May 15, 1997. 19:17-18.Yes, Virginia, There is Such a Thing as anAccrued Benefit. Patricia G. Miller. 12(4):14-15.148

5C. ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTADOPTIONBegler, Ann Lee. Open the Door for Children: ACounterpoint to Closing the Door on OpenAdoption. 18(3):19-21.Cahouet, Ann P., Lisa M. Colautti, and Rowena E.Dodson. Simple Work, Big Rewards. 22:70-71.Gruener, Harry J. Close the Door on OpenAdoptions. 18(3):18-19.McCurdy, Dennis W. Terminating the ParentalRights of the Incarcerated Parent: Clarity andGuidance fromthe Superior Court. 27:13-15.Pauker, Lawrence. Judicial Action Places Limitson Adoption. 9:53-55.ADULTERYNelson, Sharon D. and John W. Simek. Adulteryin the Electronic Era: Spyware, Avatars andCybersex. 30:19-26.ALIMONYBennett, Elizabeth L. Divorce, Older Women andAlimony. 16(5):15-17.Frank, Barry H. Alimony Revised Under TaxReform Act of 1986. 8:933-34.McFadden, Catherine M. Age and Alimony.17(2):13-15.Vetrano, Kathleen B. Elder Law and Divorce.16(5):13-15.ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONCasciato, Daniel. Collaborative Law. 29:141-42.Doherty, Mary Cushing. Practical Suggestions forMatrimonial Arbitration. 31:27-29.Hitzemann, Diane D. Collaborative Practice–AChoice for Families. 29:24-25.Rubin, Frederic D. Response to Wilder'sMediation Piece. 11:130.Wilder, Joanne Ross. Alternative DisputeResolution in Divorce Cases: The New Wave oran Ill Wind? 10:120.AMENDMENTS TO DIVORCE CODEHostetter, David L. and Wm. H. Nast.Applicability of 1988 Divorce Code Amendmentsto Pending Cases and Causes of Action AccruingPrior to Their Effective Date. 9:23-26.Howett, John C., Jr. A Practical View of the Effectof the 1988 Divorce Code Amendments onPending Cases. 9:26-28.Schorr, Gerald J. The 1988 Amendments: TenYears After. 20:103-8.ANTENUPTIAL/PRENUPTIAL/POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENTSBusch v. Busch. [732 A.2d 1274]. Pa. Super.(1999). 21:131-37.Long, Brenden D. Prenuptial Agreement is notVoidable Under the Theory of FraudulentMisrepresentation as to the Value of Assets Unlessthe Party Attacking the Agreement ProvesJustifiable Reliance on the Misrepresentation:Porreco v. Porreco. 26:58-67.Miller, Patricia G. Karkaria: A New and UncertainTest for Pennsylvania Antenuptial Agreements.9:29-30.Miller, Patricia G. Simeone v. Simeone: ARejection of the Karkaria Test for PrenuptialAgreements. 10:71-72.Walzer, Peter M. Advice to a Client BeforeSigning a Premarital Agreement. 27:85-90.APPELLATE PRACTICEMunafo, Rachel. Supreme Court Decision Limits149

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTSua Sponte Powers of Court. 10:95-96.BANKRUPTCYCelentino, Christopher. Portions of the 2005Bankruptcy Reform Legislation of Interest toFamily Law Practitioners. 30:106-107.Monaghan, John J., Richard E. Lear, and Diane N.Rallis. Ponzi Schemes and Clawbacks: InvestorsPay Twice for the Crime of Others. 31:121-28.BIBLIOGRAPHYFishman, Joel. Divorce, Support and CustodyLaws & Related Subjects in Pennsylvania (1980-2005): A Bibliography. 28:50-91.CHILD ABUSEBennett, Elizabeth L. Evidence: NewDevelopments in Child Abuse Proceedings. 10:72-73.Bennett, Elizabeth L. The Discovery Rule andChild Abuse. 12(1):12.Rains, Robert E. The "Jen and Dave" Act–Act No.1996-119. 19:40-42.COMMON LAW MARRIAGEGruener, Harry J. An Uncommon Law MarriageCase. 20:94-95.Viola, Michael L. End of Common-Law Unions?The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court GoesWhere Others have only Imagined. 25:104-6.COMPUTER PROGRAMS/TECHNOLOGYBernbaum, Joel B. Bits and Bytes. 19:82.Davis, Russ and Donald Wochna. Computer asWitness–Should You Use It in Your Case? 30:26-29.Nelson, Sharon D. and John W. Simek. Adulteryin the Electronic Era: Spyware, Avatars andCybersex. 30:19-26.CONFLICT OF LAWSViola, Michael L. At Your Service. 31:29-31.COUNSEL FEESFeder, Robert D. Attorney's Fees and RestitutionAwards in Child Kidnapping Cases. 12(2):6-7.Hofstein, David N. and Kevin C. McCullough.Contingent Fees in Domestic Relations Matters.9:37-39.COURTSDoherty, Mary Cushing and Jeannine Turgeon.Partnership Means Progress for Family CourtReform. 25:43-44.Elliott, Kate Ford. Keynote Address: Kate FordElliott at PBA Family Law Section PittsburghWinter Meeting January 18, 1997. 19:14-17.Montella, Susan M. The “Computer Service Fee”Charged by Philadelphia Domestic RelationsDetersEstablished of Child Support. 25:13-14.Pollock, David S. Comments Re: KeynoteAddress. [Kate Elliott Ford]. 19:17.Rains, Robert E. To Rhyme or not to Rhyme: AnAppraisal. 26:53-57.Waldman, Lisa A. Unified Family Court forPennsylvania. 19:18-19.Women in the Profession Commission.Commission Addresses One Family/One JudgeSystem–May 15, 1997. 19:17-18.CRIMINAL LAWOrsatti, Benjamin E. Practical Issues for thePennsylvania Family Law Attorney Concerningthe Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects ofInternational Child Abduction, Oct. 25,1980,T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (HagueConvention) International Child AbductionRemedies Act (ICARA), 42USC §11601 et seq.150

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECT28:120-27.Shepard, Michael D. Oral Communications Underthe Wiretap Act. 18(2):19-21.CUSTODYAshton, Mark R., David Draganosky, and Susan J.Smith. The Third Circuit Decides the Role ofCustody Evaluators. 24:16-18.Baer, Max. Custody Wars–The Creation of a NewWeapon of Mass Destruction. 21:121-25.Bertin, Emanuel A. Editor's Rebuttal to Dr. Crews'"In the Best Interest of the Child: A Legal Term ofArt." 10:70-71.Crews, Wanda J. In the Best Interest of the Child:A Legal Term of Art. 10:68-70.DeCecco, Lisa L. Defining Abuse of Discretion:The Standard of Review in Custody Cases.16(4):14-15.Durst, Robert J. Custody Relocation: New JerseyStyle. 21:126-29.Fischer, Ellen S. A Helpful Solution forSupervised Visitation and Difficult CustodyExchanges. 29:27.Glasser, Daniel H. Solomonic Resolution ofCustody Case–Israeli Style. 20:97-98.Hofstein, David N. Custody Litigation–The Roleof the Child. 20:10-14.Hofstein, David N. Stipulation for CustodyEvaluation. 21:129-30.King, Mark. Comment: ‘Qualified Professional.’.29:23-24.Ladov, David L. & Kenneth Spiegel. Parents havea Custodial Right to Inculcate Their ReligiousBeliefs upon Their Children. 11:167-68.Mulroy, Thomas M. Commonwealth v. ThePsychologists. 13(6):13-14.Mulroy, Thomas M. Elian Go Home. 22:11-12.Mulroy, Thomas M. Joint Custody: The PendulumSwings. 19:11-13.Mulroy, Thomas M. Rowles–A Crack in the Dam.18(1):15-16.Mulroy, Thomas M. When Bad Families Happento Good Children. 19:64-65.Rains, Robert E. Senate Bill 979—Expanding the“Jen & Dave” Act. 24:40-42.Richardson, James H., Jr. The Erie CountyCustody Mediation Process. 19:39-40.State Department's New Rules for Children'sPassports Intended to Augment Provisions ofChild-Custody Orders. [22 C.F.R. Part 51].18(3):17-18.Vogelson, Andrew R. Disturbed Parent-ChildAlignment and Custody Litigation. 11:150.Wecht, David N. Child Interviews in CustodyCases Involving Pro Se Parents. 31:106.Wecht, David N. Crimes, Counseling andCustody. 29:22-23.Wecht, David N. Overseas Deployments. 31:21-23.Wecht, David N. Parent Coordinators inPennsylvania: Some Initial Thoughts. 28:109-13.Zabowski, Diane M. Montgomery County AdoptsLocal Rule in Custody Cases. 12(4):16.CUSTODY–RELOCATIONBunde, Robb D. Relocation Orders, Like anyInterim Custody Order, are not Subject toImmediate Appeal. 20:100-1.Gold-Bikin, Lynne Z. "Relocation" Now hasGuidelines. 12(2):8.Mahood, James E. Relocation Orders are151

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTImmediately Appealable. 20:99-100.Midkiff, David W. Considering Divorce: ShouldYou Leave the Marital Residence? 13(6):12-13.Pisa, Anthony M. Suggestibility of the ChildWitness: Relevance to Sexual Abuse Allegationsin Custody Disputes. 16(4):15-18.Pollock, David S. Judicial Intervention Revisitedin Parental Relocation Cases After Gruber.12(5):11-13.Pollock, David S. Judicial Intervention WhenCustodial Parent Seeks to Relocate MinorChildren Out of State. 11:164-67.Wilder, Joanne Ross. Relocation HearingsRelocated. 12(6):11-12.Zashin, Andrew A. and Christopher R. Reynolds.Our Ever-Expanding World: What ParentsRelocating Internationally Need to Know. 31:168-70.DIVORCEAdams, James R. Soldiers’ and Sailors’ CivilRelief Act–A Followup. 26:124.Altschuler, Mark K. Age Patterns in Divorce.28:114-18.Casale, Helen E., Leslie A. Kramer, and Naomi B.Mendelsohn. Filing Action in Pennsylvania toDissolve a Same-Sex Relationship Created Underthe Law of Another State. 31:112-18.Feder, Robert D. Divorce Actions–A FamilyAffair? 13(2):11-12; 13(3):9-10.Mahood, James E. Do Common Pleas Courts haveConstitutional Authority to Prescribe by GeneralOrder or Local Rule Seminars or Counseling forParents Involved in Divorce? 20:70-73.Mezzy, Gary. Is APL Automatic? 27:90-91.[Momjian, Albert]. Help! I Need a Gal! 27:126-27.Rains, Robert E. House Judiciary CommitteeConsiders Amendment/Repeal of No FaultDivorce Law. 18(4):19-23.Rounick, Jack. The New Divorce Reform Law ofPennsylvania. 1:34-44.Sullivan, Mark E. The New Service MembersCivil Relief Act. 27:92-94.Vertz, Brian C. The Homemaker Contribution.31:167.Winegrad, Stephanie H. The Soldier’s and Sailor’sRelief Act–What is It? 26:84-85.Zack, Carolyn Moran. Do You Know Who hasAccess to Your Client’s Divorce Records?Protecting Your Client’s Personal Information inthe Information Age. 30:14-18.DIVORCE–BUSINESSKennedy, G. William. Dissecting BusinessValuation Report. 30:100-6.Vertz, Brian C. Business Valuation Basics:Discount and Capitalization Rates. 29:144-45.Vertz. Brian C. Eight Landmines to Avoid inDivorce Litigation. 28:119-120.DIVORCE–INTERNATIONALLadov, David L. Divorce–Israeli Style. 29:102-3.DIVORCE–MARITAL PROPERTYAshton, Mark R. A Form to Beat a Headache:Solving the Joint Escrow Problem. 25:41-42.Brown, Neil S. Life Insurance as an Asset. 26:52-53.Brown, Neil S. not All Assets are Treated Equally.26:51-52.Mulzet, C. Kurt. Drake v. Drake: Workers’Compensation Commutation Award AccruedDuring Marriage can be Marital Property Subject152

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTto Equitable Distribution. 21:42-45.DIVORCE–PENSIONS ANDRETIREMENT PLANSAltschuler, Mark K. How to Determine a QDROAward Under Act 175. 31:62-64.Altschuler, Mark K. Past Payments. 30:12-14.Bloam, Brittany M. In Pennsylvania, ApparentlyDivorce Agreements are Sufficient to WaiveERISA Pension Plan Benefits. 31:110-12.Crain, Joan K. and Neil S. Brown. SpecialConsiderations for Retirement Plans DuringDivorce. 29:56-57.Eidelman, Mary J. B. and Mark K. Altschuler.Pension Valuation and Deferred DistributionUnder Act 175. 28:17-27.Vetrano, Kathleen B. and Sarinia A. Michaelson.New QDRO Costs to be Factored in DivorcePractice Pointer. 27:12-13.DIVORCE–TAXATIONBeaver, Becky, Rachel M. Baccari, LeeVanderburg, Haran Levy. Clash of Tax andDivorce Planning. 30:108-16.Crain, Joan K. and Richard C. Thomas. Divorceand the Key Nest Eggs: The Family Home andInvestment Portfolio. 30:163-65.Crain, Joan K. and Neil S. Brown. ReviewingEstate Plans in Connection With Divorce. 28:113-14.Crain, Joan K., Neil S. Brown & Richard C.Thomas. Tax Considerations When NegotiatingDivorce Settlements. 29:142-44.Frumkes, Melvyn B. A Divorce’s RetroactiveModification will not Change Taxability ofPayments. 29:26.Galzerano, Mark R. The Roth IRA Conversion.29:105-6.DISCOVERYGruener, Harry J. Discovery can be Taxing.18(2):22.Miles, Patricia A. Howett Appoints DiscoveryTask Force. 18(1):8-9.Supreme Court Authorizes Discovery. [R.C.P.1930.5(b)]. 19:42.Wettick, R. Stanton, Jr. Introductory Statement ofHonorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. at thePennsylvania Bar Association Family Law SectionToronto Meeting, July 12, 1996. 18(4):14-19.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONFeder, Robert D. Interest–An Unused Remedy.11:202-3.Glasser, Daniel H. Advances Against EquitableDistribution: Protecting the Advancing Party.20:46-48.Glasser, Daniel H. Response to the Response.20:69.Howett, John C. Response to Daniel H. Glasser,“Advances Against EquitableDistribution–Protecting the Advancing Party.”20:67-69.Ladov, David L. and Michele Garrigan-Nass.Another Piece of the Marital Pie: Stock Options.9:52-53.McFadden, Catherine M., Judith A. Bretz, SusanJ. Beckert and Debra K. Lillie. EquitableDistribution: Mixed Assets. 19:13-14.Momjian, Mark. Lucky at Lotto, Unlucky at Love:Lottery Proceeds as a Factor in Support andEquitable Distribution Proceedings. 13(1):9-13.Mahood, James E. Early Retirement Incentives arenot Deferred Compensation. 20:18-20.153

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–BUSINESSGaffen, Gregg S. Evaluating the Expertise andCredentials of Business Valuation Practitioners.25:34-40.Garland, Pamela J. and Ashley L. Reilly. Discountfor Lack of Voting Rights/Premium for VotingRights Study. 26:67-83.Roosma, Jacob P. C Corporations withAppreciated Assets: Valuation Discount for Built-In Capital Gains. 25:15-20.Van Vleet, Daniel R. The Valuation of SCorporation Stock. 25:25-33.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–GOODWILLAltschuler, Kenneth P., Hesper Schleiderer-Hardy,Jay Sanders. Determining and Evaluating Personaland Enterprise Goodwill in the Divorce Case.30:166-73.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–PENSIONS & RETIREMENT ASSETSAltschuler, Mark and Toby Dickman. EarlyRetirement Window Enhancements and Divorce.20:44-45.Altschuler, Mark K and Jeffrey M. Williams. TheDemarco Case and Delayed Retirement. 24:51-52.Altschuler, Mark K. Formula Enhancements to aDefined Benefit Pension: Berrington, Brown,Gordon, and Meyer. 23:39-41.Ashton, Mark R. Settlement Strategies: When DueDiligence can be Dangerous. 22:43-44.Auerbach, Julie and Mark K. Altschuler. ThePalladino Conundrum Unraveled. 21:14-15.Blechman, Jay A. Brown v. Brown: More onDeferred Distribution of Pension Benefits inEquitable Distribution. 18(2):15-16.Edelson, Gary. Qualified Domestic RelationsOrders–When can the Alternative Payee GetControl of Her Money. 9:9.Mahood, James E. Reading Between the Lines:The Supreme Court's Decision in Gordon v.Gordon. 18(4):12-14.McFadden, Catherine M. Don't Let Your ClientShoot Himself in the Foot. 12(5):9-11.McFadden, Catherine. Pension Valuation Issues.11:189-91.McFadden, Catherine M. Retirement AgeArguments. 12(3):11-14.McFadden, Catherine S. Millick v. Millick: A Spurto Pension Reform, not a Reason for Applause.12(5):14-15.McFadden, Catherine M. Standard of Practice forPension Valuation Adoption. 22:44-46.McFadden, Catherine M. Stay Now, Pay Later.14(1):10-11.McFadden, Catherine M. There is No Such Thingas an Accrued Benefit (Or Why CovertureFractions Make Sense). 12(3):14-16.McFadden, Catherine M. U.S. Supreme CourtIdentifies Pension Issues: Kennedy & ProgenyPost-Decision Guidance. 31:107-10.Miller, Patricia G. A Conversation With My CatAbout Pension/Double-Dip Issues. 30:90-91.Miller, Patricia G. Gordon v. Gordon: AnythingNew on Coverture Fractions? 16(4):19-20.Miller, Patricia G. Holland v. Holland: AnAssortment of Post-Separation Eggs in the MaritalProperty Basket. 12(4):13-14.Miller, Patricia G. McFadden v. McFadden: ADouble Dip at the Pension Well. 10:110-11.Miller, Patricia G. Palladino: "A Chinese Menu"Approach Leads to an Illogical Result. 20:65-67.Miller, Patricia G. Schneeman v. Schneeman:154

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTCornbleth Revisited–Or How to Make aConfusing Decision Worse. 14(2):17.Miller, Patricia G. and Dodi Walker Gross.Stinner v. Stinner: Who Decides When a CourtOrder Qualifies as a Qualified Domestic RelationsOrder? 10:82-84.Miller, Patricia G. Yes, Virginia, There is Such aThing as an Accrued Benefit. 12(4):14-15.Serine, Charles K. Public Pension Funds andApproved Domestic Relations Orders. 21:45-65.Shah, Barbara J. Hayward v. OPM–QualifyingOrders on Civil Service Retirement SystemPensions. 31:170-72.Sipos, Lawrence J. Valuation of Survivor Benefitfor Purposes of Equitable Distribution–Guidancefor Practitioners in the Post-Palladino Era. 21:15-16.Snyder, Bradley Z. Drafting a DRO for SERS andPSERs. 14(3):14-15.Snyder, Marvin. Comments on Pension ValuationProcedures in Divorce in Accord WithPennsylvania Superior Court Opinion in Agatone.10:84.Snyder, Marvin. Letter to the Editor: ReMcFadden Pension Article. 12(4):15.Snyder, Marvin. Pennsylvania Supreme CourtDefines Divorce Pension Rights. 15(1):17.Snyder, Marvin. Pension Valuations WithInflation and Taxation. 9:40-41.Snyder, Marvin. Superior Court Finds a NewMethod to Allocate Marital Property in a DefinedContribution Plan. 17(1):15-16.Snyder, Marvin. Two Recent Superior CourtCases on Pensions in Divorce. 11:188.Snyder, Marvin. (What) Pension is MaritalProperty. 12(5):8.Troyan, William M. Curriculum Vitae. 6:680-682.Troyan, William M. Drafting and Qualifying aCourt Order in a Domestic Relations Case. 7:896-900.Troyan, William M. Evaluation of QualifiedBenefit Plans as a Result of the Berringer andKatzenberger Decisions. 13(5):8-14.Troyan, William M. The Retirement Equity Actand Pension Evaluation. 6:682-690.Vetrano, Anthony J. The Marital Portion ofDefined Benefit Pension Plans: How is it to beDetermined? 18(2):16-19.EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION–STOCK OPTIONSBarenbaum, Les and Lunney, Brian G. Views onFisher v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 2001)–StockOptions. 23:74-76.EQUITABLEDISTRIBUTION–VALUATIONBarenbaum, Les and Bonnie O'Rourke. Analyzingand Quantifying Sweat Equity. 18(1):12-13.Barenbaum, Lester. Executive Stock OptionsValuation Issues. 20:16-17.Egler, Joseph M. and Edward A. Wilusz. The Sizeof the Marketability Discounts in AppraisingClosely Held Businesses. 18(1):13-14.Egler, Joseph M. and Andrew M. Wilusz. ValuingEmployee Stock Options. 19:81-82.Ladov, David L. and Kenneth Spiegel. ValuingMarital Assets After Sutliff. 11:148.McFadden, Catherine M. Valuing and DistributingIncreases and Decreases. 15(2):13-15.McSorley, Anne and Geoff Anders. MedicalPractice Valuation: Why and How. 9:59-60.155

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTPollock, David S. and Harry M. Byrne, Jr. NetSpendable Income Calculations in the Context ofDepreciation and Business Expenses. 14(4):17-22.Pollock, David S. The Wisdom of SolomonFinally Settles the Confusion of Sutliff. 13(4):16-20.Pratt, Shannon P. The "Excess Earnings" Method:How to Get a Defensible Result. 19:35-38.ESTATE PLANNINGCrain, Joan K. and Richard C. Thomas. Divorceand the Key Nest Eggs: The Family Home andInvestment Portfolio. 30:163-65.DeGrazia, Donald J. How to Unwind andOtherwise Address Complex Estate Planning andAsset Protection Vehicles in Divorce. 30:117-22.Ferber, Peggy Lynn and Deborah D. Dodds. EstatePlanning and the Family Lawyer. 13(2):9-11.Grinberg, Edwin I. Permission Slip. 29:103-5.ETHICSBaer, Max. Family Law and Civility–Can TheyCo-Exist? 24:13-16.Grunfeld, David L. Caution: Sex With Clients.27:123-24.EVIDENCEMulroy, Thomas M. Commonwealth v. ThePsychologists. 13(6):13-14.Pisa, Anthony M. Suggestibility of the ChildWitness: Relevance to Sexual Abuse Allegationsin Custody Disputes. 16(4):15-18.Wecht, David N. A Judge’s Comment On “TrialAids.” 31:55-56.FOREIGN JUDGMENTSLABOR LAWDavis, Cami L. Economic Stimulus PackagePlaces New Obligations on Employers Covered byCOBRA. 31:118-19.Yeanoplos, Kevin R. and Ronald L. Seigneur.What is Reasonable Compensation? 30:92-100,174-82.LEGAL CLINICSLuccino, F. J. Uptown Legal Clinic. 27:16-17MARRIAGECushing, James W. I Now [Cannot] PronounceYou Man and Wife. 31:119-20.MAXIMSGabrielson, Jan C. Wisdom of the Sages.21:137-138.MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCELandy, Joni. Compliance Dates Approaching onThree More Laws Affecting Group Health Plans.31:59-62.PASSPORTSAuerbach, Julie A. New Federal RegulationsToughen the Requirements for the Issuance ofPassports to Minors. 24:42-46.PATERNITYMajumder, Mary Anderlik. Genetic Ties and theFuture of the Family. 25:78-80.Mroz, Kelly A. Paternity by Estoppel and Fraud.25:81-82.PBA FLS Paternity Task Force Report. 21:79-96.Samuels, Kalman. Execution of U.S. SupportJudgments in the Province of Quebec. 26:126-27.156

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTPRACTICE OF LAWBegler, Ann Lee. Professionalism, CommonDecency and the Family in Family Law. 18(1):16.Dischell, Mark B. The Four-Way Conference:And Why Not? 26:50-51.Ethics Opinion 95-134 Temporarily Withdrawn.18(2):22.Gruener, Harry J. Nothing Personal. 19:20.Levine, Dana A. Public Access to PrivateInformation on Online Dockets: A BalanceBetween Freedom of Access to Information andProtecting the Privacy of Clients. 27:128-29.McGee, Dennis and Mike Levandowski. GuidelineTriple X. 22:42-43.PBA Fair a Roaring Success. 22:42.PBA Working Rules for Professionalism.15(2):15.Sheinvold, Arnold T. Dealing With DifficultClients: Personality Disordered Individuals.27:124-26.Silberblatt, Jay N. Don't Get Caught Napping onAppeal. 19:65-66.Simpson, Craig E. Sex With Clients. 31:57-59.Twerski, Abraham J. Denial: The Arch-Enemy ofRecovery. 23:66.Walzer, Peter M. Family Law and the EconomicDownturn. 31:56-57.Wecht, David N. The Discipline of Rules.29:138-40.Wilder, Joanne Ross. Avoiding High DemandLow Return Clients. 21:17-19.Wilder, Joanne Ross. How to Look Like aWinner (Or at Least not Look Like a Loser).13(1):14-15.Wilder, Joanne Ross and David N. Hofstein.PBA Opinion Re: Inquiry #95-134 (Revised7/31/96). 20:14-15.PROTECTION FROM ABUSEFischer, Ellen S. Woman Convicted of ViolatingOwn Protection Order. 25:109-10.Turgeon, Jeannine. PFA Court–A ProblemSolving Court. 23:69-74.SEPARATE PROPERTYMcFadden, Catherine M. ALI Principles Suggesta New Approach to Separate Property. 18(3):12-16.SOCIAL SECURITYMahood, James E. Some Reflections on SocialSecurity Offsets: Cornbleth to McClain toCohenour. 19:58-60.Rains, Robert E. The Family Lawyer’s Guide toSocial Security Disability Insurance Benefits andSupplemental Security Income (SSI). 31:23-26.Vetrano, Kathleen B. Social Security in FamilyLaw: An Overview. 20:101-3.SUPPORTAshton, Mark R. Reforming Pennsylvania'sSupport Modification Laws. 18(4):23-24.Bureau of Professional and Occupational AffairsPrepared to Suspend Licenses of SupportScofflaws. 18(1):10-11.Byrne, Harry M., Jr. Delaware County OpposesPACSES Implement. 20:73-74.Kilimnik, Ken and Jeffrey Greenbaum.International Enforcement of Family Support: TheView from Pennsylvania. 9:55-59.Markovitz, Robert S. and Timothy A. Taylor.What is the Definition of Cash Flow Available forSupport and What is Support? 23:67-68.157

ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECTMcFadden, Catherine M. Colonna Considered.26:49-50.McFadden, Catherine M. Study of PA SCDUReveals Problems and Peculiarities. 22:65-69.Mulroy, Thomas M. Federal Child SupportInitiatives: Unanswered Questions. 16(5):18-20.PACSES Deficiency Summary: ExecutiveSummary. 20:74-76.Pearson, Katherine C. A Midnight Tale of FilialSupport. 29:146-47.Vertz, Brian C. Are Capital Gains Considered“Income” in Child Support Actions? 29:58-59.Vertz, Brian C. Cash Flow for Support Purposes.22:39-41.Vertz, Brian C. Cash Flow for Support Purposes,Statutory Definition–23 Pa.C.S. §4302 RulesDefinition–PA.R.C.P. 1910-16-5(B). 19:61-63.SUPPORT–EDUCATIONAshton, Mark R. Understanding College Funding:What the Divorce Practitioner Needs to Know.27:122-23.Byrne, Harry M., Jr., David S. Pollock and BrianC. Vertz. The Rainbow After the Storm? Post-Secondary Educational Support Legislation in theWake of Blue. 15(3):18-24.Mulroy, Thomas M. The Importance of BeingNice: Estrangement in the Educational SupportCase. 10:119-20.SUPPORT–GUIDELINESMcFadden, Catherine M. Dramatic ChangesProposed in Child Support Guidelines. 26:11-19.McFadden, Catherine M. How Costs of Childrenare Calculated. 26:19-23.Mulroy, Thomas M. What is Wrong With theProposed Support Guidelines. 10:70-71.Update on Pa Supreme Court SupportGuidelines. 20:98.SUPPORT–PATERNITYZabowski, Diane M. Coburn: An Analysis ofRecent Paternity Cases. 10:118.SURROGACYMulroy, Thomas M. Pennsylvania Fashions anApproach to Surrogacy. 9:15-16.TAXATIONBuettner, Jeffrey S. and Robert F. Reilly.Estate/Gift Tax Valuation–Professional Guidancefrom IRS Publications. 25:21-24.Damiano, Karen J. Eisenberg v. Commissioner:Court Allows Adjustment for Potential Built-inCapital Gains Tax. 21:10-11.Frank, Barry S. Periodic Payments–NewGuidelines Issued by the Internal Revenue Service3:368-371 .Frumkes, Melvyn B. Income Tax Treatment ofUnallocated Alimony and Child Support(Support). 25:107-9.Jones, G. Daniel and Joseph McCaffrey. CapitalGain & “Principal Residence” Capital GainChange–Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. 20:20-22.Jones, G. Daniel. Federal Income Taxes. 24:46-50.Kindler, Alex M., Greg Voss, and Reid B.Roberts. It is Time to Revisit Hovis. 21:12-13.Klein, Howard B. What to do When the IRSAgents Come Calling. 20:48-49.Meck, John F. Estate Planning and the Tax Act of2001—What to do in 2002. 24:18-20.Tax Notes. 1:11, 19-20, 2:134-36.158

Tax Planning and the Family Residence: §§1034,121, 453, and 1031. 1:73-76.Weis, Philip J. Income Tax Treatment ofNonqualified Stock Options and DeferredCompensation in Divorce Established;FICA/FUTA Issues Considered. 24:50-51.Yeanoplos, Kevin R. and Ronald L. Seigneur.What is Reasonable Compensation? 30:92-100,174-82.WOMENMolinaro, Nicole. Health Resources for UninsuredWomen. 27:15-16.ARTICLES AND COMMENTS BY SUBJECT159

6. FEDERAL/MILITARY CORNER.Sullivan, Mark E. The Jarvis Case and the Mystery of the Missing Survivor Annuity. 32:223-25.7. BOOK REVIEWS.7A. AUTHOR LISTINGAckerman, Marc J. and Andrew W. Kane. How to Examine Psychological Experts in Divorce and OtherCivil Actions. (1991). 13(6):15.Alexander, Susan. We Love Each Other, But.... Reviewed by Dr. Ellen Wachtel. 22:73.Barenbaum, Lester, Walter Schubert and Robert Feder. The Family Lawyer’s Guide to Stock Options(2007). Reviewed by Julia A. Auerbach. 29:59-60.Brown, Ronald L., Ed. Valuing Professional Practices and Licenses (2d ed. 1993). 15(1):18.rdFeder, Robert D. Valuation Strategies in Divorce (3 ed. 1993). 14(3):16.thFeder, Robert D. Valuation Strategies in Divorce (4 ed. 1997). 19:66; 30:30-31.Feder, Robert. Valuing Specific Assets in Divorce. Reviewed by David I. Grunfeld. 23:43.Friday, Paul. Friday’s Laws. Reviewed by Dr. Frank Angelini. 23:42.Friday, Paul. Friday’s Laws: How to Become Normal When You’re not and How to Stay Normal WhenYou Are (1999). Reviewed by David S. Pollock. 28:128.Gold-Bikin, Lynne Z. and Stephen W. Kolodny. The Divorce Trial Manual (ABA 2003). Reviewed byDavid I. Grunfeld. 26:125.Hofstein, David N. and Judith Widman. West's Pennsylvania Forms–Domestic Relations (1993). 14(5):16.Hurowitz, Neil M. New Jersey Family Law. Reviewed by Alan M. Grosman. 22:74-75.MacBeth, Lynn. The Art of Family Mediation: Theory and Practice. 32:112-13.Momjian, Albert and Mark Momjian. Pennsylvania Family Law Annotated. (West 2003). Reviewed byDavid I. Grunfeld. 25:83.Rains, Bob. True Times for Trying Times, Legal Fables for Today (2006). Reviewed by David S. Pollock.29:148.Snyder, Marvin. Value of Pensions in Divorce (3d ed. 1999). 30:30.Wilder, Joanne, James Mahood and Mark Greenblatt. Pennsylvania Family Law Practice and ProcedureHandbook (2d ed. 1988). Reviewed by Emanuel A. Bertin. 10:100.160

7B. TITLE LISTINGThe Art of Family Mediation: Theory and Practice. Lynn MacBeth. 32:112-13.The Divorce Trial Manual (ABA 2003). Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin and Stephen W. Kolodny. 26:125.The Family Lawyer’s Guide to Stock Options. By Lester Barenbaum, Walter Schubert, and Robert Feder.29:59-60.Friday’s Laws. Paul Friday. 23:42.How to Become Normal When You’re not and How to Stay Normal When You Are. Paul Friday. 28:128.How to Examine Psychological Experts In Divorce And Other Civil Actions. Marc J. Ackerman andAndrew W. Kane. 13(6):15.New Jersey Family Law. Neil M. Hurowitz. 22:74-75.Pennsylvania Family Law Annotated. (West 2003). Albert Momjian and Mark Momjian. 25:83.Pennsylvania Family Law Practice and Procedure Handbook. Joanne Wilder, James Mahood and MarkGreenblatt. (2d ed. 1988). 10:100.True Times for Trying Times, Legal Fables for Today. Bob Rains. 29:148.Valuation Strategies In Divorce. Robert D. Feder. 14(3):16.thValuation Strategies In Divorce (4 ed. 1997). Robert D. Feder. 19:66; 30:30.Value of Pensions in Divorce (3d ed. 1999). Marvin Snyder. 30:30.Valuing Professional Practices and Licenses. Ed. by Ronald L. Brown. 15(1):18.Valuing Specific Assets in Divorce. Robert Feder. 23:43.We Love Each Other, But..... Susan Alexander. 22:73.West's Pennsylvania Forms–Domestic Relations. David N. Hofstein and Judith Widman. 14(5):16.7C. REVIEWER INDEX.Angelini, Frank. Friday, Paul. Friday’s Laws. By Paul Friday. 23:42.Auerbach, Julia A. The Family Lawyer’s Guide to Stock Options (2007). 29:59-60.Bertin, Emanuel A. Pennsylvania Family Law Practice and Procedure Handbook. By Joanne Wilder,James Mahood and Mark Greenblatt. (2d ed. 1988). 10:100.Grosman, Alan M. New Jersey Family Law. By Neil M. Hurowitz. 22:74-75.Grunfeld, David I. The Divorce Trial Manual (ABA 2003). 26:125.161

Grunfeld, David I. Pennsylvania Family Law Annotated. (West 2003). 25:83.Grunfeld, David I. Valuation Strategies In Divorce. By Robert D. Feder. 14(3):16.Grunfeld, David I. Valuation Strategies In Divorce. By Robert D. Feder. 19:66.Grunfeld, David I. Valuing Professional Practices and Licenses. Ed. Ronald L. Brown. 15(1):18.Grunfeld, David I. Valuing Specific Assets in Divorce. By Robert Feder. 23:43.Grunfeld, David I. West's Pennsylvania Forms–Domestic Relations. By David N. Hofstein and JudithWidman. 14(5):16.Pollock, David S. Friday’s Laws: How to Become Normal When You’re not and How to StayNormal When You Are (1999). 28:128.Pollock, David S. True Times for Trying Times, Legal Fables for Today. 29:148.Smith, Elaine and David I. Grunfeld. How to Examine Psychological Experts In Divorce And Other CivilActions. By Marc J. Ackerman and Andrew W. Kane. 13(6):15.Wachtel, Ellen. We Love Each Other, But.... By Susan Alexander. 22:73.8. ETHICS CORNERHofstein, David N. and Michael L. Kleiman. Are Attorneys in Pennsylvania Mandatory Reporters of ChildAbuse? 21:19-22.9. TECHNOLOGY CORNERBernbaum, Joel B. and Martin Plummer, Co-Editors. Technology Corner. 21:22; 22:71-72; 23:16-17, 41-42, 76-77; 24:20-21, 58-59, 108-9, 25:45-46, 84-85, 111-12; 26:23-25.Bernbaum, Joel B. and Alicia Slade, Co-Editors. Technology Corner. 26:86-87, 128-29; 27:18-19, 94-95,130; 28:28-29, 130; 29:107-8, 149; 30:29-30, 123, 182-83, 220-21; 31:31-32, 64-65, 128-19, 172-73;32:53-54, 111-12, 166-67, 232.9A. ARTICLES BY AUTHORBernbaum, Joel B. 24:58-59, 25:45-46, 111-12; 26:86-87; 30:220-21 (2008 gifts).Bernbaum, Joel B. Apple’s iPad Reviewed. 32:166-67.Bernbaum, Joel B. Bits and Bytes. 22:13-14.Bernbaum, Joel B. Bits and Bytes 2000. 32:53-54.Bernbaum, Joel B. Computer Programs to Calculate Support Pursuant to PA Supreme Court SupportGuidelines. 23:16-17, 28:130 (same topic without title).Bernbaum, Joel B. “I Want My HDTV”. 27:18-19.162

Bernbaum, Joel B. Keeping Track of E-Mail Responses, Answers and Tasks. 30:123-24.Bernbaum, Joel B. Suggestions for Healthier E-Mailing. 31:64-65.Faulk, Richard A., Jr. PC Optimization Tips for the New Year. 26:128-29.Faulk, Richard A., Jr. Wireless Networking–The Information Superairway? 26:23-25.Fouts, Laurie. Time and Billing for the Family Lawyer. 22:13.Hennessy, Leslie A. Professional E-Mail Messages: Improve Your Electronic Communications. 22:71-72.Plummer, Martin. Disaster Preparedness. 24:20-21.Plummer, Martin. Making a Case for Case Management. 21:22.Plummer, Martin H. Protecting Your Valuable Data. 23:41-42.Plummer, Martin and Stacie Winowich. Timeslips Turns Eleven. 24:108-9.Sebeck, Stacie. Trust Your Day to Time Matters®. 25:84-85.Slade, Alicia A. Calendars, Contacts & Cases: What Software is Right for You? 31:31-32.Slade, Alicia A. Is a Netbook Right for You? 31:128-29.Slade, Alicia A. Metadata: Hidden Information in Your Documents. 27:94-95.Slade, Alicia A. Scanning: not Just Your Case Files. 30:29-30.Slade, Alicia A. Technology Planning & Budgeting. 30:182-83.Slade, Alicia A. [Telephone Systems]. 28:28-29.Slade, Alicia A. Windows 7: Should You Upgrade? 31:172-173; 32:111-12.10. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.Capp, Karen E. Legislative Update. 20:23, 49, 76-77, 109; 21:23, 66-67, 97-98, 140-142; 22:15, 47, 75-76,17-19.Haley, Karen E., Editor. Legislative Update. 24:21-22, 107, 25:46-50, 85-86, 112-13; 26:25-26, 85-89,112-13, 129-30; 27:20-32, 96-99, 131; 28:29, 131-32. .Rehrer, Steve, Editor. 29:107-8, 150-51; 30:56-58, 124-26, 184-86, 222-224; 31:33-34, 66-70, 130-33,173-76; 32:54-55, 114-17, 167-170, 233-35.Haines, R. Edward. House Bills 1976 and 1977. 22:14-17.Lashinger, Joseph A. Jr. 13(5):15-16; 14(2):18-19; 14(3):18-19;14(5):12-14.163

Mahood, James E. and Gary M. Gilman. Significant Amendments to the Divorce and Support Code UnderAct 58, Effective January 1, 1998. 20:24-25.Preliminary Statement of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Family Law Section and the PennsylvaniaChapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Regarding House Bills 1976 and 1977. 22:17-19.Resolution of the Pennsylvania Bar Association on Family Law Reform Unanimously Approved by theFamily Law Section Council January 21, 2000. 22:19.Wolf, Robert B. Creation of Common Law Marriage Abolished Effective January 2, 2005. 26:130.11. POETRY & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LITERATURE.A. Cartoons. 21:140; 22:80; 23:62; 24:23, 60, 113; 25:123; 26:139; 27:135; 28:135; 29:155; 30:225;31:156, 177; 32:225B. Letters to the Editors.(Responses to Justice Baer’s article listed above). 24:52-56.Stachtiaris, Chris A. Sales Tax on Professional Services. 28:30.C. Poetry.Bell, Denise P. My Legal Eagle. 16(5):20.Glasser, Daniel H. Business Valuation. 19:86.Glasser, Daniel H. Clarence the Ruthless Divorce Lawyer. 26:137.Gruener, H. J. Christmas in Family Court. 26:138.Rains, Robert E. As Love Slips By. 19:85.Rains, Robert E. Courting Canine Custody, A Domestic Doggerel. 24:112.Rains, Robert E. A Family Law Fable and a Festive Fable. [The Wife Who Shrank and Disappeared andThe Gambler and The Garland]. 27:136.Rains, Robert E. Gerber v. Hickman, A Sperm Aside. 24:57.Rains, Robert E. Nick-Name. 25:121.Rains, Robert E. Prose: “Let Us Sue.” 30:225.Rains, Robert E. Three Variations on a Christmas Theme. 26:136.Rains, Robert E. Two Tales of Trying Times. 28:142-45.164

Rains, Bob. Two More Tales of Trying Times. 29:153-54.Rasner, David S. A Christmas Gift. 25:122.Rasner, David S. A Divorce Lawyer’s Lament. 25:122.Rasner, David S. I Do. 17(2):16.Rasner, David S. The Judge. 25:122.D. Miscellany.Coleman, Mary Kate. Sixth Annual Lawrence W. Kaplan Lecture in Conflict Resolution: ‘Calm in the Faceof the Storming Client.’ 31:72-73.De Blassio, Abby. In Loving Memory. 31:73-74.Glasser, David H., Ark Building Fool Found to have Committed Indignities. 24:110-11.Glasser, Daniel H. Fallout of Tower of Babel Revealed. 32:129-30.Glasser, Daniel H. Lifestyles of a Famous Divorce Lawyer. 27:138-41.Siegel, Ellen. Children’s Rooms in the Allegheny County Courts. 24:109.Sponte, S. To Wit: May the Force Be With Me. 30:31.Glasser, Daniel H. I Have a Little Divorce. 22:78.Glasser, Daniel H. Moses Assessed Earning Capacity. 23:64-65.Rains,Bob. Prose: Combating Christmas Craziness. 31:176-77.Rains, Robert E. Case Note: A Scramble for the Eggs. [Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998)]. 21:139.Rains, Robert E. A Family Law Fable and a Festive Fable. [The Wife Who Shrank and Disappeared andThe Gambler and the Garland]. 27:136.Rains, Robert E. The Lawyer Who Saved Christmas. 22:79.Rains, Robert E. A Miracle Through the Mail (Or the Pros and Cons of Cons Procreating). 23:63.Rains, Robert E. No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. [Kessler v. Weniger, 774 A.2d 794 (Pa. Super.2000)]. 22:12.Rains, Robert E. Two Tales of Trying Times. [A Man and a Woman (Conley v. Romeri, 806 N.E.2d 933th(Mass. App. Ct. 2004) and Ho Ho Ho (United States v. Murphy, 406 F.3d 857 (7 Cir. 2005)]. 28:142-45.Wecht, David N. Revisiting the Gruber Test: The Whimsy of the ‘Momentary Whim.’ 31:71-72.165

12. SECTION NEWSSteiner, William L. and Jay A. Blechman, Co-Editors. 19:22, 45, 67-68, 84-85; 20:50, 77-78, 110-112;21:24, 68, 98-99.Blechman, Jay A., Editor. 22:20-24; 24:22-25, 59-66,89-93, 114-15, 25:51-59, 86-90.Blechman, Jay A. and William L. Steiner, Co-Editors. 25:113-20;26:27-34, 89-97, 131-35; 27:33-45, 100-6, 132-34; 28:31-45, 133-48; 29:30-40, 66-74, 108-18, 152; 30:58-60, 126-27, 187, 227, 229; 31:35-49,134-47, 178-90; 32:56-59, 118-27, 171-80.ACBA Family Law Section Child Advocate of the Year–Cindy K. Stoltz. 27:106.Allegheny Court of Common Pleas Judge Strassburger Selected to Receive Honor fromWomen’s BarAssociation. 27:38-39.Asher, Aaron P. Finding the Balance. 29:109-10.Blechman, Jay A. and William L. Steiner. Recapping the Winter Meeting–Jan. 16-18, 1998–Philadelphia.20:25-28.Book Award Winners Sponsored by Pension Analysis Consultants. 30:70.Busis, Cynthia. Pittsburgh Chapter of NCJW Children’s Playrooms in the Court Holds OpenHouse/Fundraiser. 29:40.Calderwood, Gail C. PBA Family Law Section 2009 Winter Meeting Photos. 31:75-82.Calderwood, Gail C. PBA Family Law Section 2009 Summer Meeting Photos. 31:135-43.Carbasho, Tracy. Family Law Section Provides Support to NCJW Children’s Playrooms in AlleghenyCounty. 27:37.Children’s Playrooms in the Courts: New DVD Available. 30:139, 199, 229; 31:49, 74.Clifford, Daniel J. PBA Family Law Section Membership Incentive Program. 31:147; 32:82.De Blassio, Abby. ABRA-COLLABRA: Collaborative Law Takes Root in Westmoreland County. 31:188-89.Dischell, Mark B. Eric David Turner Award Speech for Leonard Dubin. 32:59.Doherty, Mary Cushing. Cohen Family Directs Donation to the Laurel House. 30:60.Doherty, Mary Cushing. Eric David Turner Award Recipient: Jack A. Rounick. 31:44.Doherty, Mary Cushing. Homeless Benefit from PBA-FLS 2004 Eric Turner Award. 25:120.Doherty, Mary Cushing. Pennsylvania Family Court Reform: Making the Video. 19:85.Elisabeth Bennington Elected to Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 21. 28:147.166

Eric David Turner Award: Family Law Section Recognizes Another Outstanding Lawyer. [Chris Gillotti].28:32.Family Law Section Elects Officers and Council at Annual Summer Meeting in Baltimore. 19:69.Family Law Section Summer Meeting. 25:52-53.Family Law Section Summer Meeting. [2006]. Schedule of Events. 28:45.Family Law Section Thanks Our Sponsors. 27:45.Family Law Section Thanks These Vendors. 27:46.Gary G. Gentile Named Chair of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board. 28:146-47.Hardman, Drew. Pro Bono Rocks! Raises Nearly $6,500 for Pro Bono Center. 31:189-90.Highlights from the PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting Jan. 15-17 Pittsburgh. 21:25-26.Highlights from the July 15-18, 1999 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting, New York City. 21:99-104.Highlights from the July 1999 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting New York City and the January1999 Family Law Section Winter Meeting Pittsburgh. 21:144-147.Highlights from the July 2000 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting, Boston. 22:49-52.Highlights from January 2001 PBA Family Law Section Winter Meeting Pittsburgh. 22:20-24.Highlights from July 2001 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting Washington, D.C. 22:47-52.Highlights from the January 2002 PBA Family Law Section Winter Meeting Philadelphia. 24:27,61-65.Highlights from the July 2002 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting Montreal. 24:90-93.In Memorian: Eric David Turner. [Eulogists: Sandra Schultz Newman, Michael D. Goldberg, LesleeSilverman Tabas, Mark B. Dischell, David S. Rasner, Albert Momjian, Gordon Mc M. Mair and Carol M.McCarthy]. 23:22-28.In Memoriam: I. B. Sinclair. 23:46, 79.Johnson, Livingstone M. Remarks of the Honorable Livingstone M. Johnson, on Tuesday, February 22,2005, at the Susan B. Anthony Reception of the Women’s Bar Association Honoring the Honorable EugeneB. Strassburger, III, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 27:40-41.Judge Lawrence W. Kaplan Retirement. 31:44-49.Gale, Christine. Accompanying Scrapbook Gift from ACBA Family Law Section. 31:48.Parys, Ann. Judge Lawrence W. Kaplan (Retired) Joins Rothman Gordon ADR Practice. 31:48-49.Ramsden, Mary Sue. ACBA Family Law Section Holiday Party: Comments. 31:47-48.Strassburger, Eugene B., III. PAJC Community Impact Award. [for Judge Kaplan]. 31:44-46.Judge Marilyn Horan of Butler County Honored With Susan B. Anthony Award. 28:33.167

Judge Strassburger’s Rejoinder. 27:42-43.Justice Sandra Schultz Newman Receives Eric David Turner Award. 29:40.Laffey-Ferry, Marion. Caring Canines. 30:139-40.Marion Laffey-Ferry Receives Pennsylvania Bar Foundation Louis J. Goffman Award for Pro BonoService. 28:146.More Highlights from the July 2001 PBA Family Law Section Meeting Washington D.C. 23:80-81.More PBA Family Law Section 2009 Summer Meeting Photos. 31:179-87.More Photos from the July 2002 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting Montreal. 24:115.More Photos from the 2004 PBA Family Law Section Meeting Walt Disney World, Orlando, Florida.26:132-35.Nominating Committee Report. 21:30; 22:21; 23:52; 24:26, 25:59; 26:34; 27:44; 31:71; 32:127.PBA Commission on Women in the Profession Conference Held in Hershey, PA on May 15, 1977. 19:69.PBA Family Law Section 2007 Summer Meeting Photos. 29:111-118.PBA Family Law Section Election Results, Sunday, July 15, 2005. 27:100.PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting. [2007]. Schedule of Events. 29:43.PBA Family Law Section Meeting. [2008] Schedule of Events. 30:239.PBA Family Law Section Nominating Committee Report. 19:43; 28:35.PBA Family Law Section Officers & Council Members. [2009]. 31:145-46.PBA FLS Summer Meeting 2000. 21:31.PBA FLS Summer Meeting 2001. 23:25-28.PBA FLS Summer Meeting 2002. 23:83-84.PBA President Ken Horoho has Notable Family Law Background. 28:147-48.PBI Farewell Party for Gail Markovitz, Mechanicsburg. 28:36.Pennsylvania Bar Association News. 24:66.Pennsylvania Bar Association Applauds Supreme Court Action on Sale of Law Firm. 24:24-25.Pennsylvania Bar Institute Program on Drafting Marital Settlement Agreements Earns InternationalRecognition. 19:68-69.Photos from the January 2003 PBA Family Law Section Winter Meeting Pittsburgh. 25:54-58.168

Photographs from the July 2003 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting Philadelphia. 25:87-90.Photographs from the 2004 PBA Family Law Section Winter Meeting Philadelphia. 26:28-31.Photos from the 2004 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting Walt Disney World, Orlando,Fla. 25:114-19; 26:90-97.Photos From the PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting, Puerto Rico. 27:95, 101-5.Photos from the 2006 PBA Family Law Section Winter Meeting, Pittsburgh. 28:37-43.Photos from the 2006 PBA Family Law Section Summer Meeting, Toronto, Canada. 28:136-41.Photos from the 2007 PBA Family Law Section Winter Meeting Tropicana, Atlantic City, N.J. 29:31-39.Pollock, David S. PBA Family Law Section 2008 Winter Meting Photos. 30:128-38.Pollock, David S. PBA Family Law Section 2010 Winter Meeting Photos. 32:58.Pritchard, Jessica A. Briefs and Breastmilk. 31:144.Resolution of PBA FLS in Philadelphia on Jan. 19, 2008, In Memoriam: Frederick Cohen, Esq. 1935-2007.30:59.Safe Visits Safe Families Program by the Parental Stress Center Opens in Pittsburgh. 28:34-35.Second Annual Lawrence W. Kaplan Lecture in Conflict Resolution. 27:37.Shatto, Michael T. Fred Cohen Memorial. 30:59-60.Viola, Michael L. PBA Family Law Section 2008 Winter Meeting Photos. 30:61-69.Viola, Michael L. PBA Family Law Section 2008 Summer Meeting Photos. 30:188-97.Westmoreland Bar Association Family Law Committee & Young Lawyers Committee Approved Stipendfor PBA Family Law Section Meetings. 31:147.Winter Meeting Planned for Jan. 16-18, 1998. 19:84, 83,148, 192. XxPBA Family Law Section January 2009 Winter Meeting Photos: Pittsburgh. 31:36-43,13. SIDEBAR.Ferber, Peggy Lynn, Editor. 18(1):23; 19:24, 46-47, 71-72, 85-86; 20:29-30, 51-52, 78-79, 114; 21:27-29,107-108, 22:53-55.Fisher, Lise A, Editor. 23:82; 24:28, 67, 113-14, 25:59-60, 91; 26:35, 98-99, 142-43.Shoemaker, Gerald L., Editor. 27:47, 106-107, 141; 28:46-47, 148-49; 29:41, 75, 119, 156-59; 29:30:70-71, 141, 198, 226; 31:50, 83, 148, 192; 32:60, 128, 181.Adelphi Dedicates Marker Home. 26:143.169

Montgomery Bar Initiative Cheers Up Courthouse for Kids. 26:143 .Wilder, Joanne Ross. Hot Tip: Be Kind to Court Reporters! 18(1):24.PBA News. 20:30-31, 52, 84, 113.14. PBA NEWSNew PBA Member Service Center Stands Ready to Assist. 20:30-31.New Benefit Gives PBA Members Who Also are Members of Their County Bar Association up to $150 inTuition Discounts for PBI CLE Courses. 20:84, 113.Shatto Honored by Past Chair. 20:113..15. INDEXESFishman, Joel. Index to the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer Volumes 21-23 (1999-2001). 24:70-88.Fishman, Joel. Index to the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer Volumes 24-26 (2002-2004). 27:63-85.Fishman, Joel. Index to the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer Volumes 27-29 (2005-2007). 30:32-55.Fishman, Joel and Amy L. Lovell. Pennsylvania Cases in the Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution:Analysis and Recommendations (ALI, 2002). 32:226-31.170