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

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