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

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