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

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