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

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