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

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