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

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEStern, Montg. Co., No. 84-3570 (1985)]. 6:784-85.Pre-Existing Funds Contributed by Wife toImprovements on Home Owned by In-Laws do notConstitute Consideration which Would Create aProprietary Interest in the Home. [Bolze v. Bolze,427 Pa. Super. 599, 629 A.2d 1031 (1993)].14(5):4.Pre-Retirement Military Voluntary Separation Paynot Subject to Property Settlement AgreementDivision of Retirement Pay. [Horner v. Horner,560 Pa. 559, 747 A.2d 337 (1997)]. Mary EtzrodtGibbons. 20:42-43.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.Preference of Children Dominant Factor inCustody Case Where Parents Equally Capable andHomes Equally Suitable. [Myers v. DiDomenico,441 Pa. Super. 341, 657 A.2d 956 (1995)].17(3):3-4.Prenuptial Agreement: Effect on Marital Property.[Raiken v. Mellon, 399 Pa. Super. 192, 582 A.2d11 (1990)]. 12(1):2-3.Prenuptial Agreement: Express Waiver ofAlimony or Support does not Constitute Waiver ofAlimony Pendente Lite. [Musko v. Musko, 447Pa. Super. 150, 668 A.2d 561 (1995)]. David L.Ladov. 18(1):20.Prenuptial Agreements: Pennsylvania's LandmarkCase. [Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581A.2d 162 (1990)]. 11:170-71.Prenuptial Agreements: The Simeone Standardand Beyond. [Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566(Pa. 2002)]. Julie M. Cillo. 25:5-7.Present Value Required in Valuing Marital Assets.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 543 A.2d 534(1988)]. 9:32.Presumption Exists that Support Order Should beRetroactive. [Shovlin v. Shovlin, 318 Pa. Super.516, 465 A.2d 673 (1983)]. 4:471-72.The Presumption of Legitimacy–Its Foundation isCrumbling and Its Substance is Coming Apart.[Brinkely v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 701 A.2d 176(1997)]. Cindy Trellis Bernstein. 20:6-8.The Presumption of Legitimacy Still Lives.[Cozad v. Amrhein, 714 A.2d 409 (Pa. Super.1998); Martin v. Martin, 710 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super.1998)]. Jay A. Blechman. 20:6-8.Presumption of Paternity and Doctrine of EstoppelExplained. [Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d721 (1999)]. Ann V. Levin. 22:7-8.The Presumption of Paternity and the Doctrine ofPaternity by Estoppel Revisited. [Hamilton v.Hamilton, 795 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2002), T.L.F.v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. KarlD. Cooper. 24:35-36.The Presumption of Paternity Lives. [Strauser v.Stahr, 556 Pa. 83, 726 A.2d 1052 (1999)].KathrynG. Carlson. 21:73-75.Presumption of Paternity Rebutted and Paternityby Estoppel Inapplicable. Kathleen Carey Daley.[Green v. Good, 704 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1998)].20:40-42.Prevailing Party in Contract Enforcement Case notEntitled to Attorney’s Fees Upon Settlement.[Profit Wize Marketing v. Wiest, 812 A.2d 1270(Pa. Super. 2002)]. David I. Grunfeld. 25:8-9.A Primary Custodial Parent is not Obligated toPay Child Support. [Colonna v. Colonna, 791A.29 353 (Pa. Super. 2001)]. Gerald L.Shoemaker, Jr. 24:11-13.A Primary Custodial Parent may be Required toPay Child Support. [Colonna v. Colonna, 853A.2d 359(Pa. 2004)]. Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr. 26:47-49Prior Support Hearing Stipulation as to EarningCapacity not Binding in New Petition for45