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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTDistinction Between Spousal Support and AlimonyPendente Lite. [Horn v. Horn, 388 Pa. Super. 46, 564A.2d 995 (1989)]. 10:123.Even Non-Dependent Spouses May Receive AlimonyPendente Lite to Defray Costs of Maintaining DivorceAction. [Powers v. Powers, 419 Pa. Super. 464, 615A.2d 459 (1992)]. 14(1):6.Marital Misconduct not a Bar to a Bar to AlimonyPendente Lite. [Siciliano v. Siciliano, 3 A.C.D.D. 72(1982)]. 3:334-35.Parties can Obtain Both Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport. [Com. ex rel. Homsher v. Homsher, 289 Pa.Super. 112, 432 A.2d 1076 (1981)]. 2:197.Parties' Separate Estate does not Prevent Party fromReceiving Alimony Pendente Lite. [Orr v. Orr, 315 Pa.Super. 168, 461 A.2d 850 (1983)]. 4:466-67.Prenuptial Agreement: Express Waiver of Alimony orSupport does not Constitute Waiver of AlimonyPendente Lite. [Musko v. Musko, 447 Pa. Super. 150,668 A.2d 561 (1995)]. David L. Ladov. 18(1):20.Retroactivity of APL and Child Support Orders Prior toFiling is Gaining Momentum: Standard of Review onAppeal Heightening. [Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d221 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Rochelle B. Grossman. 21:37-38.Temporary Award of Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport is not Appealable. [Lowenschuss v.Lowenschuss, Montg. Co., No. 81-17813 (1982)].3:310.DIVORCE–APPLICATION TO PROCEEDApplication to Proceed Under New Code–To Give NoRecognition to a Counterclaim Filed Prior to the Entryof a Divorce Decree Gives to the Opposing Party aWindfall that has No Relationship to the Goals andObjectives of the 1980 Code. [Conley v. Conley, 1A.C.D.D. 162 (Allegh. 1981); Newby v. Newby,Mercer Co., No. 1135 C.d. 1980 (1981)]. 2:190-94.DIVORCE–BANKRUPTCY ACTIONSEffect of Bankruptcy Action on Divorce Proceeding.[In re Murray v. Murray and Ganz, 31 B.R. 499(1983)]. 4:473.When Bankruptcy and Divorce Coincide EsoteriaPrevails. [Cohen v. Goldberg, 695 A.2d 806 (Pa. Super.1997)]. 19:54-55.DIVORCE–BIFURCATIONA Bifurcated Divorce Case and the Entry of the DivorceDecree does not Terminate Alimony Pendente Lite andSupport. [Klein v. Klein, 1 A.C.D.D. 205 (Allegh. Co.1980)]. 2:183-84.Bifurcated Divorce Decree is a Final Appealable Order.[Curran v. Curran, 446 Pa. Super. 633, 667 A.2d 1155(1995)]. David S. Pollock. 18(2):6-7Bifurcation Under the New Divorce Code–Yes or No.[[Simpkins v. Dodolak, Clearfield Co., 79-751-cd(1980)]. 2:131.Case Law on Bifurcation Under the New Divorce Code.[Casey v. Casey, 1 A.C.D.D. 14 18 D.&C.3d 24 (1980);Tose v. Tose, 63 Del. Co. R. 309 (1981); Smolinsky v.Smolinsky, Philadelphia Co., Family Div., No. 3347Aug. 1980 (1981); Carney v. Carney, Erie Co., Civ.Div. No. 8420-a 1980 (1981)]. 2:166-71.Decision to Bifurcate Based on Review of Facts. [Wolkv. Wolk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 464 A.2d 1359]. 4:460-62.Decision to Bifurcate is Discretionary. [Hall v. Hall,333 Pa. Super. 483, 482 A.2d 974 (1984)]. 5:650-52.The Decision to Bifurcate is Within the Decision of theCourt. [Tose v. Tose, 297 Pa. Super. 592, 441 A.2d 7901 (1982)]. 3:257-58.Effect of Death on Bifurcated Divorce. [Delehanty v.Wozman, 7 A.C.D.D. 141, 133 P.L.J. 263(1985)].6:743-44.First Impression: Bifurcation Under the AmendedDivorce Code. [Bonawits v. Bonawits, 907 A.2d 611(Pa. Super. 2006)]. Michael E. Bertin. 29:98-100.Inmate's Right to Attend Bifurcation Hearing. [Salemov. Salemo, 381 Pa. Super. 632, 554 A.2d 563 (1989)].75