William L. O'Hey, Jr., Edward A. Collins, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.
W. Jos. Harrison, III, W. Jos. Harrison, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before Hirt, Acting P. J., and Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside and Ervin, JJ.
[ 176 Pa. Super. Page 183]
This is an appeal by Florence Gudknecht from an order of the court below dismissing her petition for an increase of a support order for a minor child.
In October, 1948, subsequent to a decree in divorce, the lower court ordered the appellee to pay $15 per week for the support of their minor child, Craig, then aged six. At the time appellee's take-home pay was $55 per week. On October 20, 1953 appellant filed her petition for an increase. At the time of the hearing,
[ 176 Pa. Super. Page 184]
appellee's take-home pay was $71.82 per week plus an annual bonus of $1,800 (before deductions) which had been paid to him on July 1 each of the two previous years. Appellee testified that because of economic changes in the automobile business, it is doubtful whether he will receive any bonus in July 1954.
In 1948, when the parties agreed to the court order, the appellee was employed at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, from which employment he was separated in September, 1949. From then until February, 1951, he was in business for himself, which business failed and he lost over $5,750 in the venture. On March 2, 1951, he began to work for the Bristol Ford Motor Company, Bristol, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where he is still employed as a service manager. He testified that the bonus for the two previous years had been used to help pay off his indebtedness. The appellee, who is now thirty-nine years old, remarried in October, 1948. His present wife is thirty-three years old and at present she works. No children have been born of this marriage. They are living together, paying rent of $70 per month and spending about $17.50 a week for food. By reason of his employment and his residence in Philadelphia he needs transportation to and from work and for this he has the use of an automobile furnished by his employer, which he operates at a cost of about $5 a week, exclusive of insurance, which amounts to approximately $2.25 a week. His other expenses of living, including $15 a week for his son's support order, he contends bring his average weekly expenditures to more than his weekly take-home day, which difference is met by his present wife from her earnings.
The appellee has his son with him at least every other weekend, when he feeds him, entertains him and buys him toys. He also testified that he furnished some
[ 176 Pa. Super. Page 185]
of the boy's clothing, paid the cost of the summer camp, furnished a used TV set and pays some, if not ...