Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. EDELMAN v. EDELMAN (11/16/60)

November 16, 1960

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. EDELMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
EDELMAN, APPELLANT.



Appeals, Nos. 142 and 197, Oct. T., 1960, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Montgomery County, Nov. T., 1959, No. 192, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Shirlee Edelman v. Sherman J. Edelman. Order, as modified, affirmed.

COUNSEL

Sidney M. DeAngelis, with him DeAngelis & Kaufman, for relatrix.

Milton Jacobson, for defendant.

Before Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Montgomery

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 571]

OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.

Each of the parties has appealed from the order in a nonsupport proceeding brought by the relator-wife for the benefit of herself and two minor children, ages one year and five years, which directed defendant to pay $45.00 per week for the support of his wife and $25.00 per week for each child. The order is dated March 30, 1960, but was made retroactive as of January 1, 1960.

The defendant is an executive of a life insurance company. His annual salary under a contract is $15,000.00. He received a bonus the year prior to the hearing, which gave him a gross income in that year of $20,600.00. He may or may not receive bonuses in future years.

The defendant's wife is employed, with an annual income of $3,200.00, which, together with the order

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 572]

    producing total income payments of $4,940.00, will give her the gross sum of $8,140.00 annually for support of herself and her minor children.

It has been established by this Court that the amount of an order for support must be fair and not confiscatory since its purpose is the welfare of the wife and children and not a punishment of the husband and father. Such order should be justified by the earning ability of the defendant, making reasonable allowance for his own living expense. Commonwealth ex rel. Bush v. Bush, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 382, 86 A.2d 62; Commonwealth ex rel. Jacobson v. Jacobson, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 433, 146 A.2d 91. The amount a husband must pay is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Commonwealth ex rel. Schofield v. Schofield, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 631, 98 A.2d 437; Commonwealth ex rel. Crozer v. Crozer, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 381, 119 A.2d 603. In determining the amount of the order, the court is not restricted to the husband's actual earnings but may consider his earning power and also the extent of and income from his property. Commonwealth ex rel. Crozer v. Crozer, supra.

The lower court found that the defendant was forced by the exigencies of his business to maintain what is commonly called a "prosperous front". The various necessary expenses of the defendant were itemized and amount to approximately $750.00 per month. The order of $95.00 per week consumes substantially all of the defendant's monthly income over and above these expenses. The evidence, except for the pretentious and uncorroborated statements of the defendant that his abilities merited ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.