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. BORROW v. BORROW (11/15/62)

November 15, 1962

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. BORROW
v.
BORROW, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 323, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County, June T., 1962, No. F-7-214, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Irene C. Borrow v. Morton Borrow. Order reduced and, as modified, affirmed.

COUNSEL

Howard Richard, with him Berman, Richard & Brian, for appellant.

A. Sidney Johnson, Jr., with him Butler, Beatty, Greer & Johnson, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (ervin, J., absent).

Author: Woodside

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 594]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of support.

Irene and Morton Borrow were married July 25, 1950, and separated July 17, 1961. Immediately after the separation, Moton paid his wife $40 per week, which weekly sum he subsequently reduced to $25. On May 1, 1962, he discontinued all payments, and this action was brought by the wife to obtain support for herself and one child. The child involved in the order is the 17 year old son of Irene by a prior marriage. He was adopted by Morton, who is thus liable for his support. Commonwealth ex rel. Finn v. Finn, 198 Pa. Supperior Ct. 334, 181 A.2d 887 (1962).

The Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County entered an order on June 8, 1962, directing the defendant to "pay the sum of Fifty dollars ( $50) per week for the support and maintenance of your wife and 1 child together with ..." the child's medical expenses. At the request of the defendant, the order, when orally made, was allocated $40 per week to the wife and $10 for the son. This division appears in the record after the judge's signature to the order " $40 to wife and $10 to son."

The defendant is satisfied with the order for the support of his son, but is appealing the order for the support of his wife.

Both the husband and wife are employed. The "take-home pay" of the husband is $136 per week and that of the wife is $125 per week.*fn1 There is evidence that the defendant has supplemented his income by repairing radios, but the record gives no indication of the amount of such income and it appears to be negligible. The parties' gross pays and the deductions made from them do not appear in the record. We might note

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 595]

    in passing that without knowing either the gross pay or the deductions it is possible for a false picture of income to be created. Deductions for savings, retirement, dues, insurance and for more or for less income tax than will ultimately be due, can materially vary the take-home pay, and failure to ...


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.