Appeal from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County, June T., 1965, No. 535, in case of Thelma R. Richards v. George W. Richards, II.
William C. Cahall, III, with him Davis, Cirillo & Cahall, for appellant.
Desmond J. McTighe, with him D. Stewart McElhone, and Duffy, McTighe and McElhone, for appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Watkins, J.
[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 243]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County of two thousand ($2000) dollars per month for the support of the wife and four hundred ($400) dollars per month for the support of an eighteen year old daughter.
The parties were married in 1938 and have had three children. Only the youngest child is involved in this proceeding. They lived together very sumptuously until February, 1965, when the defendant separated himself from his family.
This proceeding was instituted by complaint under The Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Support Law of 1953, July 13, P. L. 431, 62 PS § 2043.31. The complaint was served personally upon the defendant by a constable of Montgomery County, at his place of business in Philadelphia.
The defendant denied the allegation that he was a resident of Montgomery County and alleged that his residence was the Brazilian Dock, Palm Beach, Florida.
[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 244]
Defendant therefore contends the Montgomery County courts are without jurisdiction to enter an order in this matter and that the prosecution must be brought under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, 1951, May 10, P. L. 279; 1953, August 19, P. L. 1201, 62 PS § 2043.1.
The defendant did not testify at the hearing held in this matter but was present at a preliminary hearing and agreed to a temporary order being entered. The attorney for appellant did agree at the hearing that the indicated intent of the defendant up until April, 1965, was that his residence was Montgomery County and showed no change in intention or basis to establish a change of residence thereafter. The conduct or habits nor places of living of the defendant did not change thereafter. We must, therefore, agree with the court below that defendant was a resident of Montgomery County, properly served with the complaint giving the Montgomery County court jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties.
Appellant also contends that the order as entered was excessive in view of the defendant's earning capacity and the judicial guidelines ...