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. HAIMOWITZ v. HAIMOWITZ (06/15/72)

decided: June 15, 1972.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. HAIMOWITZ
v.
HAIMOWITZ, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, April T., 1971, No. 55, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Ellen Haimowitz v. Edwin Haimowitz.

COUNSEL

Jack A. Rounick, with him Moss, Rounick & Hurowitz, for appellant.

Bernard V. DiGiacomo, with him DiGiacomo & Lynch, for appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone and Packel, JJ. Opinion by Cercone, J. Wright, P. J., would affirm on the opinion of Judge Honeyman. Hoffman and Jacobs, JJ., dissent.

Author: Cercone

[ 221 Pa. Super. Page 365]

This is an appeal by the husband-defendant from the lower court's order of support in the amount of $175.00 per week for the wife-plaintiff and 10-year old daughter.

It is the husband's contention that the court below abused its discretion in awarding said amount because it was based not on defendant's actual earnings in his current position, which he had accepted with wife-plaintiff's acquiescence and consent, but was based on what the court felt he could have been earning with another company.

It is our opinion from our study of the record that the court below did abuse its discretion in fixing the amount of support payable by the husband-defendant.

Defendant has been, since 1969, sales representative of men's belts for the Robert Bruce Company (a company in which the principal stockholder is defendant's uncle), earning a salary of $14,300 per year with a take home pay of $245 per week. From this take home income he is responsible for all business expenses incident

[ 221 Pa. Super. Page 366]

    to his work, such as parking, tolls, car rental, hotel, meals, gas, telephone, business organizations and dues, taxicabs and trains, and car insurance, totaling, he testified, in excess of $600 per month, which amount is consistent with the defendant's 1970 income tax return introduced into evidence. In addition, defendant is required to pay for his salesman's samples.

Defendant is also paying for hospitalization and health insurance at the rate of $35 per month and maintains other insurance at a monthly expense of $89, which expenses benefit the wife and child.

The husband testified as to his personal living expenses which he attempted to keep at a minimum by living with his parents and paying them $60 per month for room and board. He reasonably approximated ...


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.