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.

KRULL v. KRULL (09/22/75)

decided: September 22, 1975.

KRULL
v.
KRULL, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, of Allegheny County, No. 3308 D.R. of 1974, in case of Sharon Krull v. David Krull.

COUNSEL

Michael Saltzburg, for appellant.

No appearance entered nor brief submitted for appellee.

Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Price, J.

Author: Price

[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 208]

Though differing slightly in facts, the policies at issue in this case closely resemble those of Budget Laundry Company v. Munter, 450 Pa. 13, 298 A.2d 55 (1972). We believe that the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in that case, when applied to the situation herein presented, require that we reverse and remand this case for a new hearing. See also Felsing v. Beining, 236 Pa. Superior Ct. 202, 345 A.2d 290 (1975).

The record reveals that appellant and appellee are husband and wife, and that appellee has custody of their

[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 209]

    two children. On November 15, 1974, appellee filed a Civil Complaint for Support and appellant was served with the complaint on November 21, 1974, at the West Allegheny Hospital in Oakdale, Pennsylvania, where he was being treated for lumbar sprain and disease of the lumbar spine.

The case came on for hearing on November 26, 1974. Appellant, represented by counsel from Neighborhood Legal Services, requested that the trial be continued because he was still in the hospital and was unable to attend the trial,*fn1 and because his only conference with counsel had been an incomplete exchange over the telephone. Counsel told the court that this amount of preparation was inadequate for him to properly represent appellant at the hearing.

The motion was denied, the hearing proceeded, and appellant was ordered to pay $100.00 per month while he received unemployment compensation, the order automatically to be increased to $160.00 as soon as he returned to work. Appellant appeals the lower court's refusal to grant the continuance.

In support of its decision denying the continuance, the lower court expressly placed its sole reliance on Rule 7 of the Rules of Trial Policy of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.*fn2 However, as noted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Budget Laundry Company v. Munter, 450 Pa. 13, 298 A.2d 55 (1972), a strict enforcement of these rules would contradict the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Pa.R.C.P. 216 ...


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.