Gus Milides, Easton, and Thomas C. Kubelius, Bethlehem, for appellant at No. 1120, and appellee at No. 1140.
Dean L. Foote, Allentown, for appellant at No. 1140, and appellee at No. 1120.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Spaeth, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 255 Pa. Super. Page 113]
These are cross appeals in a proceeding instituted by the wife for the support of herself and one child.
The court found that the wife had failed to present reasonable cause for her voluntary separation and that it was willful, malicious and without encouragement. Based on this finding it denied support to the wife but directed the husband to pay to her $400 to be placed in escrow in an interest bearing account on behalf of the child.
The wife appealed contending that the lower court abused its discretion in denying support for her but agreeing that the order made for the child was proper.
The husband appealed, contending that the lower court abused its discretion in ordering that $100.00 per week be placed in escrow for the child's benefit, and in ordering him to pay an additional $300.00 plus school expenses for the child's support, which he claims is excessive, ". . . taking into consideration the earning capacity of Mrs. Giamber."
Since support orders are for the purpose of providing for present needs and orders providing for the accumulation of funds for future needs are not proper, Commonwealth ex rel. Pagel v. Pagel, 175 Pa. Super. 32, 100 A.2d 117 (1953); Commonwealth ex rel. Gutzeit v. Gutzeit, 200 Pa. Super. 401, 189 A.2d 324 (1963), that part of the order in this case providing for the investment of $100.00 per week must
[ 255 Pa. Super. Page 114]
be stricken. Future needs are proper items justifying a change in an order, as a change in ...