No. 1652 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Family Division, at No. 77-04883
Albert Momjian, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Anthony S. Minisi, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Cercone, President Judge, and Watkins and Hoffman, JJ.
[ 271 Pa. Super. Page 390]
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying support to appellant, Charlotte Goldstein. We affirm the decision of the lower court.
The parties, Charlotte and Gilbert Goldstein, were married in 1972 and reside in a fashionable condominium in Ritten-house Square, Philadelphia. In the summer of 1977, Charlotte
[ 271 Pa. Super. Page 391]
was staying in Atlantic City while Gilbert was ill and living with his mother. Gilbert asked Charlotte to return home but she refused. Gilbert then announced that the parties were separated, and upon Charlotte's return, they no longer shared a common bedroom. However, Gilbert made repeated attempts toward a reconciliation, the parties consulting a marriage counselor once with Charlotte refusing to return for additional counseling. The parties continued to reside in the same condominium, but in separate bedrooms, when Charlotte sued Gilbert for support alleging that he had discontinued her monthly allowance of $1000 and, therefore, was not supporting her in the manner in which she was accustomed during their marriage.
The lower court judge decided that the most efficient way to obtain the necessary information was through depositions which were taken and considered as evidence by the court. After a thorough review of the evidence on depositions, the lower court judge concluded that the case of Commonwealth v. George, 358 Pa. 118, 56 A.2d 228 (1948) was applicable in the instant matter and that Gilbert was supplying Charlotte with all the essentials required to maintain her standard of living. This finding coupled with the fact of Charlotte's independent assets as disclosed in the depositions did not permit the court to enter a support award. Finally, the trial judge concluded that even if Commonwealth v. George, supra, did not apply, Charlotte has no grounds for support based on her contention that the parties were separated merely on her husband's separation statement of 1977, despite his repeated attempts to reconcile.
Although appellant raises three issues in her brief,*fn1 all three revolve around the question of whether appellant has
[ 271 Pa. Super. Page 392]
a right to support while living under the same roof with her husband. Our appellate review of such an issue is narrowly defined, and we will not disturb the findings of the lower court absent a clear abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Turner, 258 Pa. Super. 388, 392 A.2d 848 (1978); Commonwealth ex rel. Levy v. Levy, 240 Pa. Super. 168, 361 A.2d 781 (1976). We find that the lower court judge did ...