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.

NINA PAWOL v. JOSEPH J. PAWOL (11/30/81)

filed: November 30, 1981.

NINA PAWOL,
v.
JOSEPH J. PAWOL, JR., APPELLANT



No. 444 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, of Beaver County, at No. 1017 Q.S. 1968.

COUNSEL

Timothy W. Pawol, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Philip P. Lope, Zelienople, for appellee.

Spaeth, Shertz and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Spaeth

[ 293 Pa. Super. Page 30]

This is an appeal from an order increasing the amount that appellant must pay in support of his minor child. Appellant argues that there should be a new hearing because

[ 293 Pa. Super. Page 31]

    no stenographic notes of testimony were taken.*fn1 We agree and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

On February 11, 1967, an order was issued directing appellant to pay $85 per month for support of his child. On January 1, 1980, appellee filed a petition for an increase in the order because of the cost of living. Pursuant to Beaver County Local Rule No. 1006, a conference was held before a hearing officer.*fn2 When no agreement was reached, the hearing officer recommended that appellant pay $185 per month for support of his child, and also, all medical, dental, and hospital expenses incurred on behalf of the child. Appellant filed exceptions, and after a proceeding that we shall

[ 293 Pa. Super. Page 32]

    discuss in a moment, the lower court ordered appellant to pay $175 per month for support of his child and one half of the medical, dental, and hospital expenses incurred on behalf of the child. This appeal is from that order.

The record does not disclose just what occurred before the lower court on appellant's exceptions. In its opinion the lower court does not say what occurred but describes its general practice as follows:

Whenever the parties are dissatisfied with the [hearing] officer's recommendation, . . . they can take exceptions, pursuant to Local Rule 1006(5) and the matter will be heard before the Court. These open court hearings are attended by the parties, their legal counsel and usually by the hearing officer who heard the matter originally. Taken into consideration in arriving at a final order are the facts as developed by counsel at the hearing, the arguments of both sides and the ...


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.