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.

CYNTHIA KING ROGERS v. ROBERT HALL ROGERS (02/05/82)

filed: February 5, 1982.

CYNTHIA KING ROGERS
v.
ROBERT HALL ROGERS, APPELLANT



No. 1705 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action Law, Delaware County, No. 80-4631

COUNSEL

Russell D. Henkin, Philadelphia, for appellant.

John W. Nilon, Jr., Media, for appellee.

Wickersham, Montemuro and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Montemuro

[ 295 Pa. Super. Page 162]

This action presents the issue of whether the Pennsylvania Longarm Statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322, permits the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in an action brought by defendant's former wife for reimbursement of monies she has expended from her personal estate for the maintenance and support of the parties' three children during their minority. We conclude that in this instance it may do so, and affirm the decision of the lower court.

The parties to this action were married in England in 1944 and moved to Delaware County in 1948. Two children were born of the marriage in that county, and all three children were raised to their majority there.

The defendant left the jurisdiction in 1954 and concealed his whereabouts from his former wife. He at no time provided for the support and suitable maintenance of his son and his two daughters, aged three, six and nine at time of his desertion.

Plaintiff alleges, without rebuttal, that defendant was sufficiently able financially to have contributed to the children's support during their minority.

Plaintiff further alleges that she attempted several times to enter a support order against defendant for benefit of the

[ 295 Pa. Super. Page 163]

    children, but was never able to do so and therefore was obligated to maintain the children entirely from her separate estate.

Assuming that in personam jurisdiction may be had, we agree that plaintiff has a cause of action for her past expenditures in support and maintenance of the children of the marriage under statutory law pursuant to 48 P.S. § 131,*fn1 see also Rosenberry v. Rosenberry, 256 Pa. Super. 237, 389 A.2d 1101 (1978), as well as under common law theories of restitution*fn2 and of quasi-contract.*fn3

The present appeal presents a jurisdictional problem.*fn4 The appeal is taken from an order ...


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.