No. 150 Pittsburgh, 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Civil Division, at No. 372 January Term, 1980
Raymond L. Fisher, appellant, in pro. per.
Neil Jay Marcus, Monongahela, for appellee.
Brosky, Cirillo and Popovich, JJ.
[ 299 Pa. Super. Page 356]
The instant appeal is interlocutory and therefore is quashed. This is a divorce case in which the trial court vacated a decree in divorce, which it had previously entered, and granted Sharon L. Fisher's application to proceed under the Divorce Code of 1980.*fn1 Raymond L. Fisher contends that the trial court erred in holding that a final decree in divorce would have been ordered under the Divorce Law of 1929*fn2 had it not permitted Sharon L. Fisher to proceed under the Divorce Code and that the court improperly granted Sharon L. Fisher's application to proceed under the Divorce Code.
First, we note that there is no final decree in divorce entered in the instant case. As such, there is no order from which Raymond L. Fisher has appealed. Thus, he cannot raise now any issue concerning the divorce decree entered
[ 299 Pa. Super. Page 357]
and subsequently vacated in the court below. Pa.R.A.P. 301 et seq.*fn3
We have very recently held that an appeal from the granting of an application to proceed under the Divorce Code is interlocutory. Toll v. Toll, 293 Pa. Super. 549, 439 A.2d 712 (1981). Furthermore, there is no claim by Raymond L. Fisher that the lower court certified its order pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b). Conrad v. Conrad, 293 Pa. Super. 558, 439 ...