No. 634 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Susquehanna County at Nos. 1979-1719.
Raymond C. Davis, Montrose, for appellant.
Charles J. Aliano, Montrose, for appellee.
Spaeth, President Judge, and Cavanaugh, McEwen, Beck, Montemuro, Montgomery and Cercone, JJ. McEwen, J., concurs in result.
[ 321 Pa. Super. Page 221]
Does the failure to file exceptions in the trial court to a final order which denies alimony pendente lite and counsel fees after the entry of a divorce decree constitute waiver so as to require that we affirm the order of court? We hold that exceptions are required and therefore we affirm.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the Honorable Donald O'Malley in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County. A divorce action was instituted by Mary Patricia Carangelo against William R. Carangelo in December 1979. In July of 1980 Mrs. Carangelo petitioned for alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and expenses, and to make an equitable distribution of marital property and an award of alimony should the divorce decree be granted. The rule on the petition was made returnable on August 18 and on that day Judge O'Malley, after hearing, entered an order which provided in part:
In April of 1981, Mrs. Carangelo filed an affidavit of consent, agreeing that the marriage was irretrievably broken and consenting to the entry of a final decree of divorce.
[ 321 Pa. Super. Page 222]
She had amended her complaint to plead that the marriage was irretrievably broken in December 1980, apparently to conform to the Divorce Code of 1980 § 201(c). On April 9, 1981 and June 1, 1981 hearings were conducted before Judge O'Malley which included extensive inquiry into the economic status and resources of the parties. Thereafter Mr. Carangelo answered a set of eighty-eight interrogatories dealing with his financial condition. He also filed an affidavit of consent to the entry of a final decree of divorce.
Judge O'Malley entered a decree of divorce on December 29, 1981. On that date he had heard more evidence from Mrs. Carangelo concerning her financial condition. Following the hearing her counsel, after moving for the grant of a divorce, requested that the court reserve jurisdiction over the matters of alimony, counsel fees and equitable distribution.
We have repeated the history of this case since otherwise an order of the court of January 29, 1982 might be open to some question.*fn1 The order is as follows:
NOW TO WIT, 29 January, 1982, a divorce was granted on the 29th day of December, 1981 on the grounds that that ...