No. 02550 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Civil Division. at No. 31-81.
Malcolm B. Jacobson, Norristown, for appellant.
Daniel C. Barrish, Norristown, for appellee.
Brosky, Wieand and McEwen, JJ.
[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 274]
This appeal is from the dismissal of appellant's petition to reduce support payments. Appellant argues that the changed circumstances justifying the sought for reduction were present in the form of an order of a Yugoslavian court compelling him to pay $600 a month support to his son and mother. The court below concluded that this order had been obtained by appellant for the fraudulent purpose of appearing to have greater financial obligations than he does, in fact, have. We do not review that conclusion directly. For even assuming, arguendo, that the Yugoslavian support order was not collusively obtained, appellant's economic circumstances are not so changed that a
[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 275]
reduction in support payments would be mandated. Affirmed.
The relevant procedural history starts with an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on March 18, 1981 directing that payments of $100 a week be made by appellant to appellee. On July 25, 1981, a Yugoslavian court in Belgrade entered an order against appellant herein in the amount of $600 a month for the support of his mother and son.*fn1 Approximately one week later, on August 3, 1981, appellant filed a petition to decrease the $100 a week support order based on the changed circumstances of the Yugoslavian support order. The Master recommended that the petition be dismissed, timely exceptions to which were taken. A year later the matter was heard de novo by the Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed appellant's petition. This appeal followed.
Initially, it should be determined whether a Yugoslavian support order is capable of taking on the character of a binding obligation upon a resident of this Commonwealth. For, if it cannot, it is a mere chimera, of no substance and incapable of supporting the conclusion that it has changed a Pennsylvanian's circumstances. For the following reasons we conclude that a Yugoslavian support order can be enforced in this Commonwealth.
The Restatement 2d, Conflict of Laws at § 98 reads:
A valid judgment rendered in a foreign nation after a fair trial in a contested proceeding will be recognized in the United States so far as the immediate parties and ...