May 29, 1986
DOUGLAS KEMPER, APPELLANT,
KENT LEON RUDISILL AND KELLEY RAE GUNDERMAN
Appeal from the Order Entered on April 19, 1985 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division, No. 84-S-318C
BEFORE: CAVANAUGH, TAMILIA and CERCONE, JJ.
Tamilia, J. files a Concurring Memorandum.
CAVANAUGH, J. CONCURS IN THE RESULT.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered and adjudged by this Court that the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County is affirmed.
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY TAMILIA, J.:
In concur in the result as I believe the trial court adopted the proper legal rational of collateral estoppel in deciding this case. The majority uses an alternative theory relying on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and its interpretation under Pa.R.C.P. 1915.6 Joinder of Parties. My reason for this is that there is confusion between the U.C.C.J.A. and the Rules in the sense that the U.C.C.J.A. applies only to interstate and intercounty custody actions. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5342 Purposes and construction of the subchapter (1)-(8). Rule 1915.6, supra, adopts virtually verbatim the language of the U.C.C.J.A. in various sections, although modifying compulsory joinder of persons claiming custody rights and requiring notice only, Rule 1915.6(b), see explanatory note. I would have no quarrel with the majority holding that Rule 1915.6 applies equally to indigenous custody cases as well as U.C.C.J.A. cases, but I believe it is confusing to cite the U.C.C.J.A. as authority for our actions here.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.