Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 25, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Family Division, at No. 84-1212.
Wiley P. Parker, Lebanon, for appellant.
Lawrence J. Neary, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Wieand, Olszewski and Watkins, JJ.
[ 355 Pa. Super. Page 551]
This is an appeal from an Order entered March 25, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County in favor of appellee-wife and against appellant-husband in the amount of $37,850.00 together with interest. The trial court further directed appellant to enter security in the amount of $10,000.00 to insure future payments of the alimony order of $300.00 per month.
This was an action to enforce, register and adopt a foreign decree under 23 P.S. § 506. Appellee-wife sought alimony arrearages pursuant to a stipulation incorporated into a divorce decree entered by the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire, County of Hillsborough. Appellant-husband filed an answer and new matter and appellee-wife filed a reply. A hearing was held on March 22, 1985 and on March 28, 1985, the trial court entered an Order in favor of appellee-wife and against appellant-husband in the amount of thirty-seven thousand eight hundred fifty ($37,850.00) dollars together with interest and directed appellant to enter security in the amount of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars to insure future payments of the alimony order of three hundred ($300.00) dollars per month. On April 8, 1985, appellant filed a Rule to Show Cause why the New Hampshire decree should not be terminated, or in the alternative, modified. On April 17, 1985, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order of March 25, 1985. On April 29, 1985, appellee filed an Answer to appellant's Petition to Terminate or Modify the alimony decree. On May 31, 1985, the trial court filed a Memorandum Opinion in support of the Order of March 25, 1985. In its opinion the trial court noted that the filing of the appeal precluded consideration of the petition seeking termination or modification of the New Hampshire alimony decree.
Appellant presents the following questions for our consideration:
1. Did the court below err in determining that the equitable doctrine of laches did not bar appellee-wife's claim for alimony?
[ 355 Pa. Super. Page 5522]
. Did the court below err in failing to determine that appellee-wife's claim for past due alimony or some portion of it is barred by reason of the statute of limitations?
3. Did the court below err in requiring appellant-husband to post ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars security to insure future payments of the order of alimony?
In his first issue appellant claims that it is black letter law that laches will be applied to bar appellee's claim if it is demonstrated that there has been a lack of due diligence on the part of appellee, the passage of an unreasonable period of time and that by reason of such ...