Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GEORGE W. RATZ v. NANCY L. RATZ (12/05/86)

filed: December 5, 1986.

GEORGE W. RATZ, JR.
v.
NANCY L. RATZ, APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT ENTERED NOVEMBER 15, 1985 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION, AT NO. 85 SU 02318-03.

COUNSEL

Karen L. Semmelman, York, for appellant.

Rebecca N. Tortorici, York, for appellee.

Wieand, Beck and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Beck

[ 359 Pa. Super. Page 9]

This appeal concerns the appealability of an order sustaining subject matter jurisdiction of a Pennsylvania court in a dispute under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. ยงยง 5341-5366 (1981).

The parties were divorced in 1983. They agreed that appellant mother would have primary custody of their daughter Kristen, and the appellee father would have liberal partial custody. In August 1984, mother moved with Kristen to Ohio to pursue a master's degree in theology. Father had partial custody in Pennsylvania during Kristen's school vacations and in Ohio when he was there on business.

On June 19, 1985, the father petitioned for custody of Kristen in Pennsylvania. The mother entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter

[ 359 Pa. Super. Page 10]

    jurisdiction. The trial court denied the mother's motion after a hearing. She appeals.

She argues that the court's order is either a final order, Pa.R.App.P. 341, or in the alternative it is an interlocutory order appealable as of right, Pa.R.App.P. 311(b). We conclude her appeal is neither a final order nor an interlocutory order appealable as of right. We therefore quash.

Mother incorrectly argues that the order denying her motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is final, Pa.R.App.P. 341.

"An order is final when the practical effect of the order is to put the appellant out of court, Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co., 465 Pa. 225, 348 A.2d 734 (1975), or otherwise terminate the litigation by precluding a party from presenting the merits of a claim or defense to the trial court. Gordon v. Gordon, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.