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.

FLORENCE G. DALESSANDRO v. ARTHUR D. DALESSANDRO (09/23/87)

filed: September 23, 1987.

FLORENCE G. DALESSANDRO
v.
ARTHUR D. DALESSANDRO, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order Entered December 5, 1986, in the Court on Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Civil, at No. 1953 of 1984.

COUNSEL

Bruce D. Desfor, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Joseph F. Sklarosky, Wilkes-Barre, for appellee.

Cavanaugh, Kelly and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Watkins

[ 366 Pa. Super. Page 480]

This case comes to us on appeal from an Order entered December 5, 1986, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County requiring the appellant, Arthur D. Dalessandro to pay appellee, Florence G. Dalessandro, support in the amount of four hundred ($400.00) dollars per week.

On November 23, 1984, appellee, Florence G. Dalessandro filed a civil complaint in support against the appellant, Arthur D. Dalessandro, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Hearings were held on February 28, March 11, April 15 and April 16, 1986, before the Honorable Frederick Edenharter, specially presiding. After transcription of the record, both parties submitted requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. On December 1, 1986, Judge Edenharter entered a final order of support in the amount of Four Hundred ($400.00) Dollars per week. This appeal followed.

Appellant presents the following questions for our consideration:

I. When wife (appellee) testified that her needs and lifestyle were modest both before and after separation, did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering husband

[ 366 Pa. Super. Page 481]

    to pay spousal support of four hundred dollars ($400.00) per week far in excess of wife's needs?

II. Whether the court erred as a matter of law by requiring husband to pay spousal support in an amount exceeding one-third of husband's net monthly income? (Appellant's brief, p. 3)

With regard to appellant's second issue, the court specifically found and appellant admits that he received sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000.00) as his judicial salary and that he received investment income of nine thousand eight hundred twelve dollars and two cents ($9,812.02). Further appellant admits that Gene Lispi Chevrolet, Inc. provides him with a life insurance policy costing the company one hundred twenty dollars ($120.00) per month or fourteen hundred forty dollars ($1440.00) per year. Appellant complains, however, that the trial court did not make a ...


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.