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.

KATHLEEN WUNDER v. CHARLES D. FAZIO (01/12/89)

filed: January 12, 1989.

KATHLEEN WUNDER, APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES D. FAZIO, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order entered February 18, 1988, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil No. D-20173-68.

COUNSEL

Bernard V. DiGiacomo, Conshohocken, for appellant.

Diane M. Zabowski, Collegeville, for appellee.

Olszewski, Beck and Johnson, JJ.

Author: Olszewski

[ 380 Pa. Super. Page 523]

Appellant, Charles D. Fazio, appeals from an order dismissing his petition to vacate a support order. Appellant urges that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition to vacate because the support order requires a $40 a week payment for a child over the age of eighteen years who has no learning disability and who attends business school. We affirm.

The subject of the support order, Renee Kaas, was born out of wedlock on November 4, 1967, to appellant and appellee, Kathleen Wunder. Ms. Kaas graduated from high school in June, 1987, and is enrolled in The Lansdale School of Business. She is a full-time student in an eighteen-month

[ 380 Pa. Super. Page 524]

    associate degree program that she expects to complete in January, 1989. The tuition for the program is $7,193. Ms. Kaas earned $5,300 in 1987 and received $2,625 in loans.

Ms. Wunder and her husband, who support eight children, earned $34,000 in 1987. In the same year, appellant earned $50,000 and supported his wife and two children.

In March, 1985, appellant's support payment for Ms. Kaas was modified to $40 per week. On July 31, 1987, appellant petitioned the court to vacate the support order. Exceptions were filed to a master's order recommending dismissal of the petition. On June 24, 1988, the trial court entered an order upholding the denial of the petition to vacate. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred "in refusing to vacate a support order requiring payment for a person over the age of 18 years, who has graduated from high school, has no learning disability and is attending business school[.]" Appellant's brief at 3. When reviewing child support cases, we will not disturb the trial court's order unless there is insufficient evidence to sustain it or the court abused its discretion in fashioning the award. Kopp v. Turley, 359 Pa. Super. 106, 109-110, 518 A.2d 588, 590 (1986), quoting Fee v. Fee, 344 Pa. Super. 276, 279, 496 A.2d 793, 795 (1985).

Our standard for evaluating support for an adult child who wishes to pursue post-high school ...


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.