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.

TANYA BARONTI v. RONALD BARONTI (01/24/89)

filed: January 24, 1989.

TANYA BARONTI, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD BARONTI, APPELLEE. TANYA BARONTI, APPELLEE, V. RONALD BARONTI, APPELLANT



Appeal From Order September 23, 1987, Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, Allegheny County, No. FD 81-16594. Appeal From Order February 19, 1988, Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, Allegheny County, No. 81-16594.

COUNSEL

Elaine V. Preston, Pittsburgh, for Ronald Baronti.

Jay A. Blechman, Pittsburgh, for Tanya Baronti.

Cavanaugh, Tamilia and Hoffman, JJ.

Author: Cavanaugh

[ 381 Pa. Super. Page 135]

This matter is before us on consolidated appeals from orders of the lower court regarding a complaint for support

[ 381 Pa. Super. Page 136]

    filed by Tanya Baronti against her father Ronald Baronti for educational expenses. After the filing of the complaint, father filed preliminary objections challenging the personal jurisdiction of the court. The lower court issued an order on September 23, 1987 granting the preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint. Upon reconsideration, sua sponte, the lower court on February 19, 1988, reinstated the complaint and dismissed the preliminary objections. Finally, the lower court issued an order on March 14, 1988 in which it cancelled a hearing set for March 2, 1988 since it appeared that it was without jurisdiction to enter the February 19th order.

Tanya Baronti, daughter, took a timely appeal from the order of September 23rd. Ronald Baronti, father, took a timely appeal from the order of February 19th. Since both appeals center on a single issue, i.e., whether the lower court has personal jurisdiction over father, the appeals were consolidated. Therefore, the issue is properly before us for resolution.*fn1

The challenge to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over father is based upon the necessity of a defendant's maintenance of minimum contacts with a forum state before a court of that state may subject that defendant to its jurisdiction.*fn2 The requirement of minimum contacts is mandated as a matter of due process, as set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). The federal constitutional requirements are incorporated into the law of Pennsylvania at 42 Pa.C.S.A. ยง 5322(b). The federal standard regarding minimum contacts is one of reasonableness. There

[ 381 Pa. Super. Page 137]

    must be a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum state as to make it fair to require defense of the action in the forum; an essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant's activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him to conduct his defense in the forum state. Kulko, supra, at 91-92, 98 S.Ct. at 1696-1697, citing International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, at 316-317, 66 S.Ct. 154, at 158-159, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

We are required to examine all of father's contacts with Pennsylvania as forum state in order to determine the reasonableness of ...


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.