Samuel J. Roberts

In this divorce case, a wife who had moved to Pennsylvania sought alimony pendente lite and other economic relief from her non-resident husband, who had been served by mail but did not appear or respond to the complaint. The trial court dismissed the economic claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over the husband. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the husband had not waived the jurisdictional defense by failing to raise it in preliminary objections because the trial court had properly allowed him to file a nunc pro tunc petition under local rules, with no showing of abuse of discretion or prejudice to the wife, and that his filing of exceptions solely to contest jurisdiction did not constitute consent to jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a divorced father's child support obligation for one of his sons could be met by drawing from a guardianship account funded by a personal injury settlement awarded to the child, rather than from the parents' own resources. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and held that such use of the child's funds is improper unless the court first determines that the parents are unable to meet the child's support needs from their own financial resources and earning ability. The court reasoned that parents bear a primary and nearly absolute duty to support their minor children according to their capacity, so a child's assets generally may not be used to relieve that obligation, and support calculations must consider actual cash flow and resources rather than merely reported taxable income. On remand, the trial court was directed to assess the parents' finances, allocate resources first to children without other income sources, and only then consider applying the guardianship income if a shortfall exists.

family lawprocedure

Patricia Gasper, as guardian for her incompetent father Walter Weir, brought an equity action to set aside two real estate transfers Weir made to his son-in-law Aventino Ciao, claiming Weir lacked competency at the time. The trial court denied relief, finding the transfers valid, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the confidential relationship issue was waived for failure to raise it in post-trial motions, that after-discovered evidence should have been considered but did not require reversal, and that the trial judge properly credited the attorney's lay testimony about Weir's lucid mental state during the transactions over conflicting expert opinion.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

This case involved Linda Yankoskie's petition under Pennsylvania's Protection From Abuse Act seeking a court order to protect her and her three young children from her former boyfriend, Samuel Lenker, who had allegedly assaulted them during visits to her apartment. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the Act did not apply because the parties no longer resided together. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Act covers the situation: the parties qualified as 'family or household members' both as parents and children and as persons living as spouses based on their ongoing relationship, shared children, and frequent contact; Lenker had engaged in abusive conduct; and he satisfied the residency requirement by having 'legal access' to the apartment through the petitioner's consent. The court emphasized the Act's broad remedial purpose to protect victims of domestic violence even when the abuser maintains a separate residence but visits with permission.

family law

This case involved a paternity dispute in which the alleged father sought a second blood sample extraction for additional testing after initial blood tests excluded him as the father of the child. The court decided that a party moving for a second blood extraction must first show by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing that the prior test results were inaccurate, and it reversed the trial court's order directing the mother to submit to another extraction without such a showing. The core reasoning was that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with due process requirements, apply to blood extractions for paternity testing, and neither the parties' stipulation nor the Uniform Act on Blood Tests authorized additional testing absent proof of inaccuracy in the first results.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Books v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., PPL appealed from summary judgment granted to additional defendants Mack Trucks and Hill Manufacturing in a case where plaintiff David Books was electrocuted while using a dump trailer near overhead power lines owned by PPL. PPL had asserted claims against the manufacturers for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties, alleging they failed to warn about the dangers of raising the trailer near power lines. The court vacated the summary judgment, reasoning that the record did not show plaintiff was aware of the risk of operating near the lines (as opposed to direct contact) or that electricity could arc, creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a broader warning would have caused him to act differently.

torts & liabilityprocedure