Frame v. Frame

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Frame v. Frame

974 A.2d 1160

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 23, 2009·No. 829 MAL 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of June 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the order of the trial court is REINSTATED. See Humphreys v. DeRoss, 567 Pa. 614, 790 A.2d 281 (2002) (Section 4302 of the Domestic Relations Code does not include “gifts” in definition of income; a party’s assets may, however, be relevant in determination of an upward deviation from the Support Guidelines); accord, Jacobs v. Jacobs, 884 A.2d 301 (Pa.Super.2005); Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of June 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the order of the trial court is REINSTATED. See Humphreys v. DeRoss, 567 Pa. 614, 790 A.2d 281 (2002) (Section 4302 of the Domestic Relations Code does not include “gifts” in definition of income; a party’s assets may, however, be relevant in determination of an upward deviation from the Support Guidelines); accord, Jacobs v. Jacobs, 884 A.2d 301 (Pa.Super.2005); Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5.

Frame v. Frame, 974 A.2d 1160 (Pa. 2009).

Pincite

974 A.2d 1160 (Frame v. Frame) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related