Jackson v. Moultrie

431 A.2d 1033, 288 Pa. Super. 252, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2855
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 19, 1981
Docket260
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 431 A.2d 1033 (Jackson v. Moultrie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson v. Moultrie, 431 A.2d 1033, 288 Pa. Super. 252, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2855 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

WICKERSHAM, Judge:

This appeal is from the order of the lower court finding appellant, Nathaniel Moultrie, to be the father of appellee’s child, Steve, born June 3, 1976. We reverse.

The facts of this case may be summarized as follows. Appellee filed a civil petition for support against Moultrie on August 17, 1977. Moultrie is totally disabled, and appellee averred in her petition that she only wished to establish her child’s eligibility for social security benefits as Moultrie’s offspring and that she was not seeking child support. Ap-pellee thereafter filed a criminal complaint against Moultrie charging him with neglect to support a child born out of lawful wedlock. 1 Trial on the criminal complaint was scheduled to commence on July 17, 1978, but prior to trial, Moultrie applied for an order under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 to dismiss the charge for failure to bring him to trial within one hundred eighty days. The lower court granted Moul-trie’s application, and an order was entered on August 9, 1978 dismissing the charge. Thereafter, appellee reinstated her civil petition for support, and, following a hearing, the lower court entered the order dated December 29, 1978 finding Moultrie to be the father of appellee’s child.

*255 Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we note that appellee objects to the jurisdiction of our court. Appellee claims that the lower court’s order was not final and appealable because Moultrie was not directed to pay support. As a general rule, a finding of paternity without an order to pay support is interlocutory. Williams v. Williams, 253 Pa.Super. 444, 385 A.2d 422 (1978). In ascertaining what is a final appealable order, however, we must look beyond the technical effect of the adjudication to its practical ramifications. In the Interest of C. A. M., 264 Pa.Super. 300, 399 A.2d 786 (1979). A final order is generally one which terminates the litigation, disposes of the entire case, or effectively puts the litigant out of court. T.C.R. Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 372 A.2d 721 (1977). In the instant case, appellee did not seek support, and the order appealed from stipulated that “[b]y agreement of counsel, no support hearing is to be scheduled.” Since the lower court’s order finding paternity granted appellee all the relief she sought, we find that it disposed of the entire case and was final and appealable.

Appellant contends that the lower court’s order dismissing the criminal charge should have barred any further civil proceedings on the issue of paternity. Appellee, on the other hand, argues that the recent amendment to “The Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Support Law,” 2 [hereinafter C.P.S.L.], vests the civil division with jurisdiction. We conclude that the amendment has no application to the instant case.

On April 28, 1978, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania amended the C.P.S.L. by Act 1978-46 which took effect on June 27, 1978. The amended act abolishes criminal actions to determine paternity and provides that the issue of paternity is to be resolved in a civil proceeding brought within six years of the birth of the child. The amended act provides that it does not apply to prosecutions already commenced prior to the effective date of the new act. Section 3 of the new act states that:

*256 (a) Section 4323 of the Title 18, act of November 25, 1978 (P.L. 707, No. 230), known as the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is repealed, except that prosecutions already commenced under that section on the effective date of this act shall not be affected by this repeal. (Emphasis added)

Prior to the 1978 amendment to the C.P.S.L., the case law maintained that the civil court was without jurisdiction to proceed once a criminal action to determine paternity was commenced. See Commonwealth ex rel. Yentzer v. Carpenter, 240 Pa.Super. 202, 362 A.2d 1101 (1976). The case law also held that even where the criminal action was dismissed on procedural grounds, the civil court with without jurisdiction to thereafter determine paternity. Matthews v. Cuff, 254 Pa.Super. 65, 385 A.2d 526 (1978); Commonwealth ex rel. Czuryla v. Toscano, 264 Pa.Super. 216, 399 A.2d 744 (1979). Since the criminal action in the instant case was commenced prior to the effective date of the amendment to the C.P.S.L., we conclude that the prior case law is applicable and that the civil court was without jurisdiction to determine paternity.

The verdict is vacated and the cause of action dismissed.

1

. The offense is defined at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4323(a) as follows:

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree if he, being a parent, willfully neglects or refuses to contribute reasonably to the support and maintenance of a child born out of lawful wedlock, whether within or without this Commonwealth.
2

. Act of July 13, 1953, P.L. 431 § 5, 62 P.S. 2043.35 (1968), as amended 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6704, Official Note (1980 Pamphlet).

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

Related

Rwe v. Abk
961 A.2d 161 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Hornung v. Schauseil Insurance Associates, Inc.
619 A.2d 775 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Fink v. Delaware Valley HMO
612 A.2d 485 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Bash v. Bell Telephone Co.
601 A.2d 825 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Liberty Bank v. Ruder
587 A.2d 761 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Heltman v. Leone
10 Pa. D. & C.4th 285 (Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, 1991)
Chiricos v. Forest Lakes Council Boy Scouts of America
571 A.2d 474 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
French v. United Parcel Service
547 A.2d 411 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Roseman v. Hospital of University of Pennsylvania
547 A.2d 751 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Gabriel v. O'HARA
534 A.2d 488 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Barr v. General Accident Group Insurance Co. of North America
520 A.2d 485 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Newman v. Thorn
518 A.2d 1231 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Rossi v. Pennsylvania State University
489 A.2d 828 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
Urban v. Urban
481 A.2d 662 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Praisner v. Stocker
459 A.2d 1255 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
DeWald v. Pauline
458 A.2d 1016 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Rigidply Rafters, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
457 A.2d 1318 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Commonwealth ex rel. Allen v. Henderson
446 A.2d 612 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
431 A.2d 1033, 288 Pa. Super. 252, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-moultrie-pasuperct-1981.