Lasco v. Lasco

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Lasco v. Lasco

457 A.2d 569, 311 Pa. Super. 210, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2707

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 11, 1983

Docket1818

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 457 A.2d 569 (Lasco v. Lasco) 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

Lasco v. Lasco, 457 A.2d 569, 311 Pa. Super. 210, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2707 (Pa. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a lower court order dismissing appellant’s divorce action, holding him in contempt of court for failing to pay accrued alimony pendente lite and counsel fees, and awarding further counsel fees to appellee. We are unable to address appellant’s several allegations of error, however, because the lower court has failed to set forth its findings below. Accordingly, we must remand.

Although divorce matters heard by a judge sitting without a jury are subject to a complete and independent review by this Court, Ryave v. Ryave, 249 Pa.Superior Ct. 78, 85, 375 A.2d 766, 770 (1977), “great weight must be accorded findings of the master or lower court judge who personally observed the parties.” Howard v. Howard, 260 Pa.Superior Ct. 257, 259, 393 A.2d 1251, 1252 (1978). Despite hearing the testimony and observing the demeanor of all the witnesses, the lower court did not place on the record the findings of fact and credibility supporting its decision. Moreover, the lower court refused argument upon appellant’s 52 exceptions and, instead, dismissed them without discussion. Absent those findings or an opinion on the merits of appellant’s exceptions, we cannot make a meaningful review of the lower court’s decision. Accordingly, we must remand this matter for the lower court to issue *212 findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing appellant’s exceptions. Jurisdiction is retained.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a lower court order dismissing appellant’s divorce action, holding him in contempt of court for failing to pay accrued alimony pendente lite and counsel fees, and awarding further counsel fees to appellee. We are unable to address appellant’s several allegations of error, however, because the lower court has failed to set forth its findings below. Accordingly, we must remand.

Although divorce matters heard by a judge sitting without a jury are subject to a complete and independent review by this Court, Ryave v. Ryave, 249 Pa.Superior Ct. 78, 85, 375 A.2d 766, 770 (1977), “great weight must be accorded findings of the master or lower court judge who personally observed the parties.” Howard v. Howard, 260 Pa.Superior Ct. 257, 259, 393 A.2d 1251, 1252 (1978). Despite hearing the testimony and observing the demeanor of all the witnesses, the lower court did not place on the record the findings of fact and credibility supporting its decision. Moreover, the lower court refused argument upon appellant’s 52 exceptions and, instead, dismissed them without discussion. Absent those findings or an opinion on the merits of appellant’s exceptions, we cannot make a meaningful review of the lower court’s decision. Accordingly, we must remand this matter for the lower court to issue *212 findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing appellant’s exceptions. Jurisdiction is retained.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 A.2d 569, 311 Pa. Super. 210, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lasco-v-lasco-pasuperct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack