Oressey v. Oressey

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Oressey v. Oressey

419 A.2d 1362, 278 Pa. Super. 71, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2741

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 20, 1980

DocketNos. 887 and 1423

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 419 A.2d 1362 (Oressey v. Oressey) 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

Oressey v. Oressey, 419 A.2d 1362, 278 Pa. Super. 71, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2741 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

CIRILLO, Judge:

This is a support proceeding involving appeals from two orders of the Court below. On April 9, 1979, the Court [73]*73below filed a certification and order finding that the appellant was under a duty of support to his wife and minor children. The order was made ex parte without notice to the appellant and with no opportunity to be heard. The order was appealed to this Court by the appellant. Thereafter, the Court below held a hearing to which the appellant objected. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court entered an order of support for the two minor children, and that order was appealed to this Court.

The first order must be vacated for failure to follow procedural due process. The second order must be vacated because the Court below was without power or authority to proceed after the first order was appealed to this Court. The second order was, therefore, improper and a nullity: Driscoll v. Plymouth Twp., 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 404, 320 A.2d 444 (1974).

The orders of the court below are hereby vacated.

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

CIRILLO, Judge:

This is a support proceeding involving appeals from two orders of the Court below. On April 9, 1979, the Court [73]*73below filed a certification and order finding that the appellant was under a duty of support to his wife and minor children. The order was made ex parte without notice to the appellant and with no opportunity to be heard. The order was appealed to this Court by the appellant. Thereafter, the Court below held a hearing to which the appellant objected. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court entered an order of support for the two minor children, and that order was appealed to this Court.

The first order must be vacated for failure to follow procedural due process. The second order must be vacated because the Court below was without power or authority to proceed after the first order was appealed to this Court. The second order was, therefore, improper and a nullity: Driscoll v. Plymouth Twp., 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 404, 320 A.2d 444 (1974).

The orders of the court below are hereby vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 A.2d 1362, 278 Pa. Super. 71, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oressey-v-oressey-pasuperct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack