Ortenzio v. Ortenzio

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ortenzio v. Ortenzio

882 A.2d 1001

DecidedAugust 25, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 882 A.2d 1001 (Ortenzio v. Ortenzio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ortenzio v. Ortenzio, 882 A.2d 1001 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Oral argument, however, will be limited to two issues, rephrased as follows:

1) What is the proper role of contract interpretation when construing a post-nuptial agreement and what rules of contract interpretation should apply in the family law setting.

2) Whether the Superior Court erred in its determination that Section 8105(b) of the Divorce Code requires not only proof of changed financial circumstances but in addition the change must be so material that it creates an inability on the part of the obligor to pay the contractual obligation of support which is a standard which has not previously addressed by the Supreme Court.

Justices SAYLOR and EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Oral argument, however, will be limited to two issues, rephrased as follows:

1) What is the proper role of contract interpretation when construing a post-nuptial agreement and what rules of contract interpretation should apply in the family law setting.

2) Whether the Superior Court erred in its determination that Section 8105(b) of the Divorce Code requires not only proof of changed financial circumstances but in addition the change must be so material that it creates an inability on the part of the obligor to pay the contractual obligation of support which is a standard which has not previously addressed by the Supreme Court.

Justices SAYLOR and EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 A.2d 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortenzio-v-ortenzio-pa-2005.