Richardson v. Richardson

Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas

Richardson v. Richardson

75 Pa. D. & C.2d 484, 1974 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 25

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County

DecidedOctober 10, 1974

Docketno. 235

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Pa. D. & C.2d 484 (Richardson v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. Richardson, 75 Pa. D. & C.2d 484, 1974 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 25 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

ZIEGLER, P.J.,

The testimony before the master in this uncontested divorce proceeding consisted only of testimony by plaintiff verifying a transcript of questions and answers propounded to her by her attorney on an earlier date. We do not believe that such practice conforms with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure nor with our local rules. Pa.R.C.P. 1133(a)(1) provides that “the court shall hear the testimony or . . . may . . . appoint a master to hear the testimony.”¹ Our local rule 1133 expressly states or implies throughout the rule that the testimony shall be taken before the master. Furthermore, the master was expressly commissioned “to examine each of the . . . witnesses” of the parties. The objective of an appointment of a master is a recommendation to the court. A condition prece[485]*485dent to a recommendation is lack of collusion. Such determination requires opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. Therefore, the master should have heard all of the testimony.

ORDER

Now, October 10, 1974, the report of master is remanded so that the master will have opportunity (1) to proceed in accordance with foregoing opinion and (2) to supply several omissions which will be apparent upon review of the record.

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

ZIEGLER, P.J.,

The testimony before the master in this uncontested divorce proceeding consisted only of testimony by plaintiff verifying a transcript of questions and answers propounded to her by her attorney on an earlier date. We do not believe that such practice conforms with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure nor with our local rules. Pa.R.C.P. 1133(a)(1) provides that “the court shall hear the testimony or . . . may . . . appoint a master to hear the testimony.”¹ Our local rule 1133 expressly states or implies throughout the rule that the testimony shall be taken before the master. Furthermore, the master was expressly commissioned “to examine each of the . . . witnesses” of the parties. The objective of an appointment of a master is a recommendation to the court. A condition prece[485]*485dent to a recommendation is lack of collusion. Such determination requires opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. Therefore, the master should have heard all of the testimony.

ORDER

Now, October 10, 1974, the report of master is remanded so that the master will have opportunity (1) to proceed in accordance with foregoing opinion and (2) to supply several omissions which will be apparent upon review of the record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Pa. D. & C.2d 484, 1974 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-richardson-pactcomplmiffli-1974.