Wildasin v. Wildasin

Adams County Court of Common Pleas

Wildasin v. Wildasin

25 Pa. D. & C.2d 543, 1961 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 321

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County

DecidedAugust 5, 1961

Docketno. 124

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Pa. D. & C.2d 543 (Wildasin v. Wildasin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wildasin v. Wildasin, 25 Pa. D. & C.2d 543, 1961 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 321 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Sheely, P. J.,

The master has recommended that a divorce be granted in this case on the ground of indignities to the person and has held that plaintiff has not established desertion. We agree with his conclusions.

However, we note that the complaint filed in this action does not contain a notice to defendant to plead; [544]*544the complaint does not set forth the citizenship of defendant as required by Pa. R. C. P. 1126(3) (see Markel v. Markel, 6 Cumberland 129 (1956)), and that the master was prematurely appointed. Under Pa. R. C. P. 1133, a master may be appointed after the action is at issue, and under Pa. R. C. P. 1131, the action is at issue 20 days after the complaint has been served personally upon defendant. The complaint in this case was served on May 18, 1961, and the master was appointed on June 6,1961, less than 20 days thereafter.

It has been held that a valid decree in divorce must be based on a complaint which complies strictly with the rules of procedure and that every step in the proceeding must also comply strictly with such rules: Oyer v. Oyer, 4 D. & C. 2d 758 (1955). For these reasons, no decree can be entered at this time.

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

Sheely, P. J.,

The master has recommended that a divorce be granted in this case on the ground of indignities to the person and has held that plaintiff has not established desertion. We agree with his conclusions.

However, we note that the complaint filed in this action does not contain a notice to defendant to plead; [544]*544the complaint does not set forth the citizenship of defendant as required by Pa. R. C. P. 1126(3) (see Markel v. Markel, 6 Cumberland 129 (1956)), and that the master was prematurely appointed. Under Pa. R. C. P. 1133, a master may be appointed after the action is at issue, and under Pa. R. C. P. 1131, the action is at issue 20 days after the complaint has been served personally upon defendant. The complaint in this case was served on May 18, 1961, and the master was appointed on June 6,1961, less than 20 days thereafter.

It has been held that a valid decree in divorce must be based on a complaint which complies strictly with the rules of procedure and that every step in the proceeding must also comply strictly with such rules: Oyer v. Oyer, 4 D. & C. 2d 758 (1955). For these reasons, no decree can be entered at this time.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Pa. D. & C.2d 543, 1961 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildasin-v-wildasin-pactcompladams-1961.