From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. ex Rel. Haertsch v. Haertsch

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 22, 1979
406 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979)

Summary

In Commonwealth ex rel. Haertsch v. Haertsch, 267 Pa. Super. 283, 406 A.2d 805 (1979), we held that the lower court had abused its discretion in entering an order increasing a support order, based solely upon the court's brief discussion with appellant and counsel.

Summary of this case from Com. ex Rel. Stone v. Stone

Opinion

Argued March 21, 1979.

Decided June 22, 1979.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Criminal Division at No. 936-77, Davenport, J.

Emory W. Buck, Lansdale, for appellant.

John G. Younglove, Willow Grove, submitted a brief on behalf of appellee Raymond T. Haertsch.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.


The instant appeal is from the lower court's order increasing a previously entered support order of $40.00 per week to $55.00 per week payable by the natural mother of the three minor children involved. The original support order was modified by order of the lower court based solely on the petition of the natural father and the judge's brief discussion with appellant and counsel. No testimony under oath or exhibits were introduced to prove a change in circumstances existed upon which the modification order could be based.

The law is clear that a support order may only be modified when the evidence produced at a hearing shows a change in circumstances that would justify the modification. Commonwealth ex rel. Eppolito v. Eppolito, 245 Pa. Super. 93, 369 A.2d 309 (1976). The burden is on the party seeking modification to present such evidence on the change of circumstances. Bell v. Bell, 228 Pa. Super. 280, 323 A.2d 267 (1974). An appellate court will not overturn a support order entered by the lower court absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth ex rel. Schmitz v. Schmitz, 237 Pa. Super. 519, 352 A.2d 103 (1975). However, we find the lower court's order in this case, absent a full hearing on the merits, is contrary to the law and manifests an abuse of discretion by the lower court. Commonwealth ex rel. Kaplan v. Kaplan, 219 Pa. Super. 163, 280 A.2d 456 (1971).

The order of the lower court is vacated and the case is remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the merits.


Summaries of

Com. ex Rel. Haertsch v. Haertsch

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 22, 1979
406 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979)

In Commonwealth ex rel. Haertsch v. Haertsch, 267 Pa. Super. 283, 406 A.2d 805 (1979), we held that the lower court had abused its discretion in entering an order increasing a support order, based solely upon the court's brief discussion with appellant and counsel.

Summary of this case from Com. ex Rel. Stone v. Stone

In Haertsch, as in the case at bar, no testimony under oath was taken or any exhibits were introduced, to prove a change in circumstances.

Summary of this case from Com. ex Rel. Stone v. Stone
Case details for

Com. ex Rel. Haertsch v. Haertsch

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH ex rel. Raymond T. HAERTSCH v. Bernadette T. HAERTSCH…

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 22, 1979

Citations

406 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979)
406 A.2d 805

Citing Cases

Com. ex Rel. Stone v. Stone

On the basis of the attorneys' presentation, the court made findings and entered an order pursuant to those…

Leasure v. Leasure

Further, the party seeking to modify a support order bears the burden of demonstrating such a change of…