Opinion
June 16, 1971.
September 21, 1971.
Husband and Wife — Parent and child — Support — Evidence — Order contemplating only prospective support expenses.
1. In this support case, in which it appeared that the tax returns filed by the parties indicated that the order of support for the wife and three children was not justified by defendant's earnings as shown thereon, but that there was much evidence to establish clearly that defendant had much more income that was usable by him and his family than that shown on the returns; it was Held that the evidence was sufficient to support the order of support, except the mandate that defendant pay back bills incurred by his wife in a specified sum.
2. An order for support contemplates only prospective support expenses; a support proceeding is not a substitute for assumpsit actions which might be brought by creditors to recover the cost of a wife's necessaries.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, and CERCONE, JJ. (HOFFMAN and SPAULDING, JJ., absent).
Appeal, No. 1447, Oct. T., 1970, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Nov. T., 1969, No. 841, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Beverly Goichman v. William Goichman. Order affirmed as amended.
Nonsupport. Before DITTER, JR., J.
Order entered for support of relatrix, wife, and three minor children. Defendant, husband, appealed.
Daniel B. Michie, Jr., with him Joseph H. Savitz, for appellant.
Martin J. Cunningham, Jr., with him William L. O'Hey, Jr., and Henderson, Wetherill, O'Hey O'Horsey, for appellee.
Argued June 16, 1971.
We have carefully reviewed the voluminous record in this nonsupport case, consisting of 675 pages of testimony and, in addition, 128 pages of exhibits, the latter being copies of income tax returns filed by the parties for the years 1960 to 1969, inclusive — all of which demonstrate that an exhaustive inquiry was made into the affairs of this affluent family in the lower court proceeding.
Although the aforesaid tax returns indicate that the order of $425 per week for the wife and three childred is not justified by appellant's earnings as shown thereon, there is much evidence in this case to establish clearly that the appellant had much more income that was usable by him and his family than that shown on the returns. Judge DITTER reviewed that matter thoroughly; and we deem it unnecessary to repeat the evidence on which he based his conclusions and order. The evidence is sufficient to support his order, which we will affirm, except the mandate that appellant pay back bills incurred by his wife in the sum of $1,897. Such orders contemplate only prospective support expenses and support proceedings are not a substitute for assumpsit actions which might be brought by creditors to recover the cost of a wife's necessaries. Commonwealth ex rel. Gutzeit v. Gutzeit, 200 Pa. Super. 401, 189 A.2d 324 (1963).
The order will be affirmed, as amended by striking therefrom the provision providing for the payment of past bills.
Order affirmed as so amended.