From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth ex rel. Szafran v. Szafran

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 22, 1975
344 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)

Opinion

March 20, 1975.

September 22, 1975.

Before WATKINS, P.J., JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, and SPAETH, JJ.

Appeal, No. 12, Oct. T., 1975, from order of Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, of Philadelphia, No. 03739 of 1973, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Frances Szafran v. Joseph Szafran. Order affirmed.

Nonsupport. Before DWYER, JR., J.

Order entered dismissing petition by defendant, husband, to reduce amount of order for support. Defendant appealed.

Henry N. Fineman, for appellant.

Neil H. Stein, with him Robert Guzzardi, and Kremer, Krimsky Luterman, for appellee.


HOFFMAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which CERCONE and SPAETH, JJ., joined.

VAN der VOORT, J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion.

Argued March 20, 1975.


Order affirmed.


I concur in the Court's decision to affirm the lower court's order.

One word of clarification is necessary. In its opinion, the lower court stated that "[f]rom [appellant's] gross earnings, there is deducted $1041.37 per year under a pension plan which has a cash surrender value. The Court considers this deduction part of his income in view of Di Santi v. Di Santi, 221 Superior Court 435." I believe that the court's reliance on Commonwealth ex rel. Di Santi v. Di Santi, 221 Pa. Super. 435, 293 A.2d 115 (1972), was unfounded. In Di Santi, we stated that a profit sharing plan was to be evaluated by the following criteria:

"(1) whether participation in the plan is relatively voluntary or involuntary;

"(2) whether, and to what extent contributions are modest under the circumstances; and

"(3) whether defendant already possesses substantial assets in addition to the developing value of his interest in the pension fund." 221 Pa. Super. at 437, 293 A.2d at 116.

Appellee-wife does not contest that appellant's contribution to his pension plan was mandatory. Twenty dollars a week is clearly a modest contribution. Finally, appellant is in debt and has few assets "in addition to the developing value of his interest in the pension fund." Under all the circumstances, however, I believe that the order of support was reasonable.

CERCONE and SPAETH, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.


While I concur in the disposition of this case by an Order Per Curiam, I would reduce the Order of the Court of Common Pleas for support to $60.00 per week, basing this upon my consideration of the necessary entitlements of each party.


Summaries of

Commonwealth ex rel. Szafran v. Szafran

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 22, 1975
344 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
Case details for

Commonwealth ex rel. Szafran v. Szafran

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth ex rel. Szafran v. Szafran, Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 22, 1975

Citations

344 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
344 A.2d 612