From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hanrahan v. Bakker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 3, 2017
168 A.3d 1291 (Pa. 2017)

Opinion

No. 899 MAL 2016.

05-03-2017

Michael HANRAHAN, Petitioner v. Jeanne BAKKER, Respondent


ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of May 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. Issues (a) and (b) as set forth below are to be ARGUED. Issue (c) will be SUBMITTED on the briefs. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(a) Whether the Superior Court erred on an issue of first impression and substantial public importance by affirming the trial court's misinterpretation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's high income support guideline, Pa.R.C.P. 1910-16.3.1 (the "Guideline")? The misinterpretation is that (a) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, through Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3.1 and Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192 (Pa. 1994), eliminated the statutory requirement of 23 Pa.C.S. § 4322(a) that high income child support awards be based on the reasonable needs of the children; and (b) reasonable needs is no longer the governing standard for, or even a relevant factor in, determining high income child support under the three-step process of Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-3.1(a) and the factors in Rule 1910.16-5(b)[.]
(b) In holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a downward deviation of approximately 4% of the $2.5 million Father placed in an irrevocable non-grantor trust for the two children, did the Superior Court err by ruling, as a matter of first impression and substantial public importance, that a voluntary contribution to a trust can never be a relevant factor in determining child support?
(c) Did the Superior Court depart from accepted judicial practice, thereby justifying the exercise of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's supervisory authority, when the Superior Court made a premature and incorrect holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mother an award of attorney[']s fees where the trial judge and the Superior Court decided issues for and against both parties, both courts acknowledged that Father had never stopped paying child support, and the Superior Court remanded for a redetermination of support?


Summaries of

Hanrahan v. Bakker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 3, 2017
168 A.3d 1291 (Pa. 2017)
Case details for

Hanrahan v. Bakker

Case Details

Full title:Michael HANRAHAN, Petitioner v. Jeanne BAKKER, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: May 3, 2017

Citations

168 A.3d 1291 (Pa. 2017)

Citing Cases

JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Palumbo

This Court affirmed the judgment entered in the trial court, and our Supreme Court denied Appellants'…