- 5 -
Petitioner does not dispute that to the extent of $7,332
in 1994 and $3,666 in 1995, the amounts she received from Raymond
Lawton are alimony or separate maintenance payments. But the
balance of the payments are not alimony or support payments,
petitioner argues, because they are described in section
71(c)(1)--amounts fixed by the divorce instrument as payable for
the support of the minor child of Raymond Lawton. Petitioner
argues that the amount of the payment is fixed, not in the
instrument itself, but by operation of the support guidelines
contained in Pennsylvania court rules.
The text of the orders of the court of common pleas issued
in petitioner's divorce proceedings provides for the support of
"spouse and one child". Respondent argues that this language
fails to fix any of the amounts at issue as payable for the
support of the minor child of Raymond Lawton and petitioner. To
the extent that petitioner goes outside the language of the court
order of support to prove amounts for child support, respondent
argues that she is improperly relying on "evidence extrinsic to
the divorce or separation instrument".
We must decide, therefore, whether the support terms of the
court order under which petitioner received her payments fixed a
sum as payable for the support of the minor child of her former
spouse. If they did not fix such an amount, we must sustain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011