Jane Gilbert - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
                                     Background                                       
               The parties submitted the instant case fully stipulated,               
          without trial, pursuant to Rule 122.  The parties’ stipulations             
          of facts are hereby incorporated by this reference and are found            
          as facts in the instant case.3                                              
               Petitioners were residents of Pennsylvania when they                   
          petitioned this Court.  On April 25, 1977, petitioners were                 
          married in Buchanan, Georgia.  Three children were born of                  
          petitioners’ marriage:  Charles R. Hawley (born September 7,                
          1978), Katherine G. Hawley (born July 9, 1980), and Margaret G.             
          Hawley (born August 25, 1983).                                              
               On September 22, 1990, petitioners separated and thereafter            
          were not members of the same household.  On October 23, 1990, Ms.           
          Gilbert sued Mr. Hawley for divorce.  On October 25, 1990, Mr.              
          Hawley answered and counterclaimed against Ms. Gilbert for                  
          divorce.  At the time petitioners initiated the divorce                     
          proceedings, they were residents of Schuylkill County,                      
          Pennsylvania.                                                               
               On February 4, 1992, the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill           
          County entered an agreement and order of support (hereinafter the           
          February 4, 1992, separation instrument), which stated:                     


               3Respondent objects on grounds of relevance to stipulations            
          12, 13, and 23.  Both Ms. Gilbert and respondent object on                  
          grounds of relevance to stipulation 25.  This Court finds these             
          objections to be moot because this Court does not rely upon those           
          stipulations in reaching our decision.                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011