- 13 - sec. 4321 (West 2001);12 see Oeler v. Oeler, 594 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa. 1991). In construing an unallocated support agreement, a Pennsylvania court must promote the best interests of the parties' children, Oeler v. Oeler, supra, and assure their uninterrupted maintenance, Ritter v. Ritter, 518 A.2d 319, 322- 323 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). For the tax years in issue, the treatment of an unallocated support instrument is ambiguous under Pennsylvania law. If the instrument addressed only alimony, Mr. Hawley’s duty to make payments would terminate on Ms. Gilbert’s death. See 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. sec. 3707. However, the unallocated separation agreement also covers child support, and Pennsylvania law is ambiguous on that issue.13 See Garney v. Estate of Hain, supra (an equivalent to 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. sec. 3707 does not exist for child support); see also Oeler v. Oeler, supra (courts must promote the best interests of children); Ritter v. Ritter, supra (court must ensure the uninterrupted 12SEC. 4321. Liability for support. Subject to the provisions of this chapter: * * * * * * * (2) Parents are liable for the support of their children who are unemancipated and 18 years of age or younger. 13Pennsylvania law treats alimony support orders and child support orders differently. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16(b), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. (West 2002), provides that child support orders are considered to be final and immediately appealable, whereas support orders are considered to be interlocutory. Mosier v. Mosier, 518 A.2d 843, 847 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011