- 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