- 14 -
maintenance of children). Furthermore, State courts maintain
continuing jurisdiction over separation instruments, and
petitions are required for modification of such instruments. 23
Pa. Cons. Stat. sec. 4352; see Barnes v. Barnes, 597 A.2d 89 (Pa.
1991).
For the years in issue, Pennsylvania State law does not
provide an explicit termination condition on separation
instruments. Nor do we find such a condition in the language of
the February 4, 1992, separation instrument itself.
In pertinent part, the February 4, 1992, separation
instrument orders: “An automatic wage attachment shall be issued
without notice on Defendant upon default of an amount equal to
one month’s support obligation or at such other time as the Court
may designate.” Mr. Hawley is designated the defendant in the
February 4, 1992, separation instrument. The unallocated support
payments do not necessarily cease upon the death of Ms. Gilbert
because the Pennsylvania court may attach Mr. Hawley’s wages for
failure to pay an unallocated support obligation, or attach Mr.
Hawley’s wages “at such other time as the Court may designate.”
As a result of such an attachment, Mr. Hawley’s liability under
the February 4, 1992, separation instrument may extend beyond Ms.
Gilbert’s death.
In Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-273, we examined
a provision of an unallocated support order arising from a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011