Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Orders Custodial Parent to Pay Child Support
In a case of first impression in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the state, granted allocatur to consider whether a trial court may order a parent with primary custody of a child to pay child support to the non-custodial parent. Finding that in certain circumstances they may do so, the court has now ordered a custodial father to pay child support to the mother of his children, despite the fact they he has custody of them 73% of the time. In Colonna v. Colonna, No. 36 WAP 2002, decided (Pa. Super. April 29, 2004), the court said, “The temptation for the well-off parent to buy the affection of the children, and the tendency of the children to favor the parent who provides them with a more attractive lifestyle are factors that do not serve the best interests of the children.”
The Case
The Colonna case involved a situation in which the parties had shared custody of the children on a more or less equal basis. During that time, the father had paid child support in the amount of $73,584 per year, plus mortgage, insurance and car insurance. The order was ultimately reduced to $3132 per month. In 1998, the father was awarded primary custody of the children, and the mother was awarded partial custody of one or more of the children on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the school year. The parties alternated holidays and weekends throughout the year, and each parent had 2 weeks with the children for summer vacation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.