HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-5717
CYNTHIA A. KOEGEL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
V. :
:
KEITH S. KOEGEL, :
DEFENDANT : 00-5717 CIVIL TERM
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Masland, J., February 8, 2012:--
Before the court is Husband’s petition to terminate and reimburse alimony
because of the subsequent cohabitation of recipient spouse. Following argument
on December 9, 2011, the parties were afforded an opportunity to submit brief
memoranda to the court. Upon consideration of the petition, answer, arguments
and memoranda, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for the reasons
briefly set forth hereafter.
First of all, we disagree with Husband’s interpretation of Paragraph 17 of
the Agreement entered into before the Cumberland County Divorce Master. The
language requiring the parties to promptly notify the Domestic Relations Office,
refers to the termination of spousal support. With respect to the payment of
alimony, there is nothing in the Agreement that places an affirmative duty on Wife
to notify Husband in the event of subsequent cohabitation.
Secondly, we find the opinion of the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley in Long v.
Long, 94-2035 Civil Term, to be not only persuasive, but also controlling wherein
he stated that “… it is not for the person awarded alimony to make the legal
determination that she is cohabiting,” nor is there any statute “requiring a person
receiving alimony to give any type of notice to the payor.”
00-5717 CIVIL TERM
Thirdly, even if Wife had a duty to inform Husband of her cohabitation
(which in all likelihood did occur prior to the date alimony was terminated),
petitioner failed to promptly appeal from the order of court entered by the
Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. on February 15, 2011. As noted in Wife’s
response to the petition, Husband was aware on February 7, 2011, at the latest,
that Wife had changed her address and could have filed a timely appeal
requesting a hearing within twenty days of Judge Oler’s order. Having failed to
do so, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal despite the apparent equities
that argue for at least partial reimbursement of alimony. In sum, we find no
grounds to grant Husband the requested relief. Accordingly we enter the
following order:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of February, 2012, Defendant’s petition to
terminate and reimburse alimony because of cohabitation of recipient spouse is
DISMISSED.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Kara W. Haggerty, Esquire
For Defendant
:saa
-2-
CYNTHIA A. KOEGEL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
V. :
:
KEITH S. KOEGEL, :
DEFENDANT : 00-5717 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of February, 2012, Defendant’s petition to
terminate and reimburse alimony because of cohabitation of recipient spouse is
DISMISSED.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Melissa Peel Greevy, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Kara W. Haggerty, Esquire
For Defendant
:saa