Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0175 CivilRICHARD S. MINNELLI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHEILA A. MINNELLI, NO. 175 CIVIL 1993 Defendant/Respondent IN DIVORCE IN RE: PETITION FOR BIFURCATION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 1993, upon consideration of the Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition for Bifurcation, and following a hearing, the Petition is DENIED. By the Court, I /V,/ i" 0 J Wesley Ol r Jr., J. Jill A. McCracken, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff/Petitioner Sheila A. Minnelli Pro Se :slr I RICHARD S. MINNELLI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v• CIVIL ACTION - LAW SHEILA A. MINNELLI, NO. 175 CIVIL 1993 Defendant/Respondent IN DIVORCE IN RE: PETITION FOR BIFURCATION Oler, J. BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT For disposition in this divorce action is a Petition for Bifurcation filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner husband. After a hearing held on Wednesday, August 25, 1993, the following Findings of Fact, Discussion and Order of Court are made and entered: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Plaintiff and Petitioner is Richard S. Minnelli, an adult individual residing in Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendant and Respondent is Sheila A. Minnelli. 3. The parties were married in November of 1984. 4. The Petitioner testified that the parties separated in October or November of 1989, at which time the Defendant/ Respondent moved in with her mother in another state. 5. The Defendant has filed a counter -affidavit under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, checking a block therein indicating that she opposes the entry of a divorce decree, but failing to specify on which of the two following grounds she opposes the entry: that the parties to the action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years, or that the marriage is not irretrievably broken. 6. The Defendant's counter -affidavit also indicates that she wishes to claim economic relief "which may include alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses or other important rights." 7. Approximately one hour prior to the hearing on the Plaintiff's Petition for Bifurcation, the Court received, by priority mail, a request for a continuance of the hearing by the Defendant/Respondent, which motion was opposed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner and denied by the Court. 8. The Plaintiff/Petitioner testified that the parties had approximately $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 in marital property, but that basically this property has been divided between them; however, he indicated that the Defendant/Respondent is apparently requesting additional money from him. 9. One child was born of this marriage, and the Plaintiff/Petitioner has been paying support for the child in the amount of $50.00 per week pursuant to a Domestic Relations order in York County, Pennsylvania. 10. The Plaintiff/Petitioner testified that the parties have been separated for at least two years; he indicated that the Defendant/Respondent may be claiming that there was a reconciliation at some point. 11. In view of the Defendant's counter -affidavit indicating that she opposes the entry of a divorce decree, it appears to the Court that a hearing will be necessary on the issue of separation and irretrievable breakdown; for this reason, it appears further that a bifurcation would not appreciably speed the resolution of this divorce case and would result in the need to hold two hearings as opposed to one. DISCUSSION Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.52(c), in a divorce action "[t]he Court need not determine all claims at one time but may enter a decree adjudicating a specific claim or claims." See also Act of December 19, 1990, P.L. 1240 Section 2, 23 Pa. C.S. Section 3323(c). However, "bifurcation should not be made pro -forma." Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual Section 6.06, at 192 (1990). Rather, such a determination should be made only after the disadvantages and advantages have been carefully explored and analyzed. Each case must be reviewed on its own facts and only following the Court's determination that the consequences of bifurcating the case will be of greater benefit than not bifurcating, should it grant the petition. Wolk v. Wolk, 318 Pa. Super. 311, 317-18, 464 A.2d 1359, 1362 (1983.) For these reasons, the following Order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 1993, upon consideration of the Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition for Bifurcation, and following a hearing, the Petition is DENIED. By the Court, /s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Jill A. McCracken, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff/Petitioner Sheila A. Minnelli Pro Se :slr