Pennsylvania Superior Court Examines Spousal Support and Alimony Pendente Lite

If one spouse requires financial help during their divorce, the court can award them spousal support or alimony pendente lite (APL). These types of support have their similarities, but they also have differences. In this article, we’ll consider a case in which these types of support played a central role. The case examines how these two types of relief relate to one another and whether one can receive support during their divorce proceedings.

Background of the case

In this case, the couple got married in 1980 and parted ways in 1987. They did not have children. During the divorce proceedings, the former wife requested financial assistance from her spouse while the divorce proceedings were ongoing.

During the divorce process, the trial court ordered the husband to pay his former wife spousal support. In the course of the divorce litigation, the husband filed a petition to terminate the spousal support payments due to procedural changes in the case. The court dismissed the husband’s petition, and the husband appealed the ruling.

The appeal

On appeal, the court was tasked with considering the legal relationship between spousal support and alimony pendente lite. Specifically, the husband contended that, since there was ongoing divorce litigation, the spousal support agreement no longer had any legal relevance.

First, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania analyzed the purpose of each type of payment. It found that spousal support comes from the marriage and aims to assist the financially dependent spouse in meeting their daily needs.

By contrast, APL serves to ensure that both parties can engage in ongoing litigation ensuring there are no economic disadvantages to one party. APL is meant to provide equality during the divorce.

Thus, the appellate court found that the two forms of assistance have entirely separate legal definitions despite having similar characteristics. Finally, the superior court ruled that the trial court made a mistake by refusing to end the husband’s spousal support obligations. Thus, the Superior Court overturned the decision of the trial court and voided the alimony arrangement. 

Key takeaways 

This case serves as a good example of several important aspects of family law in Pennsylvania. Firstly, despite some similarity between temporary and ongoing spousal support, they are two different types of remedies. Spousal support is a type of remedy that emerges directly from marriage. APL emerges from the divorce proceedings, providing equality between the two parties as they litigate their case. For those going through divorce proceedings, this case proves that the type of remedy greatly depends on the phase of the litigation. 

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Divorce Lawyer Today 

The Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane represents the interests of Philadelphia spouses who are looking to untie the knot. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin preparing your case right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/1992/417-pa-super-520-2.html