Case ID: pa-d-c4th_13/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FIKE, P.J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Caola v. Caola
    
      Wilbert Beachy III, for plaintiff.
    
      Norman A. Krumenacker III, for defendant.
    March 20, 1991
   FIKE, P.J.,

We have before us plaintiff’s motion for entry of an alleged uncontested divorce decree under Divorce Code §201(d)(l)(i). Plaintiff contends that he is now entitled to a divorce because of a failure by defendant to file a timely counter-affidavit.

At the time plaintiff presented his motion to the court, defense counsel appeared and objected. Defendant argues that a divorce decree under section 201(d)(l)(i) cannot be granted, when, although not timely filed, a counter-affidavit has been presented prior to the presentation of a praecipe to transmit record and entry of divorce decree.

We agree with defendant for the same reasons we asserted when permitting late filing of a counter-affidavit in Sieling v. Sieling, 49 Somerset Leg. J. 372. Consequently, we deny plaintiff’s motion for entry of uncontested divorce decree. Defendant’s counter-affidavit places the case at issue. The divorce is now contested for which appointment of a divorce master is required.

ORDER

Now, March 20, 1991, it is ordered that plaintiff’s motion for entry of divorce decree under section 201(d)(l)(i) of the Divorce Code is denied.