Title: Kripp v. Kripp (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 135MAP2002
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: May 28, 2004

[J-42-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ROBIN KRIPP, Appellee v. ANTHONY KRIPP, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 135 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated September 14, 2001, at No. 3431 EDA 2000, reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County dated October 23, 2000, at No. 96- 06247 784 A.2d 158 (Pa. Super. 2001) ARGUED: April 9, 2003 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO Decided: May 27, 2004 I agree with the majority that the trial court properly admitted parol evidence in the instant case to clarify the meaning of the term “cohabitate” in the parties’ property settlement agreement. I write separately solely to state that as a former trial judge, I am troubled that Appellee did not appear before the trial court during either of the scheduled hearings concerning her contempt petition and thus, did not even attempt to offer her own testimony regarding the parties’ intended meaning of the term cohabitate. Indeed, had Appellee offered her own testimony concerning the term, the trial court may have credited that testimony and rejected Appellant’s contrary testimony as incredible. Instead, Appellee simply did not appear in court, making it particularly difficult to now accept her argument that the trial court should have construed the term differently.