Court Opinion

ID: 9695843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:19.258827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:16.979115
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that “it is our duty to make a plenary review,” in the course of which we must consider the evidence de novo. Majority opinion at 1316. To the contrary, where, as here, the case turns on credibility, we must give “the fullest con*278sideration” to the master’s findings. This means that if in a given case, we conclude to reject those findings, we should explain in detail the basis of our rejection. See my dissenting opinion in Coxe v. Coxe, 246 Pa.Super. 281, 369 A.2d 1297 (1976). Here the majority has given no reason for rejecting the master’s findings, and I find none. Accepting the master’s findings. I agree with Judge HOFFMAN that as a matter of law they make out a case of indignities.
I would reverse.