Court Opinion

ID: 9534621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:41:27.037519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:02.335075
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I dissent.
The law governing the validity and interpretation of the Property Settlement and Stipulation Agreement is that of Virginia, but the law controlling the procedure and the remedies is that of the forum, i.e., Pennsylvania. It is my belief that the Property Settlement Agreement was merged in, and according to the clear language of the Virginia Court decree, became and was “made part of [the divorce] decree.” Higgins v. McFarland, 196 Va. 889, 86 S.E. 2d 168, 172 (1955).
*504Plaintiff may bring an action in Pennsylvania in assumpsit for tlie arrears owed by defendant under the Property Agreement, but Equity does not have jurisdiction to decree specific performance nor at this time to make any Order or decision with respect to future payments called for by the Agreement.
Plaintiff has an adequate remedy under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act* for the support provided for in the Virginia decree, and' also an adequate remedy in assumpsit.
Mr. Justice Mtjsmanno joins in this dissenting opinion.

 Act of May 10, 1951, P. L. 279, as amended and supplemented, 62 P.S. §2043.1 et seq.