Court Opinion

ID: 9644198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:49:54.317256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:09.660973
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent because I believe this case is controlled by Goodwin v. Goodwin, 413 Pa. 551, 198 A.2d 503 (1964). In that case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that one who is in flagrant defiance of a court order is not entitled to have his petitions for relief considered by the court.
A support order of $50.00 per week for the wife alone was entered in this case on December 16, 1966. By the end of 1967, appellant had accumulated arrearages totalling $230.00. Appellant then proceeded to allow arrearages to accumulate every year leading up to the date of the order in this case. However, not until July 1, 1975, did appellant deem it appropriate to file petitions to reduce the support *418order and to remit arrearages. By that date, the arrearages totalled $6,463.00.
In Commonwealth ex rel. Rickert v. Rickert, 223 Pa.Super. 1, 296 A.2d 841 (1972), this court held that one who substantially complies with a court order is not in flagrant defiance of it. In that case, the petitioner had punctually made over 3100 weekly payments totalling approximately $37,000.00. At the time he filed his petitions, he had accumulated arrearages of $126.60. Clearly, the actions of the petitioner in this case cannot be compared with the commendable diligence demonstrated by the petitioner in Rickert, supra.
In this case, the lower court found that appellant had blatantly ignored the existing support order. I would affirm the order of the lower court.
WATKINS, President Judge, and VAN der VOORT, J., join in this opinion.