Court Opinion

ID: 9544029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:51:30.181797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:48.872245
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
For reasons appearing in my concurring opinion in Toll v. Toll, 293 Pa.Superior Ct. 549, 439 A.2d 712 (1981), I would hold that the order appealed from in the instant case is interlocutory. Therefore, I would quash the appeal.
If I were to reach the merits of the appeal, I would join that portion of Judge Shertz’s opinion which concludes that an application to allow a pending divorce action to proceed under the newly enacted Divorce Code of 1980 was intended by the legislature to be granted or refused according to the exercise of a sound discretion by the trial court. I would also find, as does Judge Shertz, that the trial court in this case' was not guilty of an abuse of discretion.