Court Opinion

ID: 9629490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:43:35.57996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:20.127702
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in Judge Tamilia’s cogent opinion in this case. I write separately with respect to the applicable standard of review, for clarification purposes only.
In Zummo v. Zummo, 394 Pa.Super. 30, 574 A.2d 1130 (1990) this author summarized the applicable standard of review as follows:
On appeal, our scope of review is broad in that we are not bound by deductions and inferences drawn by the trial court from the facts found, nor are we required to accept findings which are wholly without support in the record. *137On the other hand, our broad scope of review does not authorize us to nullify the fact-finding function of the trial court in order to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rather, we are bound by findings supported in the record, and may reject conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court. See Karis v. Karis, 518 Pa. 601, 608, 544 A.2d 1328, 1332 (1988); Lombardo v. Lombardo, 515 Pa. 139, 147-48, 527 A.2d 525, 529 (1987); Commonwealth ex rel. Robinson v. Robinson, 505 Pa. 226, 236-37, 478 A.2d 800, 805-06 (1984).
394 Pa.Super. at -, 574 A.2d at 1142.
I find nothing in the majority opinion contrary to that standard. However, as Karis, Lombardo, and Robinson had expressed narrower constructions of this Courts’ “broad” powers of review than this Court had previously followed, I find it appropriate to specifically note that we use the “broad review” characterization consistent with the limitations expressed in those cases.