21 A.2d 236 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1941
Argued May 5, 1941. This is an appeal by George E. Crandall from an order of the court below dismissing his petition to vacate a support order which directed that he pay his wife Helen Catherine Crandall $12.50 per week.
The original order was made on July 15, 1940. No appeal was taken from that order. On October 2, 1940, appellant filed his petition to vacate the support order, setting forth, as to change in circumstances occurring since the entry of the order, that he no longer had a net income from Dr. Crandall's Health School, a corporation. After hearing, the petition was dismissed. This appeal followed.
Orders in nonsupport cases are not regarded as final, in as much as they may be increased, reduced, or vacated where the financial condition of the parties changes, or where other proper reasons are shown. Com. ex rel. Barnes v. Barnes,
The record of the second hearing does not disclose any valid basis for a revocation of the original order. According to appellant's testimony he is a physician (see Commonwealth v.Crandall,
The testimony in relation to the disbursements of the corporation since the original order failed to show with certainty what expenses of appellant were treated as personal, and debited against his salary, and what expenses were corporate. It paid, however, as corporate expenses, his lodge dues, room and board, payments on the original order of support heretofore made to his wife, and his attorney's fees.
In considering the sufficient ability of the husband to pay, not only the actual amount shown to have been received, but also the attendant circumstances, must be considered. Com. ex rel.Liuzzi v. Liuzzi,
As in the present case, the fiction of a corporation will not be permitted to hide the individual behind it, and prejudice the rights of an innocent party. See Kulka v. Nemirovsky et al.,
Complaint is also made by appellant that his wife refuses to live at the institution with him where he can secure maintenance for her. He took no appeal from the original order, and it must therefore be assumed that the wife was entitled to support, and that it was the duty of appellant to provide it. Com. v.Gensemer, supra, p. 457; Com. ex rel. Isaacs v. Isaacs,
In a case of this nature we do not interfere with the determination of the court below unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Com. ex rel. v. Betts,
The order is affirmed.