434 A.2d 161 (Pa.Super. 1981), Aloi v. Aloi

Citation:434 A.2d 161, 290 Pa.Super. 125
Opinion Judge:Author: Spaeth
Party Name:Robert C. ALOI v. Mary Jo ALOI, Appellant.
Case Date:August 21, 1981
Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 161

434 A.2d 161 (Pa.Super. 1981)

290 Pa.Super. 125

Robert C. ALOI

v.

Mary Jo ALOI, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

August 21, 1981

        Argued Nov. 12, 1980.

Page 162

        [290 Pa.Super. 126] Edward F. Urbanik, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

        Robert Raphael, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

        Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

        SPAETH, Judge:

        This is an appeal from an order denying exceptions to the master's report in a divorce action and refusing to reopen the report. After the appeal was taken the lower court entered a divorce decree in favor of appellee. We have concluded that we must quash the appeal, as from an interlocutory order, and vacate the decree, as entered without jurisdiction.

        On November 29, 1978, appellee filed his complaint in divorce. A master was appointed, and after at least one postponement a master's hearing was scheduled for July 3, 1979. Appellant filed a motion for a delay in the master's hearing until after her petition for counsel fees and expenses had been heard, but on July 2 the lower court denied the motion. The master's hearing was therefore held as scheduled. Neither appellant nor her counsel attended the hearing. About midway through the hearing an associate of [290 Pa.Super. 127] appellant's counsel did appear to place on the record his objection to the hearing being held at that time and to state that a stay of the hearing was then being requested in this court. The request for a stay, presented in the form of a petition for review, was denied by this court that same day and by the Supreme Court on August 7, 1979.

        On October 12, 1979, the master filed his report recommending that a divorce be granted, and twelve days later appellant filed exceptions of a boilerplate variety. At some point appellant also presented a petition to re-open the master's report. It is not clear from the record just when or how this petition was presented. Appellant states in her brief that she "sought to re-open" before the master filed his report. Brief at 3. Appellee's brief indicates that the petition was filed at the same time as the exceptions to the master's report. Brief at 5. According to the lower court's docket entries, the petition was filed on June 2, 1980, which was almost four months after the appeal to this court was taken. In any event, when appellant's exceptions to the master's report came before the court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP