Wonders v. Wonders
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CIRILLO, President Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I join in that portion of the Honorable Justin Johnson’s decision which concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it included Steven L. Wonders’ averaged bonuses in calculating his income available for support. Like my colleague, the Honorable John Brosky, I find that the Melzer issue is properly before this court. Judge Brosky and I, however, differ on the disposition of this issue. It is my opinion that the formula set forth in Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), remains viable and is applicable to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Melzer v. WitsbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- DeWalt v. DeWaltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Lock EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Ryan v. DeLongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Coffey v. CoffeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.