Legal Opinion

Nash v. Herbster

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 24, 2007PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

HUDOCK, J.:

¶ 1 Matthew Thomas Herbster (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the order of the trial court denying his petition to modify the amount of his child support obligation without a hearing. We vacate and remand with instructions.

¶2 The pertinent facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows.1 By order of court entered April 15, 2004, Appellant was to pay a monthly amount of support for his son, Christian. On or about October 28, 2004, Appellant filed a petition to modify this support order. In this petition, he asserted that he was entitled to a decrease because he…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bowser v. BlomSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Leasure v. LeasureSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Yerkes v. YerkesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Larson v. DivegliaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Fisher v. Commonwealth, Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Plunkard v. McConnellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Nash v. HerbsterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API