Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Manbeck v. Manbeck

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 6, 1985No. 2263Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMontemuro, Judge

While I agree with the majority’s decision that review of the equitable distribution plan is premature at this time, I disagree with the majority’s conclusions that: (1) laches is inappropriate here, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the denial of alimony to appellant.

The majority rejects appellant’s laches argument by relying on the often repeated principle that mere delay in bringing a divorce action after separation is not ground for denial of relief sought. Regan v. Regan, 227 Pa.Super. 552, 322 A.2d 711 (1974). In applying this principle, the majority notes…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Interest of MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Regan v. ReganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Wilson v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Kirschbaum v. KirschbaumNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
  5. Wisecup v. WisecupSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API