Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sonder v. Sonder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 29, 1988No. 2259, 3025Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWieand, Judge

On November 29, 1983, Carl Sonder and his estranged wife, Suzanne, entered into a property settlement agreement which provided, inter alia, that Sonder would pay to his wife for the support of two minor children the sum of eight hundred ($800.00) dollars per week. Paragraph seventeen of the agreement provided further as follows:

SEVENTEENTH: INCORPORATION IN JUDGMENT FOR DIVORCE.

In the event either Husband or Wife at any time hereafter obtain a divorce in the cause presently or hereafter pending between them, this Agreement and all of its provisions shall be incorporated into any such judgment…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Barrett v. BarrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian ChurchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Brown v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Amoco Oil Co. v. SnyderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

24 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