Thursday, April 17, 2008

divorce - venue - residence or agreement - Rule 1920.2

Danz v. Danz - Superior Court - April 16, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s21041_08.pdf

Motion to open decree granted where record did not not establish compliance with Rule 1920.2, showing that one of the parties resides in the county or the parties have agreed, in writing, that the action could be brought in the suejct county.

"The plain language of Rule 1920.2(b) and the history surrounding its promulgation lead us to an inexorable conclusion. Rule 1920.2(b) requires a trial court to ensure the record establishes venue is proper—either by residence, written agreement, or tacit agreement through participation— before directing entrance of a divorce decree. The divorce decree in this case suffers from “a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record” due to the fact that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 1920.2(b)."

>