Lucia v. Lucia
Christine LUCIA v. George LUCIA, Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
George Lucia filed this appeal from an order of the trial court which excluded him from his home for one year pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act of October 7, 1976, P.L.1090, No. 218, as amended, 35 P.S. § 10181 et seq. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to warrant an order excluding him from the marital home. Although the issue sought to be raised is deserving of review, we are unable to reach the merits of Lucia’s appeal because he failed to file exceptions to the trial court’s order as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1905.
“Section 10189 of the Act in question provides that any proceeding thereunder shall be in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, Rule 1905, Pa.R.Civ.P., which was promulgated to implement the Act, provides: ‘The decision of the court and the time for exceptions *571 thereto shall be governed by Rule 1038(b) to (e) inclusive.’ Rule 1038(d), Pa.R.Civ.P., in turn, requires the filing of exceptions to the decision of the lower court.
“The record in this instance reveals that Appellant failed to file exceptions. Such failure requires us to affirm the decision of the lower court inasmuch as Appellant has waived all issues not raised in exceptions.”
Knisely v. Knisely, 295 Pa.Super. 240, 241-242 , 441 A.2d 438, 439 (1982) (footnote omitted). See also:
Horvat v. Horvat, 303 Pa.Super. 406 , 449 A.2d 751 (1982).
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(failure to file timely post verdict motions waived challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the granting of a protection from abuse order)
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.