Pennsylvania laws are constantly being modified and interpreted in new ways. That’s why you need the knowledge and experience that Cooley & Handy brings to the table.
After a lengthy and, at times, frustrating legal battle, Cooley & Handy secured their clients’ right to appeal an adverse paternity by estoppel decision in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. On November 9, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision that quashed the appeal in the paternity by estoppel custody case as “moot.” The Superior Court had quashed the appeal as moot because DNA blood testing had already occurred, which confirmed a third-party’s status as the child’s biological father. In reversing the Superior Court, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holding that orders for genetic testing involving issues of paternity by estoppel are subject to immediate appellate review. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant victory for Cooley & Handy’s clients.
Cooley & Handy’s attorneys successfully convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to sustain a Bucks County trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and to award their client additional attorneys’ fees for having to litigate a frivolous appeal.
The parties in the case were involved in a highly contentious divorce. As part of the parties’ Property Settlement Agreement resolving the equitable distribution matters related to their divorce, husband was to cooperate in all aspects of the sale of the parties’ marital residence. Husband, however, in violation of the terms of the parties’ Property Settlement Agreement, “engaged in dilatory tactics and erected barriers to the sale of the marital property.” In response, wife filed a Petition for Contempt. After a hearing on wife’s petition, the trial court found husband, who is also a practicing attorney in Bucks County, in contempt of the Property Settlement Agreement and awarded wife attorney’s fees. Husband appealed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
On appeal, Husband argued, among other things, that the trial court’s finding of contempt and award of attorney’s fees was based upon its “partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will” towards him and constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. In response, Cooley & Handy argued that Husband’s conduct throughout the parties’ divorce litigation supported the trial court’s finding of contempt and award of attorney’s fees. Cooley & Handy further argued that Husband’s arguments on appeal contained “false, irrelevant, unsupported and unethical accusations,” and, as a result, Wife should be awarded additional attorney’s fees for having to litigate the appeal. The Superior Court agreed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information, contact Kevin J. Handy, principal
Phone: 215.345.8000
Email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Karen C. Graham, Esq. has joined the Doylestown law firm of Cooley & Handy. The firm concentrates its practice in family law and personal injury law in Bucks, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties.
Ms. Graham is a graduate of Temple University, Beasley School of Law. Ms. Graham served as an Associate Editor for Temple’s International and Comparative Law Journal and was inducted into the Rubin Public Interest Law Honor Society. Ms. Graham was also a student mediator with Temple Legal Aid’s Domestic Relations Mediation Clinical Program, providing pro bono custody mediation services to Philadelphia County participants. In addition, Ms. Graham clerked for the Honorable Robert J. Matthews in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Family Division.
Firm Contact: Kevin J. Handy
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
215-345-8000
Divorced Father Challenges Judge's Order Forcing him to Take Down Anonymous Website and Blog About his Ex-Wife and Divorce on First Amendment Grounds.
Divorced Father Claims that Bucks County, Pennsylvania Judge's Order Requiring him to Take Down a Website called "thepsychoexwife.com" and Prohibiting him from Ever Mentioning his Ex-Wife or Children on any Public Media in the Future is an Unconstitutional and Unenforceable Restraint on Free Speech.
Doylestown Law Firm Cooley & Handy and Philadelphia Law Firm Feldman Shepherd File National Class Action Suit against Income Tax Software Industry Cartel for Billions
November 14, 2007
Doylestown, PA – In a case of unchecked government outsourcing, the Doylestown law firm of Cooley & Handy, together with the Philadelphia firm of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner & Weinstock, this week filed a class action suit against a group of income tax software companies that are part of a cartel known as the Free File Alliance LLC. The suit, brought by Philadelphia resident Stacie Byers, alleges that cartel members such as H&R Block and Intuit Inc. unlawfully charged millions of U.S. taxpayers excessive e-filing fees. Damages are estimated in the billions of dollars.
October 24, 2008 - In a precedential ruling, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a biological father has the statutory right to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity on the basis of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact.
Cooley & Handy attorney Susanne M. Wherry, with co-counsel, successfully argued that silence, when good faith requires disclosure, can rise to the level of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
A difficult issue faced by both custodial parents and their attorneys is when a minor child refuses to visit with the other parent as a result of alienation or other reasons. The situation becomes increasingly problematic as the child approaches the age of majority (18 years old), and in cases where the child’s mental heath is at issue due to familiar turmoil or stress attributable to a divorce or unresolved issues with a parent (such as where the child has threatened suicide or has exhibited “cutting” behavior when confronted with visiting the parent).
The Bucks County Law Firm of Cooley & Handy Challenges Order Sanctioning Father $2,000.00 for Cursing in Front of His Ex-Wife and Daughter on First Amendment Grounds
Father Claims that Bucks County Judge’s Order Prohibiting Him From Using “Inappropriate” Language Constitutes an Illegal and Unenforceable Prior Restraint on Free Speech.
A father in a custody dispute is challenging a contempt order entered by a Bucks County judge that sanctioned him $2,000.00 for violating a custody order requiring him not to use profanity or inappropriate language around his daughter and the child’s mother. The specific language of the custody order, entered by the Hon. Wallace H. Bateman, Jr., requires the father to “refrain from using any profanity when dealing with mother and mother’s husband, and using any type of language around the children that’s inappropriate.” Judge Bateman held father in contempt and sanctioned him $2,000.00 in attorney fees for violating the order after he admittedly used profanities during a custody exchange. Father has appealed the finding of contempt and the sanctions to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Thumbs Down
To the Bucks County judge who fined a divorced dad $2,000 for cursing in front of his 9-year-old son. That’s not to condone the practice. It is both shameful and reprehensible for any adult to use foul language in front of any child. But there is such a thing as free speech. And, like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that “courts and legislatures cannot limit speech to appease the most squemish among us.”
The judge’s ruling has been appealed to state court, which we expect will rule that the judge’s order and fine amounts to, as the dad’s attorney argues, “unenforceable prior restraint on free speech.”
First time DUI offenders often wonder if their driver’s license will be suspended and, if so, how they will manage to get to work. Because people are so dependent on their vehicles, this is a major concern for those faced with DUI charges. In fact, many of our clients are actually more concerned about their potential driver’s license suspensions than going to jail. If you find yourself facing DUI charges, you should probably start to consider alternative transportation arrangements.Pennsylvania DUI law has a three-tiered punishment system based on the offender’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at the time of the offense. Punishment is also dependent upon the number of DUI offenses previously committed.