NORRISTOWN, PA
| TERANCE HEALY | NO. 2013-29976 |
| v. | |
| DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER |
1. Defendants have presented on October 22, 2013, as part of their Preliminary Objections in this matter, a defective and void order dated May 9, 2011. [#2013-29976-10 Defendants Exhibit 2]
2. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court strike the defective and void order which has been used to defraud, misrepresent and misinform individuals, organizations, law enforcement and county departments.
3. To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:
(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.
If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance.
4. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.
5. Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect.
6. A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient.
7. When providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.
8. The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment and cannot render a void judgment valid.
9. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.
10. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
DEFECTIVE AND VOID DIVORCE DECREE
11. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the docket for the matter demonstrates and supports that neither Sonya Healy, nor Terance Healy filed a Request for a Divorce Decree under 3301(c) or 3301(d) of the Divorce Code. [ Docket attached as Exhibit A ]
12. The parties in Healy v Healy #2007-12477 have never indicated by documentation or action any intention to request a divorce decree. As such there can be no divorce decree.
13. Additionally, in July 2009, Sonya Healy's attorney, Robert Angst, filed a document with the court indicating the intention to NOT request a divorce decree until hearings had been held on unresolved claims.
14. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree where the parties have not consented to or made any such request.
DEFECTIVE AND VOID EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
15. “The Court has made it clear that 'unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, then there can be no equitable distribution of marital property.'” Reese v. Reese, 351 Pa.Super,521,506 A.2d 471, 473-474(1986)
16. The courts of common pleas are only empowered to make equitable distribution contemporaneously with or subsequent to a decree in divorce. Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa.Super, 483, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (1986)
17. This is because the settlement of economic and property claims is merely a part of the trial court's broader power to terminate the marriage. Campbell, 516 A.2d at 366
18. Equitable distribution is an incident of divorce, not marriage.
19. As there is no valid divorce decree, there can be no equitable distribution order.
20. On June 6, 2011, the procedural defect of the void divorce decree was brought to the attention of the Court and ignored.
21. The issue of the defect has been raised in every subsequent court proceeding and ignored.
22. Sonya Healy, and her attorneys Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, have failed to take any action to address, correct or resolve the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.
PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT
23. This issue is properly before this court as the defective and void order has been presented by the Defendants in defense of the Action in Ejectment filed on October 3, 2013.
24. The defective and void order of May 9, 2011 issued where the court lacked jurisdiction and authority is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.
Whereas, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to adjudge, decree and strike the defective and void order of May 9, 2011 and prevent it from any future use to misrepresent and defraud.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Pro Se
No comments:
Post a Comment