## Facts

- Charlotte Goldstein (wife) and Gilbert Goldstein (husband) married in 1972 and lived in a comfortable condominium in Philadelphia.
- During the marriage, Gilbert provided the home and paid for food, utilities, clothing, medical care, maid service, and store credit for Charlotte.
- Gilbert also provided Charlotte a $1,000 monthly spending allowance.
- Charlotte had her own separate source of income and/or assets apart from Gilbert.
- In the summer of 1977, Charlotte stayed in Atlantic City while Gilbert, who was ill, stayed with his mother.
- Gilbert asked Charlotte to return home; Charlotte refused.
- Gilbert then announced that the parties were “separated” and discontinued Charlotte’s $1,000 monthly allowance.
- After Charlotte returned to the condominium, the parties continued living under the same roof but in separate bedrooms.
- Despite his separation announcement, Gilbert made repeated efforts to reconcile; the parties met with a marriage counselor once, and Charlotte refused to attend additional counseling.
- While still living in the condominium, Charlotte brought an action for spousal support, alleging Gilbert was not supporting her as she had been accustomed during the marriage because he stopped the monthly allowance.
- The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County decided the matter largely on deposition testimony and denied Charlotte’s request for a support order, finding the parties were not separated and that Charlotte did not qualify for support given Gilbert’s continued provision of necessities and her independent resources.
- Charlotte appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse who continues to live under the same roof as the other spouse is entitled to a spousal support order when the other spouse continues providing the essentials that maintain the marital standard of living.
2. Whether discontinuing a discretionary $1,000 monthly spending allowance, while continuing to provide housing and other necessities, constitutes non-support requiring a support order.
3. Whether a husband’s unilateral statement that the parties are “separated,” combined with separate bedrooms but continued co-residence and reconciliation efforts, establishes separation for purposes of spousal support.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order denying spousal support.
- The court held that the record supported the trial court’s findings that Gilbert continued to supply Charlotte with the essentials required to maintain her standard of living while they lived together.
- Relying on Commonwealth v. George, the court agreed that a support obligation may be satisfied through provision of necessities in the marital home and does not require an added cash order solely because a cash allowance ended.
- The court agreed that Charlotte’s independent income/assets weighed against a finding of need that would justify a support award.
- The court rejected Charlotte’s claim that the parties were separated for support purposes based solely on Gilbert’s separation announcement, where they continued living together and he attempted reconciliation.
- Applying a limited appellate standard in support cases, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision on the deposition record.

## Legal Principles

- A spousal support order generally requires a showing of need; a court may deny support where the evidence shows the claimant spouse is being maintained at the marital standard of living.
- Providing in-kind necessities (such as housing, food, utilities, and related living expenses) in the marital home can satisfy the duty of support; a court need not order additional cash payments merely because a spending allowance was discontinued.
- A claimant spouse’s separate income and assets may reduce or defeat entitlement to spousal support.
- Continued co-residence can weigh against a claim of separation-based entitlement to support, particularly where the supporting spouse continues providing necessities.
- A unilateral declaration of “separation,” without an actual change in living arrangements and with ongoing reconciliation efforts, may be insufficient to establish separation for spousal support purposes.
- Appellate review of support orders is narrow; the appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Charlotte Goldstein’s request for spousal support because, although Gilbert ended her $1,000 monthly allowance and stated they were separated, the parties continued living in the same home, Gilbert continued providing the necessities that maintained her marital lifestyle, and Charlotte’s independent resources and the lack of a true separation supported the trial court’s refusal to enter a support order.


Commonwealth Ex Rel. Goldstein v. Goldstein, 413 A.2d 721 (1979)