M.D. Appeal Dkt.
78 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
MELMARK, INC., : No. 580 MAL 2017
:
Petitioner :
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Order of the Superior Court
v. :
:
:
ALEXANDER SCHUTT, AN :
INCAPACITATED PERSON, BY AND :
THROUGH CLARENCE E. SCHUTT AND :
BARBARA ROSENTHAL SCHUTT, HIS :
LEGAL GUARDIANS, AND CLARENCE :
E. SCHUTT AND BARBARA :
ROSENTHAL SCHUTT, INDIVIDUALLY, :
:
Respondents :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 26th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of
Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
1. Whether the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in finding that
New Jersey’s filial support statute, rather than Pennsylvania’s, applied
in this matter where there is no conflict between the New Jersey
statute and Pennsylvania’s statute under the facts of this case?
2. Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that New Jersey has a
greater interest in the application of its filial support statute where, inter
alia, all of the relevant contacts, with the exception of the residency of
Respondents Clarence and Barbara Schutt, are with Pennsylvania;
where the Schutts took affirmative actions to keep their highly disabled
son in a Pennsylvania nonprofit residential and therapeutic institution,
Petitioner Melmark, Inc., with the avowed aim of Melmark funding his
care for his “entire life,” including manipulating the Pennsylvania and
New Jersey legal systems to prevent his return to New Jersey; and
where the Superior Court’s decision results in Melmark being entirely
uncompensated for providing an extended period of vital, intensive
care for the Schutts’ son?
3. Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that the lower court
properly denied relief on Melmark’s claims for quantum meruit and
unjust enrichment?
[580 MAL 2017] - 2