Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0229CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a tree and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: VINCENT CANDIELLO V. SUSAN IC CANDIELLO 229 CIVIL 1993 714 MDA 2002 775 MDA 2002 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 353 - 524, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 6/12/02. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy~ thereby acknowledeine receint of this record. Date Signature & Title CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a tree and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: VINCENT CANDIELLO V. SUSAN IC CANDIELLO 229 CIVIL 1993 714 MDA 2002 775 MDA 2002 The documents comprising the record have been numbered fi.om No.353 - 524 , and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 6/12/02. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy~ thereby acknowledginu receint of this record. Date Signature & Title Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the countv of CUMBERLAND 714 ~ 2002 and 775 ~ 2002 to No. 229 Civil 1993 Term, 19 COPY OF COMPLET in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is contained the following: DOCKET ENTRY VINCENT CANDIELLO SUSAN K. CANDIELLO SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED DOCKET ENTRIES. 353 - 361 362 - 363 No. 229 Civil 1993 (B.F. from page 124-A) Candiello vs. Candiello February 19, 1999, Order of Court, filed. ASD NOW, this 18th day of February, 1999, after a m~eting in chambers with Thomas J. Williams, Esq., attorney for Vincent Candiello, and Steven Howell, Esq., attorney for Susan K. Candiello, it is ordered and directed as follows: The hearing previously scheduled before the undersigned judge on Defendant's (Susan K. Candiello's) Petition To Modify AlinDny is hereby transferred to the Honorable George E. Hoffer, to be heard at the same time as a child support matter scheduled before President Judge Hoffer, on March 25, 1999. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 2/19/99 Sept~_r 1, 1999, Opinion and Order of Court, filed. IN RE: Petitions to Modify Alimony and Child Support AND NOW, September 1, 1999, after careful consideration and pursuant to the Opinion filed this date, Wife Susan K. Candiello's petitions to modify child support and alimony ere granted. By the Court: George E. Hoffer, P.J. Notice mailed 9/1/99 September 28, 1999, Notice of Appeal, filed. Notice is hereby given that Susan K. Candiello, Defendant above, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania frc~ the September 1, 1999 Order end Opinion issued by the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J., and entered in this matter on the 1st day of September. This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entries. Steven Howell, Esquire September 29, 1999, Concise Statement of Matters Conplained Of And Intended To Be Argued On Appeal, filed. September 29, 1999, Request For Trial Transcript, filed. September 29, 1999, Notice Of Appeal, filed. Notice is hereby given that Vincnet Candiello, Defendant in the Divorce action filed in the Court of Cc~rnon Pleas of Ccgnberland County, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in the above-captioned matter on September 1, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Said Order was docketed on September 1, 1999; A copy of the docket entries in the Court of COtTon Pleas of Cumberland County iss attached as Exhibit "B". MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & Otto Thomas J. Williams Esq. for Deft. October 4, 1999, Plaintiff/ Appellant and Defendant/Appellee Susan K. Candiello's Motion to Assess Cost of Transcript, filed. October 4, 1999, Order of Court, filed. IN RE: Statement of Reasons AND NOW, October 4, 1999, notice having been received that an appeal has been taken in the above-captioned matter, it is ordered and directed that the appellant forthwith file with the trial judge a concise stat~nent of the matters con~plained of on the appeal, together with reference to any statutory authority or any rule of court. Upon the failure of the appellant to file such reasons within ten days, the court will presume that the appeal has been abandoned. By the Court: George E. Hoffer, P.J. Copy mailed 10/5/99 October 7, 1999, Answer to Motion to Assiss Costs of Transcript, filed. No~uL~_r 12, 1999, Transcript, filed. F~b~y 3, 2~, Opi~io~ ~d O~d~ uf Cuu~t, fil=d, ill kU,, .... , .~.~ ~.'L~.V, Ucb~a~- 2, 200~, upon carcful consideration of bo~h parties' b~isfs a~ tkc D ...... :~aot~ f ........ ~l~g~nd cTeti~e~atlon consistent Copia~ ~,~ii=d 2/'3/'60 September 5, 2000, In rs Opinion of Court Pursuant to Pa. R. A. P. 1925 No%~,d~er28, 2001, Order of Court, filed. AND NOW, Novenber 28, 2001, the Court having held a conference with the attorneys, at their request , to determine the procedure to be used in the remand of this case from the Superior Court, at the su~estion of Thcmas Williems, Esquire, that the record contains all data needed to resolve the three issues remanded, counsel are directed to file briefs with the Court; defendant husband's within ten days, plaintiff wife's by December 22, 2001, after which the Court will rule. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. Copies mailed 11/29/01 354 - 365 366 - 375 376 - 392 393 - 394 397 - 457 458 - 475 476 - 477 395 - 396 478 - 480 483 - 514 481 - 482 515 - 524 Nove~r 28, 2001, Order of Court, filed. AND NOW, November 28, 2001, the Court having held a conference with the attorneys, at their request, to determine the procedure to be used in the remand of this case from the Superior Court, et the suggestion of Thomas Williams, Esquire, that the record contains all data needed to resolve the three issues remanded, the counsel are directed to file briefs with the Court; defendant husband's within ten days; plaintiff wife's by December 22, 2001, after which the Court will rule. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. · 4~ril 2, 2002, Order, filed. In Re: Opinion AND NOW, this 2nd day of April 2002, in accordance with the foregoing opinion, the following is awardedz As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at $303.44 Alimony arrears are set at: $5,136.88 Effective as of December 1, 2001: Child support is set at: $2,066.68/monfh Alimony is set at: $1,478.50/month Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed medical expenses. BY THE COURT: GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Copies mailed 4/3/02 April 30, 2002, Notice of Appeal and Request for Transcript, filed. Notice is hereby given that Vincent Car~iello, Defendant in the Divorce action filed inthe Court of ~n Please of Cumberland County, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania frcra the Order entered inthe above-captioned matter on April 2, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Said Order was docketed on April 2, 2002 a copy of the docket entries in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is attached as Exhibit "B". MARTSON DEARDORFFWILLIAMS & OTTO By: Thomas J. Williams, Esq., Arty for Deft May 3, 2002 - Superior Court of PA Notice of Appeal Docketin9 No. 714 [4DA 2002. May 10, 2002. Petition to Correct or Modify the Record by Susan K. Candiello Pursuant to PA R.A.P. 1926 By: Steven Howell, Esq. May 10, 2002, Notice of Cross-Appeal, filed. By: Steven Howell, Esq. Nay 10, 2002, Request for Trial Transcript, filed. MAy 15, 2002, Rule to Show Cause, filed. In Re~ Petition to Correct or Modify the Record by Susan K. Candiello Pursuant to PA R.A.P. 1926 AND NO~, this 15th day of May 2002 a Rule to Show Cause is hereby issued upon appellant Vincent Candiello to show cause if any he might have why the relief requested in this Petition should not be granted. Rule Returnable within 10 days of service by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail upon Appellant's counsel of record. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. Copies mailed 5/15/02 May 28, 2002, Answer with Counterclaim of Vincent Candiello to Petition to Correct or Modify the Record by Susan K. Candiello Pursuant to PA.R.A.P. 1926, filed. By: Thomas J. Williams, Esq. June 3, 2002, Order, filed. AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2002, in consideration of the Petition of Susan K. Candiello to Correct or Modify the Record pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1926 and the Answer and Counter-Claim filed by vincent Candiello, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the following documents be, and therefore ere, made part of the record in this case: a. Susan Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Hearing and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court, which was mailed to thethe Prothonotary and opposing counsel on September 24, 2001. b. Vincent Candiello's Partial Opposition to Susan Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Hearing and Document Exchange on Ren~and by Superior Court filed on October 15, 2001. c. Susan Candiello's Memorandum of Law submitted to the Court and opposing counsel on November 26, 2001. d. Vincent Candiello's . Brief on the Remand issues, styled in the form of a proposed Court Order under cover of December 11, 2001. e. Susan Candiello's Proposed Opinion and Order submitted to the Court and opposing counsel on December 20, 2001. f. A Supplemental Brief styled as a letter from coun~l for VVincent Candiello to the Court dated January 2, 2002. g. Susan Candiello's letter dated January 9, 2002 to the Court. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. Copies mail 6/3/02 JUN~ 4, 2002, Answer with New Matter to Vincent Candiello's Answer with Counterclaim to Petition to Correct or Modify the Record pursuant to PA. R.A.P. 1926, filed. F:/F ]LES\DA TAFILE\Gendo¢ ¢ur~9752-mot 1 Revised: I~0/15/01 03:21,13 PM VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff ViNCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 215 S 92 -CIVILACTION DR19,828 PASES 610000026 IN SUPPORT VINCENT CANDIELLO'S PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO SUSAN CANDIELLO'S MOTION FOR FACT FINDING HEARING AND DOCUMENT EXCHANGE ON REMAND BY SUPERIOR COURT I. INTRODUCTION On August 9, 2001 the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted, in part, Vincent Candiello's appeals to this Court's September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matters. Previously, we provided a copy of that decision and remand to this Court. There, the Superior Court addressed the following issues with the outcome noted as follows: A. Calculation of Monthly Net Income: 1. Taxes Paid: The Superior Court noted the precise issue raised by Mr. Candiello as follows: Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.56 in taxes for the year 1998 and that the net monthly increase for the year 1999 should have been $342.71. August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 7. In resolving this issue, the Superior Court concluded that the actual mount of taxes paid in 1998 was $47,690.56. Id_~. at 8. With respect to the increase in income found by the trial court of $373.33/month for 1999, September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order at pp. 7-8, the Superior Court held that, "the trial court failed to include Husband's local and states taxes in its deduction." August 9, 2001 Memorandum, at 8. The issue for remand then is to deduct the actual monthly taxes Mr. Candiello paid in 1998 from his gross increase, including state and local taxes. 2. Health Insurance Premiums The Superior Court held that the "trial court failed to account for Husband's payments [of health insurance premium], and, therefore, we remand so that the insurance payments can be subtracted from Husband's gross income. August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 10. According to the Court, Mr. Candiello paid $1,320.00 per year in health insurance premiums or $110.00/month. B. Calculation of Alimony The Superior Court identified this issue as follows: Husband's sixth argument is that the trial court erred in failing to consider Husband's financial obligations to his daughter, who was bom to Husband and his present wife. The trial court indicated that consideration of Husband's minor daughter, born to a subsequent marriage, was not permissible. 10/ We disagree with the thal court's conclusion and remand for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband his present wife. August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 11. In footnote 10, the Superior Court noted that this contention must be analyzed under former rule Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o). At that time, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o) provided: "Awards of Spousal Support When There Are Multiple Families. An order of spousal support for second or later spouses will be calculated based upon obligor's net income less all child support obligations and any obligations to former spouses." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Superior Court remanded this matter to deduct that child support Mr. Candiello owed to his child from his current marriage fi'om the net income he had available fi'om which he would pay alimony. 2 II. ARGUMENT AS TO MRS. CANDIELLO'S PRESENT MOTION Mrs. Candiello's Agreements With Deductions From Mr. Candiello's Annual Gross Income In her motion, Mrs. Candiello acknowledges it is appropriate to deduct from Mr. Candiello's annual gross income $1,320.00 for health insurance premiums he paid. Motion at 2. She also agrees that Mr. Candiello's actual taxes paid is $47,690.56. Id._~. at 1. Therefore, those deductions can be made without further consideration from the court. B. Mrs. Candiello's Proposed Discovery As to Mr. Candiello's increase for 1999, however, Mrs. Candiello proposes to have this court consider further evidence relative to the taxes owed on the minor increase already found to exist by this court. But there is no need for further discovery. The gross amount of the increase already is known and determined to be $583.33 by this court in its September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order at 7. This court already deducted federal taxes of 36%. Id_~. at 8. There was no dispute by the parties as to this marginal federal tax, and there is no suggestion in the remand order that this court needs to address further the federal taxes on this increase. Rather, this court only must determine what the state and local tax rates were in 1999 on that increase and to make an appropriate calculation. It is clear that the state tax rate in effect at the time was 2.8%. 72 P.S. § 7302(a)(2). The local tax attributed to Mr. Candiello's income was 1%, as reflected by the various pay stubs introduced during the hearing before this court. Therefore, the total tax liability for the gross monthly increase of $583.33 was 39.8% (36% federal marginal rate, 2.8% state rate, and 1% local rate) or $232.16. When this monthly tax liability is subtracted from $583.33, the net monthly increase is $351.16. Clearly, there is no need for discovery or for any further factual findings other than the application of the appropriate tax rates as shown above. C. Consideration of Mr. Candiello's Support Owed to Katelyn Again, Mrs. Candiello suggests that additional discovery is necessary to determine the amount of child support owed Katelyn. However, that detail was developed fully at the trial below. 3 Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. No increase of income for 1999 for Roseann Candiello was argued by Mr. Candiello. No attempt was made to determine the increase in income Susan Candiello received in 1999 either. In short, the alimony calculation proposed by Mr. Candiello included that income earned by Roseann in 1998 which was continued forward in the 1999 calculations. Therefore, there is no need to conduct additional discovery as Mr. Candiello proceeded on 1998 income except as it related to himself. III. REVISED CALCULATIONS We present our calculations demonstrating an overpayment by Mr. Candiello of $21,069.29 for the period of September 17, 1998, through August 31,2001, consistent with the remand from the Superior Court in the above-captioned matters. A. Monthly Net Income 1. Revised 1998 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Gross Income $164,687.98 Deductions: Lecture Expenses Health Insurance Federal and State Taxes Yearly Net Income $1,200.00 $1320.00 $47,690.56 $114,477.42 Revised Monthly Net Income (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) (Page 1'0 of August 9, 2001 Decision) (Page 8 of August 9, 2001 Decision) $9~540.00 2. Revised 1999 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Gross Monthly Net Increase Deductions: Federal Taxes State and Local Taxes Monthly Net Increase Revised Monthly Net Income $583.33 (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) $210.00 $22.17 $351.16 (Page 8 of September 1, 1999 Order) (Page 8 of August 9, 2001 Decision) $9,891.00 Utilizing these revised figures to calculate the support owed results in the following 4 Paragraph 5, September 1, 1999 Order: Amount actually paid: Paragraph 6, September 1, 1999 Order: Amount actually paid: B. Child Support Owed 1. September 17 through December 18, 1998: $1,156.00/month x 3.05 months = $3,522.64 $816.00/month x 3.05 months = $2,487.00 Arrearage = $1,036.00 2. Child Support for December 19, 1998, through March 31. 1999: $1,576.00/month x 3.42 months = $5,389.00 $1,824.00/month x 3.42 months = $6,238.00 Overpayment = ($849.00) 3. Child Support from April 1~ 1999, throueh Aueust 31, 2001: August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Combined net income: $12,787.00 Revised Basic Child Support: $2,684.00 Net Income as a percentage for Vince: 77% Net Income as a percentage for Susan: 23% $9,891.00 $2,896.00 (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) (Support Guidelines) $2,115.00 $48.32/month Vince's revised share of child support: $2,066.68/month Prior Child Support Order (Paragraph 7, September 1, 1999 Order): Difference between revised child support and that ordered: ' Revised Child Support for April 1, 1999, through September 30, 2001: $2,066.68 x 30 months = $62,000.40 $1,824.00 x 6 months = $10,944.00 $2,115.00 x 24 months = $50,760.00 Total Paid: $61,704.00 Arrearage ($62,000.40 - $61,704.00): $296.40 Child Support Owed: Amounts actually paid: From 4/1/99 through 9/31/99: From 10/1/99 through 10/1/01: 5 4. Child Support Summary Arrearages: $1,036.00 + $296.40 = $1,332.40 Overpayment: ($849.00) Total Arrearage: $531.72 C. Alimony 1. Alimony for January 11, 1999 through March 21, 1999: August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Difference in net incomes: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Monthly Child Support Owed Michael and Noele: $1,576.00 Child Support Calculation for Katelyn: Vince's monthly net income: Roseann's monthly net income: Total combined net income: Vince's share of net income: Presumptive minimum for one child: Additional Annual Child Care Costs: Husband's 73% share of costs: Monthly share of costs: $9,891.00 $3,636.73 (Respondent's Trial Exs. 2-4) $13,527.73 73% $920.00/month $5,672.00 (N.T. at 67) $4,140.56 $345.05 Monthly Child Support Owed Katelyn: $1,265.00 Combined Monthly Child Support Owed All Children: $2,841.00 Difference Between Obligor and Obligee's Net Income: Less Combined Monthly Child Support: Difference: Multiplied by 30%: $6,995.00 $2,841.00 $4,154.00 $1,246.20/monthly alimony owed Total owed for period: $1,246.20 x 2.68 months = $3,339.82 Amount actually paid: $1,100.00 x 2.68 months = $2,948.00 Arrearage: $391.82 6 2. Alimony Owed from 4/1/99 through 9/30/01 August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Difference in net incomes: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Monthly Child Support Owed Michael and Noele from III.B.3., supra: $2,066.68 Child Support Calculation for Katelyn: Vince's monthly net income: Roseann's monthly net income: Total combined net income: Husbands share of net income: Child Support for one child: Husband's 73% share of support: Additional Annual Child Care Costs: Husband's 73% share of costs: Monthly share of costs: $9,891.00 $3,636.73 (Respondent's Trial Exs.2-4) $13,527.73 73% $1,916.00/month (Support Guidelines) $1,398.00/month $5,672.00 (N.T. at 67) $4,140.56 $345.05 Monthly Child Support Owed Katelyn: $1,743.83 Combined Monthly Child Support Owed All Children: $3,810.05 Difference Between Obligor and Obligee's Net Income: Less Combined Monthly Child Support: Difference: $6,995.00 $3,810.05 $3,184.95 Multiplied by 30%: $955.49/revised monthly alimony owed Monthly difference between revised alimony and alimony ordered: $585.51/month Total owed for period: $955.49 x 30 months = $28,664.47 Amount actually paid from 4/1/99 through 9/31/99:$1,100 x 6 = $6,600.00 Amount actually paid from 10/1/99 through 9/30/01 = $1541 x 24 = $36,984.00 Total Paid: $43,584.00 Total Overpayment: ($43,584.00-$28,664.47) ($14,919.53) 3. Alimony Summary Arrearage: Overpayment: $391.78 ($14,919.53) 7 Total Overpayment: ($14,527.72) D. Total of All Calculations and Other Credits A. Child Support Arrearage: $531.72 B. Alimony Overpayment: ($14,527.72) C. Other Credits Lump Sum October 1999 Arrearage Payment Order: ($6,840) Wife's share of Catherine's tuition (page 10 of September 1,1999 Order): ($819) Total Overpayments to date: $21,655.00 For each additional month in which the prior support order continues in effect, Mr. Candiello is entitled to an additional credit of $633.83/month ($48.32/month child support overpayment + $585.51/month alimony overpayment) towards his total overpayment of $21,655.00 to date. Finally, when the support order is revised, the alimony paid to Mrs. Candiello should be included for the entire period for purposes of her percentage of available income to pay excess medica! costs, as alimony was not included in the calculation for child support owed by her. This would produce the following: August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: $9,891.00 Susan's monthly net income: $2,896.00 (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Combined net income: $12,787.00 Deduct Alimony from Vince: Add Alimony to Susan: $9,891.00 - $955.49 = $8,935.51 $2,896.00 + $955.49 = $3,851.49 Net Income as a percentage for Vince for unreimbursed medical expenses: 70% Net Income as a percentage for Susan for unreimbursed medical expenses: 30% Date: October 15, 2001 Respectfully submitted, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Thomas J. Williams Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Vincent Candiello's Partial Opposition To Susan Candiello's Motion For Fact Finding Hearing And Document Exchange On Remand By Superior Court October 14, 2001, by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Date: October 15, 2001 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 93-229 CIVIL : IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff VINCENT. CANDIELLO, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 :IN SUPPORT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, November 28, 2001, the Court having held a conference with the attorneys, at their request, to determine the procedure to be used in the remand of this case from the Superior Court, at the suggestion of Thomas Williams, Esquire, that the record contains all data needed to resolve the three issues remanded, counsel are directed to file briefs with the Court; defendant husband's within ten days; plaintiff wife's by December 22, 2001, after which the Court will rule. By the Court, VINVA'IX~NN~ l~l :~ Nd 88AON I0 Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 For Wife Susan K. Candiello Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Husband Vincent Candiello 2 VINCENT CANDIELLO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant · NO. 93-229 CIVIL : IN DIVORCE sUSAN K. C^NDIELLO, Plaintiff VINCENT. CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 : IN SUPPORT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, November 28, 2001, the Court having held a conference with the attorneys, at their request, to determine the procedure to be used in the remand of this case from the Superior Court, at the suggestion of Thomas Williams, Esquire, that the record contains all data needed to resolve the three issues remanded, counsel are directed to file briefs with the Court; defendant husband's within ten days; plaintiff wife's by December 22, 2001, after which the Court will rule. By the Court, Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 For Wife Susan K. Candiello Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Husband Vincent Candiello 2 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 93-229 CIVIL ,/ IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 : IN SUPPORT ORDER HOFFER, P.J.: ~d AND NOW, this ~ ay offs:( foregoing opinion, the following is awarded: As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at: Alimony arrears are set at: Effective as of December 1, 2001: Child support is set at: Alimony is set at: 2002, in accordance with the $ 303.44 $5,136.88 $2,066.68/month $1,478.50/month Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed medical expenses. BY THE COURT: GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17013 Attorney for Susan K.Candiello Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Vincent Candiello 2 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 93-229 CIVIL · IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 :IN SUPPORT OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address the remand of the decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granting, in part, the appeal of Husband, Vincent Candiello. On August 9, 2001 the Superior Court issued its opinion as to certain issues raised by Husband to this Court's September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matters. The Superior Court has ordered a remand on three (3) issues: (a) the health insurance premiums husband paid on behalf of his children; (b) the amount of taxes paid by husband in 1998 and 1999; and (c) the financial obligations he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS With regard to the issue of health insurance premiums, the Superior Court directed the sum of $1320.00 to be deducted from the husband's gross yearly income as the Superior Court held that the "trial court failed to account for Husband's payments [of health insurance premiums], and, therefore, we remand so that the insurance payments can be subtracted from the Husband's gross income." As such this results in $110.00 being deducted from Husband's monthly gross income for 1998 and 1999. The effects of lowering Husband's net monthly income by $110.00 per month are discussed below. RECALCULATING HUSBAND,S TAXES FOR 1998 AND '1999 In resolving this issue, the Superior Court concluded that the actual amount of income taxes paid in 1998 was $47,690.56 based upon husband's unrebutted presumption. Consequently, we will utilize this figure in our calculation of husband's net income. Additionally, the sum of $110.00 per month paid by husband for health insurance premiums shall be deducted form husband's net monthly income for 1998. As such, husband is left with a net monthly income of $9,539.79 instead of $9,776.00 as set forth in our September 1, 1999 Order. With respect to the increase in husband's income for 1999, the Superior Court held that "the trial court failed to include husband's local and state taxes in its deduction." As such, we must, therefore, determine the state and local taxes husband paid in 1999. The gross amount of husband's 1999 increase is an 2 undisputed $583.33. Based upon the federal marginal tax rate, a deduction for federal taxes should be imposed at 36%. What remains to be determined are the state and local taxes. It is clear that the state tax rate in effect at the time was 2.8%. 72 P.S. §7302(a)(2). The local tax attributed to husband's income was 1%. Therefore, the total tax liability for the gross monthly increase of $583.33 was 39.8% (36% federal marginal tax rate, 2.8% state rate, and 1% local rate) or $232.17.4 When this monthly tax liability is subtracted from 583.33, the net monthly increase for 1999 should have been $351.16. As such, we will use this figure in our calculation of husband's 1999 net income. The following revised calculations will illustrate the above changes: Revised 1998 monthly net income calculation: Gross Income Less: Withholdings (federal and state tax) Lecture Expenses Health Insurance Yearly Net Income $164,687.98 $47,690.56 $1,200.00 $1,320.00 $114,477.42 1998 Revised Monthly Net Income $97539.79 ~ Wife's argument for the calculation of the tax liability on the $583.33 is flawed. Wife asserts that the combined federal, state and local bracket is 28.96% as opposed to 39.8%. Wife fails to take into account that our federal taxation scheme is progressive and that once income reaches a certain level it is taxed at the appropriate marginal tax rate. As such it is not possible to simply place a percentage on one's overall tax liability. 3 %7o Revised 1999 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Monthly Net Income Gross Monthly Net Increase Withholdings (federal and state tax) Monthly Net Increase 1999 Revised Monthly Net Income $9,539.79 $583.33 $232.17 $351.16 $9890.95 The result of these revised figures has an effect on both calculating child support and alimony.2 These revisions will be illustrated in the following: 1. Child Support for September 17 Through December 18, 1998: This revision will have no real effect on the child support due Susan Candiello for 1998 since our earlier order was based upon the guidelines' presumptive minimum. Whether husband's net monthly income was $9,776.00 as set forth in this Court's September 1, 1999 Order or $9,539.79 following the adjustments required by remand, so long as Husband's net monthly income exceeded $8,000.00, this Court's September 1, 1999 Order regarding child support to wife is appropriate under the guidelines. However, for the period between September 17 and December 18, 1998, husband actually only paid $2,487.00 when he 2 This Court will utilize the figures Husband provided in the December 11, 2001 brief for amounts actually paid towards child support and alimony for purposes of determining arrearages or overpayments. 4 should have paid $3,522.64. As such an arrearage is due in the amount of $1,035.64. 2. Child Support For December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999: For the reasons set forth above, the child support order in effect through March 31, 1999 shall not be disturbed since it was based upon the guideline's presumptive minimum. However, for the period between December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999, husband actually paid $6,238.00 when he should have only paid $5,3890.00. As such, an overpayment occurred in the amount of $849.00. 3. Child Support Effective April 1, 1999: Using husband's revised monthly net income of $9,890.95, this Court has recalculated the child support due to wife for the wife effective April 1, 1999 in the following manner: Husband's Revised Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Combined Net Income: Revised Basic Child Support (support guidelines) Husband's Net Income Percentage Wife's Net Income Percentage Husband's Revised Share of Child Support Prior Child Support Order Difference $ 9,890.95 $ 2,896.OO $12,786.95 $ 2,684.00 77% 23% $2,066.68/month $2,115.00/month $ 48.32/month Revised Child Support for April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001: Revised Total Child Support: $2,066.68 x 33 months = $68,200.44 Amounts Actually Paid: 5 From 4-1-99 through 9-31-99: From 10-1-99 through 12-1-01: Total Paid Arrearage ($68,200.44 - $68,094.00): $10,944.00 $57,105.00 $68,094.00 $ 116.44 4. Child Support Summary September 17 through December 18, 1998 December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999 April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001 5. Alimony: $1,036.00 ($849.00) $116.44 Total Arrearage: $303.44 Using husband's revised net monthly income of $9,890.95 this Court has recalculated the alimony due wife for the following periods: Revised Alimony For January 1'1, 1999 through March 3, 1999: Husband's Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Difference In Net Incomes: Less Monthly Child Support: Difference: Monthly Alimony Owed ($5,419.00 x 30%) $9,890.95 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 $1,576.00 $5,419.00 $1,625.70 Total Owed For Period ($1,625.70 x 2.68 month) $4,356.88 Amount Actually Paid: ($1,100.00 x 2.68 month) $2,948.00 Arrearage: $1,408.88 Revised Alimony Effective April 1, 1999: Husband's Monthly Net Income: $9,890.95 6 Wife's Monthly Net Income: Difference In Net Incomes: Less Monthly Child Support: Difference: Monthly Alimony Owed ($4,928.32 x 30%) Effective 4-1-99 Monthly Alimony Paid: Monthly Difference Actually paid from 4-1-99 through 9-31-99 Actually paid from 10-1-99 through 11-30-99 Total Actually paid from 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 Revised Alimony for 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 Arrearage: $2,896.00 $6,995.OO $2,O66.68 $4,928.32 $1,478.50 $1,541.00 $62.50 $6,600.00 $36,984.00 $43,584.00 $47,312.00 $3,728.00 6. Alimony Summary Arrearage 1-11-99 to 3-31-99 $1,408.88 Arrearage 4-1-99 to 11-30-01 $3,728.00 Total arrearages as of 11-30-01 $5,136.88 PERCENTAGES: When the support order is revised, the alimony paid to Wife should be included for the entire period for purposes of her percentage of available income to pay excess medical costs, as alimony was not included in the calculation for child support owed by her. This would produce the following result: Husband's Revised Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Combined Net Income: Deduct Alimony From Husband $9,891.00 - $1,478.50 = Add Alimony to Wife $9,890.95 $2,896.OO $12,787.00 $8,412.50 7 $2,896.00 + $1,478,50 = $4,373.50 Net Income as a Percentage for Husband for unreimbursed Medical Expenses: 66% Net Income as a Percentage for Wife for unreimbursed medical Expenses: 34% FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO HUSBAND'S SUBSEQUENT DAUGHTER With regard to the final issue, the issue was remanded for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and present wife. Husband argues that his child support obligation to his child from his present marriage (Katelyn Candiello) should be considered as a deduction for his gross income. However, the Superior Court has directed this court to be guided by Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(n) (in effect in 1998 - early 1999) which states that the fact that an obligor has a new family is to be considered in determining whether the obligor's total support obligation equals fifty percent or less of net income. The Superior Court directed that if the total support obligation is fifty percent or less, then there is generally no deviation from the guideline amount on the ground of the existence of a new family. See Elias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996). This Court's interpretation of the Superior Court's decision requires that we treat Husband's child support obligation to Katelyn only as a deviation under Rule 1910.16-4, renumbered as 1910.16-5 in 1999. Because of the respective incomes earned by Husband and his current spouse, we do not believe that a deviation is warranted under the facts of this case. In determining the alimony paid to wife, it is the decision of this Court not to deduct any sum for child support for Katelyn. 8 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.93-229 CiVIL ACTION - LAW IN DiVORCE NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN that Vincent Candiello, Defendant in the Divorce action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in the above-captioned matter on April 2, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Said Order was docketed on April 2, 2002, a copy of the docket entries in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is attached as Exhibit "B". MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Thomas 'J. Williams,/Esquire I.D. No. 17512 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Vincent Candiello Date: April 30, 2002 VINCENT CANDIELLO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN K. CANDiELLO, Defendant : NO. 93-229 CIVIL : IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 :IN SUPPORT ORDER HOFFER, P.J.: ~d AND NOW, this ~ ay of~¢,;( foregoing opinion, the following is awarded: As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at: Alimony arrears are set at: Effective as of December 1,2001: Child support is set at: Alimony is set at: 2002, in accordance with the $ 303.44 $5,136.88 $2,066.68/month $1,478.50/month Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed medical expenses. EXHIBIT "A" BY THE COURT: GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bddge Street New Cumberland, PA 17Q13 Attorney for Susan K.Candiello Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Vincent Candiello 2 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff Vo SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 93-229 CIVIL : : IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff Vo VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 : IN SUPPORT OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address the remand of the decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granting, in part, the appeal of Husband, Vincent Candiello. On August 9, 2001 the Superior Court issued its opinion as to certain issues raised by Husband to this Court's September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matters. The Superior Court has ordered a remand on three (3) issues: (a) the health insurance premiums husband paid on behalf of his children; (b) the amount of taxes paid by husband in 1998 and 1999; and (c) the financial obligations he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. EXHIBIT "B" HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS With regard to the issue of health insurance premiums, the Superior Court directed the sum of $1320.00 to be deducted from the husband's gross yearly income as the Superior Court held that the "trial court failed to account for Husband's payments [of health insurance premiums], and, therefore, we remand so that the insurance payments can be subtracted from the Husband's gross income." As such this results in $110.00 being deducted from Husband's monthly gross income for 1998 and 1999. The effects of lowering Husband's net monthly income by $110.00 per month are discussed below. RECALCULATING HUSBAND'S TAXES FOR 1998 AND 1999 In resolving this issue, the Superior Court concluded that the actual amount of income taxes paid in 1998 was $47,690.56 based upon husband's unrebutted presumption. Consequently, we will utilize this figure in our calculation of husband's net income. Additionally, the sum of $110.00 per month paid by husband for health insurance premiums shall be deducted form husband's net monthly income for 1998. As such, husband is left with a net monthly income of $9,539.79 instead of $9,776.00 as set forth in our September 1, 1999 Order. With respect to the increase in husband's income for 1999, the Superior Court held that "the trial court failed to include husband's local and state taxes in its deduction." As such, we must, therefore, determine the state and local taxes husband paid in 1999. The gross amount of husband's 1999 increase is an 2 undisputed $583.33. Based upon the federal marginal tax rate, a deduction for federal taxes should be imposed at 36%. What remains to be determined are the state and local taxes. ,It is clear that the state tax rate in effect at the time was 2.8%. 72 P.S. §7302(a)(2). The local tax attributed to husband's income was 1%. Therefore, the total tax liability for the gross monthly increase of $583.33 was 39.8% (36% federal marginal tax rate, 2.8% state rate, and 1% local rate) or $232.177 When this monthly tax liability is subtracted from 583.33, the net monthly increase for 1999 should have been $351.16. As such, we will use this figure in our calculation of husband's 1999 net income. The following revised calculations will illustrate the above changes: Revised 1998 monthly net income calculation: Gross Income Less: Withholdings (federal and state tax) Lecture Expenses Health Insurance Yearly Net Income $164,687.98 $47,690.56 $1,200.00 $1,320.00 $114,477.42 1998 Revised Monthly Net Income $9,539.79 ~ Wife's argument for the calculation of the tax liability on the $583.33 is flawed. Wife asserts that the combined federal, state and local bracket is 28.96% as opposed to 39.6%. Wife fails to take into account that our federal taxation scheme is progressive and that once income reaches a certain level it is taxed at the appropriate marginal tax rate. As such it is not possible to simply place a percentage on one's overall tax liability. 3 Revised 1999 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Monthly Net Income Gross Monthly Net Increase Withholdings (federal and state tax) Monthly Net Increase '1999 Revised Monthly Net Income $9,539.79 $583.33 $232.17 $351.16 $9890.95 The result of these revised figures has an effect on both calculating child support and alimony.2 These revisions will be illustrated in the following: '1. Child Support for September 17 Through December 18, 1998: This revision will have no real effect on the child support due Susan Candiello for 1998 since our earlier order was based upon the guidelines' presumptive minimum. Whether husband's net monthly income was $9,776.00 as set forth in this Court's September 1, 1999 Order or $9,539.79 following the adjustments required by remand, so long as Husband's net monthly income exceeded $8,000.00, this Court's September 1, 1999 Order regarding child support to wife is appropriate under the guidelines. However, for the period between September 17 and December 18, 1998, husband actually only paid $2,487.00 when he 2 This Court will utilize the figures Husband provided in the December 11, 2001 brief for amounts actually paid towards child support and alimony for purposes of determining arrearages or overpayments. 4 should have paid $3,522.64. As such an arrearage is due in the amount of $1,035.64. 2. Child Support For December 19, '1998 through March 31, '[999: For the reasons set forth above, the child support order in effect through March 31, 1999 shall not be disturbed since it was based upon the guideline's presumptive minimum. However, for the period between December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999, husband actually paid $6,238.00 when he should have only paid $5,3890.00. As such, an overpayment occurred in the amount of $849.00. 3. Child Support Effective April 1, 1999: Using husband's revised monthly net income of $9,890.95, this Court has recalculated the child support due to wife for the wife effective April 1, 1999 in the following manner: Husband's Revised Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Combined Net Income: Revised Basic Child Support (support guidelines) Husband's Net Income Percentage Wife's Net Income Percentage Husband's Revised Share of Child Support Prior Child Support Order Difference $ 9,890.95 $ 2,896.00 $12,786.95 $ 2,684.00 77% 23% $2,066.68/month $2,115.00/month $ 48.32/month Revised Child Support for April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001: Revised Total Child Support: $2,066.68 x 33 months = $68,200.44 Amounts Actually Paid: 5 From 4-1-99 through 9-31-99: From 10-1-99 through 12-1-01: Total Paid Arrearage ($68,200.44 - $68,094.00): $10,944.00 $57,105.00 $68,094.00 $ 116.44 4. Child Support Summary September 17. through December 18, 1998 December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999 April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001 Total Arrearage: $1,036.00 ($849.00) $116.44 $303.44 5. Alimony: Using husband's revised net monthly income of $9,890.95 this Court has recalculated the alimony due wife for the following periods: Revised Alimony For January 11, 1999 through March 3, 1999: Husband's Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Difference In Net Incomes: Less Monthly Child Support: Difference: Monthly Alimony Owed ($5,419.00 x 30%) Total Owed For Period ($1,625.70 x 2.68 month) Amount Actually Paid: ($1,100.00 x 2.68 month) Arrearage: $9,890.95 $2,896.00 $6,995.OO $1,576.00 $5,419.00 $1,625.70 $4,356.88 $2,948.00 $1,408.88 Revised Alimony Effective April 1, 1999: Husband's Monthly Net Income: $9,890.95 6 Wife's Monthly Net Income: Difference In Net Incomes: Less Monthly Child Support: Difference: Monthly Alimony Owed ($4,928.32 x 30%) Effective 4-1-99 Monthly Alimony Paid: Monthly Difference Actually paid from .4-1-99 through 9-31-99 Actually paid from 10-1-99 through 11-30-99 Total Actually paid from 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 Revised Alimony for 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 Arrearage: $2,896.00 $6,995.OO $2,O66.68 $4,928.32 $1,478.50 $1,541.00 $62.50 $6,600.00 $36,984.00 $43,584.00 $47,312.00 $3,728.00 6. Alimony Summary Arrearage 1-11-99 to 3-31-99 Arrearage 4-1-99 to 11-30-01 Total arrearages as of 11-30-01 PERCENTAGES: $1,408.88 $3,728.00 $5,136.88 When the support order is revised, the alimony paid to Wife should be included for the entire period for purposes of her percentage of available income to pay excess medical costs, as alimony was not included in the calculation for child support owed by her. This would produce the following result: Husband's Revised Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Combined Net Income: Deduct Alimony From Husband $9,891.00 - $1,478.50 = Add Alimony to Wife $9,890.95 $2,896.OO $12,787.00 $8,412.50 7 $2,896.00 + $1,478,50 = $4,373.50 Net Income as a Percentage for Husband for unreimbursed Medical Expenses: 66% Net Income as a Percentage for Wife for unreimbursed medical E~(penses: 34% FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO HUSBAND'S SUBSEQUENT DAUGHTER With regard to the final issue, the issue was remanded for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and present wife. Husband argues that his child support obligation to his child from his present marriage (Katelyn Candiello) should be considered as a deduction for his gross income. However, the Superior Court has directed this court to be guided by Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(n) (in effect in 1998 - early 1999) which states that the fact that an obligor has a new family is to be considered in determining whether the obligor's total support obligation equals fifty percent or less of net income. The Superior Court directed that if the total support obligation is fifty percent or less, then there is generally no deviation from the guideline amount on the ground of the existence of a new family. See Elias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996). This Court's interpretation of the Superior Court's decision requires that we treat Husband's child support obligation to Katelyn only as a deviation under Rule 1910.16-4, renumbered as 1910.16-5 in 1999. Because of the respective incomes eamed by Husband and his current spouse, we do not believe that a deviation is warranted under the facts of this case. In determining the alimony paid to wife, it is the decision of this Court not to deduct any sum for child support for Katelyn. 8 Case # -S 229 Date of Entry: aanuer~ 22, 1 993 at Appearances: Plaintiff: Vincent Candiello Defendant: Susan K. Candiello February 3, 1993, Affidavit of Service, filed. May 31, 1994, Affidavit under Sectio~ 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, filed. May 31, 1994, Amended Complaint in Divorce, filed. May 31, 1994, Certificate of Service, filed. June 2, 1994, Motion for Bifurcation, and Order, filed. A~D NOW, to wit, this 2nd day of Ju~e, 1994, upon consider ation of the foregoing Motion for Bifurcation, a hearing is scheduled to address said Motion for August 8, 1994, at 1:30 o'clock p.m. in courtrocrn No. 5 of the Cu~rland County Courthouse located at 1 Courthouse square, Carlisle, Penn- sylvania. By The Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. June 16, 1994, Petition for Ali0~ny, A3_~y Pe~de~te Lite, Ce~sel Fees and Expenses and Equitable Distribution, filed. June 16, 1994, Defendant's Counter-Affidavit under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, filed. August 8, 1994, Order, filed. Entry by Summons ( Complaint Petition Appeal Revival Action in Assumpsit ( Trespass Habeas Corpus Divorce Grounds Equity Mortgage Foreclosure Ejectment Quiet Title Replevin Condemnation Service by SHF: Date of ~:/ Return: X AND NO~, th~s 8th day of August, 1994, upon relation of Maria p. Co~netti, Esq., attorney for defendant, that all n~tters have been resolved, the hearing previously scheduled for August 8, 1994, is CANCRT.TRD. By the CO~Z~, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. August 15, 1949, Or~er, filed. AND N~W, this 15th day of August, 1994, the e~onc~nic claims raised in the proceedings having been resolved in accordance with a m~L--ital settle~nent agreement and addendL-n dated August 12, 1994, the appointment of the Master is vacated, and counsel can file a praecipo transn~tting the reoord to the Court requesting a final decree in divorce. By the Court: J. ~esley Oler, Jr., J. August 12, 1994, Praecipe Withdrawing Ancillary Claims, filed. Please withdraw all ancJ ] ]ary cla~ filed by the defandant, Susan K. Candiello, in her answer and countercla~ docketed to the above term and n%~aber inas~ch as the parties ~have reached an a~nent resolving all issues. By: Maria p. Cognetti, Esq. August 15, 1994, Plaintiff's Affidavit of Consent and W~ver of Counseling, filed. August 15, 1994, Defendant's Affidavit of Coesant and Waiver of Counseling, filed. Taxation of Costs Receipt of Fees $165.50 Pd Arty John C. Howett, Jr. $10.00 Pa Surcharge Pd Arty $5.00 Pd Co. ~'~.~° /~. ~. ~-f~'~F August 12, 1994, Order, filed. IN R~ Plaintiff's Motion for Bifurcation. ASD NOW, this 12th day of August, 1994, it ap~9_~ing that all matters in the above Motion for Bifurcation have not been resolved as previously anticipated by counsel, the hearing that ~s cancelled for AuDust 8, 1994, is ~S~EUDLED for Thursday, August 18, 1994, at 3:30 p.m., in onur~roc~ NO. 5, Cu~land County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. April 6, 1995, Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Marital Settlement Agreement, and Rule to Show Cause, filed. A~D NOW, this 5th day of April, 1995, u~on consideration of Plaintiff Vincent Candiello's Emergency Petition to E~forc~ Marital Settlement Agareement, a Pule is hereby entered upon Defendant Susan K. Candiello to show canse, if any she has, why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule returnable at hearing on the 18th day of May, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17103. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Notices nmiled 4/6/95 ~ 2, 1995, Praecipe, filed. Please withdraw, with prejudice, Plaintiff Vincent Candiello's Emergency Petition for Enforc~nent of M~rital Settlerflent A~re~_nt filed with the Co%Lr~ on April 4, 1995. By: John C. Howett, Jr., Esq. ~ 3, 1995, Order of Court, filed. IN R~: E~r~ency Petition for Enforcement of Marital Settlemant A~reement. AND N~W, this 2nd day of May, 1995, upon consideration of the attached letter frcm John C. How~tt, Jr., Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, tha hearing previously scheduled in the above cetter for May 18, 1995 is CANCELLED. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. ~ 13, 1998, Petition for F3nforce~nent of Marital Settlement ~3re~nent to Suspend, Terminate or ~k~tify AlimDny, filed. ~ 21, 1998, Rule to Show Cause, filed. IN RE: Petition for Enforcement of Marital Settlement Agreement to Suspend, Terminate, or Modify AlimDny PAD NOW, this 19th day of August, 1998, upon onnsidaration of Plaintiff Vincent Candiello's Petition to Enforcce Marital Settlement Agreement to Suspend, Terminate, or Modify Alimony, a Rule is hereby ente~od upon Respondent Susan K. Candiello to show cause, if any she has, why the relief requested should not be granted. Rule returnable at hearing on the 28th day of September, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtro(~ 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Notice mailed 8/21/98 A~ 21, 1998, Entry of Appearance for Defendant Susan K. Candiello, filed. Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant Susan K. Candiello in this matter. By: Steven fk~ll, Esq. S~t~-r 1, 1998, Order of Court, filed. IN RE: Plaintiff's Petition to Enforce Marital Settle-q~nt Agre~nt to Suspend, Terminate, or F~x~ify Alimony AND NC~, this 1st day of August, 1998, upon a~nt of counsel, the hearing previously scheduled in this nmtter for Septe~bar 28, 1998, is RESC~EDULED to Wednesday, December 2, 19998, at 1:20 p.m., in Courtroc~fl No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies miled 9/2/98 ~e~ber 11, 1998, Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Docents and Things for Discovery ~ursuant to Rule 4009.21, filed. September 11, 1998, Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Docu~nents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21, filed. Se~t~ 11, 1998, Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21, filed. Sept~ 11, 1998, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Notice of Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment and Petition to ~)dify Alimony, filed. Se~ 28, 1998 Plaintiff's ~-eliminaz~ objections to defendant's Preliminary objecitons to Plaintiffs notice of ~raecipe for entry of default jud~nent and petition to n~dify alimony, by Vincent Candiello No~rar 10, 1998, Defendant's Obejotions to Plaintiff's Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas for Discovery, filed. ND~ 25, 1998, Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, filed. NO. 229 Civil 1993 (B.F. From page 124) Candiello vs. Candiello Deu~,~-r 1, 1998, Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Make Rule Absolute, filed. Vincent Candielo hereby requests that his Motion to Make Rule Absolute, filed on Novembe] 25, 1998, be withdrawn. By: Vincent Candiello, Esq. Dece~_r 1, 1998, Certificate of Service, filed. Deu~.~-r 1, 1998, Motion for Continuance, filed. D~ 3, 1998, Order of Court, filed. IN RE: Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute A~D NOW, this 3rd day of December, 1998, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion To Mak~ Rule Absolute, and a praecipe having been filed on December 1, 1998, to withdraw Plaintiff's motion, the Rule issued in this matter on August 19, 1998, on Plaintiff Vincent Candiello's Petition to FA~force Marital Settlement Agreement, to Suspend, Terminate, or Modify Alimany, is DISCHARGE~. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 12/4/98 December 7, 1998, Order, filed. IN RE: Motion for Continuance NUN, this 3rd day of Dec~mber, 1998, it is hereby ~ that said Motion is granted and matter currently scheduled for Dece~ 2, 1998, 1:30 p.m. with Judge J. Wesley OLer, JR., is continued until 24th day of February, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in Cou~roon No. 1, Cun6erla~ County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 12/7/98 December 22, 1998, Praecipe, filed. E~ter the appearance of MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & O~'fO on behalf of Plaintiff in the above matter. By: Thc~ss J. Williams, E~q. January Il, 1999, Plaintiff's Petition to Modify Alimony, filed. Ja~ 12, 1999, Order of Court, filed. IN RE; Plaintiff's Petition to Modify Alimony ~ NUN, this 12th day of January 1999 it is hereby ~ that Plaintiff's Petition to Increase Alimony shall be heard at the ~ tim~ as Defendant's Petition to Ter~nate AI~many on ~ebruax~ 24, 1999 at 2:00 I~ in Cour~roc~ Number 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies m~iled 1/12/99 Jan~ 12, 1999, Praecipe, filed. Plaintiff, Vincent J. Candiello, hereby withdraws and discontinues his Petition for Enforcement of Marital Settlement Agreement to Suspend, Terminate or Modify Alimony that was filed August 13, 1998. By: Thomas J. Williams, Esq. January 14, 1999, Order of Court, filed. ASD NCW, this 13th day of January, 1999, upon consideration of the attached letter frc~ Thomas J. Williams, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, the hearing previously scheduled in this matter for February 24, 1999, is CANCeling. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 1/14/99 Jall~ 19, 1999, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Consolidation Order of January 12, 1999, filed. January 19, 1999, Order of Court, filed. AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 1999, upon consideration of the attached letter from Steven Howell, Esq., attorney for Defendant, the order of court dated January 3, 1999, is VACATED. The hearing previously scheduled for February 24, 1999, on Plaintiff's Pro Se Petition for Enforcement of Marital Settlement Agreen~nt to Suspend, Terminate or Modify AlinDny is cancelled, but the hearing previously scheduled for February 24, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. on Defendant's Petition to ~kx~ify Alimony re~ains scheduled for that date. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 1/20/99 Jan~x~/ 19, 1999, Order of Court, filed. IN RE: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court'! Consolidation ORder of January 12, 1999 ASD NOW, this 22nd day of January, 1999, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motin To Reconsider the Court's Consolidation Order of January 12, 1999, a conference is SCHEDULED for Tuesday, February 16, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., in the chambers of the undersigned judge. By the Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 1/25/99 February 10, 1999, Order of Court, filed. AS~ NC~, this 18th day of February, 1999, the hearing previously scheduled for Febr0ary 24, 1999, on Susan K. Candiello's Petition TO Modify Alimony is CANCRr.T.PD, because the matter is being transferred to the Honorable George E. Hoffer by separate order of court of even date herew.~t h. No. 229 Civil 1993 (B.F. from page 124-A) Cand~ello vs. Candiello February 19, 1999, Order of Court, filed. A~D NOW, this 18th day of February, 1999, after a meeting in chambers with Thomas J. Williams, Esq., attorney for Vincent candiello, and Steven Howell, Esq., attorney for Susan K. candiello, it is ordered and directed as follows: The hearing previously scheduled before the undersigned judge on Defendant's (Susan K. candiello's) Petition To ~x~ifyAlimDny is hereby transferred to the Honorable George E. Hoffer to be heard at the same time as a child support matter scheduled before President Judge Holler, On March 25, 1999. By tho Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Copies mailed 2/19/99 Sept~,ber 1, 1999, Opinion and Order of Court, filed. IN RE: Petitions to Modify Alin~ny and Child Support AND NOW, September 1, 1999, after careful consideration and pursuant to the Opinion filed this date, Wife Susan K. Candiello's petitions to modify child support and alimony are ~rantnd. By the Court: George E. Hoffer, P.J. Notice mailed 9/1/99 September 28, 1999, Notice of Appeal, filed. Notice is hereby given that Susan K. candiello, Defendant above, hereby appeals to thoe Superior Court of Pennsylvania frcm the September 1, 1999 Order and Opinion issued by the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J., and entered in this matter on the 1st day of September. This C~der has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entries. Steven Howell, Esquire September 29, 1999, Concise Statement of Matters Complained Of And Intended TO Be Argued September 29, 1999, Request For Trial Transcript, filed. September 29, 1999, Notice Of Appeal, filed. Notice is hereby given that Vincnet Candi~llo, Defendant ~n the Divorce action filed in the Court of Cc~ncn Pleas of Cumberland County, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania frcm the O~der entered in the above-captioned matter on September 1, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Said Oxder~s docketed on September 1, 1999; A copy of the docket entries in the Cottrt of co~1~ Pleas of Ct~nberland County iss attached as ~xhibit "B". MARTSON, [F, ARD~FF, WILLIAMS & Otto Thcm~s J. Willi~ns Esq. for Deft. October 4, 1999, Plaintiff/ Appellant and Defendant/Appellee Susan K. Candiello's Ybtion to Assess Cost of Transcript, filed. October 4, 1999, Order of Court, filed. IN RE: State~ent of Reasons AND NOW, October 4, 1999, notice having been received that an appeal has been taken in the above-captioned matter, it is ordered and directed that the appellant forthwith file with the trial judge a concise state~m~nt of the matters cc~lained of on the appeal, together with reference to any statutozy authority or any rule of court. U~on the failure of the appellant to file such reasons within ten days, the court will presume that the appeal has been abandoned. By the Court: George E. Hoffer, P.J. Copy mailed 10/5/99 O~ 7, 1999, Answer to Notion to Assiss costs of Transcript, filed. Nuv~.~r 12, 1999, Transcript, filed. F~,L~ 3, 2~, Opinlu. ~d O~d=~ u£ Cuu~L, £11=d. ~; k~, ~,~ns t~$:ster's-Report-' ......... u ..... 2 ~n,, ~n ----~"' c~nsi~cr tiaa of ~ par~ie~ b~i~f~ witk thi: ~pinicn. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. Copies mailed 11/29/01 Now~er 28, 2001, Order of Court, filed. AND NOW, November 28. 2001. the Court having held a conference with the attorneys. at their request, to determine the procedure to be used in the remand of this case from the Superior Court, at the suggestion of Thomas Williams, Esquire, that the record contains all data needed to resolve the three issues remanded, the counsel are directed to file briefs with the Court; defendant husband's within ten days; plaintiff wife's by December 22. 2001, after which the Court will rule. By the Court, GeOrge E. Noffer, P.J. ~ril 2, 2002. Order, filed. In Re~ Opinion AND NOW. this 2nd day of April 2002, in accordance with the foregoing opinion, the following is awarded: As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at $303.44 Ali~ny arrears are set at: $5,136.88 Effective as of December 1, 2001: Child support is set at: $2,066.60/month Alimony is set at: $1,470.50/month Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed m~dical expenses. BY THE COURT~ GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Copies mailed 4/3/02 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of PA.R.A.P. 121: Service by first class mail addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire (717) 737-8690 619 Bridge Steret New Cumberland, PA 17070 Counsel for Plaintiff (Appellee) Service in person as follows: Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. (717) 240-6292 Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 Ms. Taryn Dixon (717)240-6200 Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: April 30, 2002 12:31 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 714 MDA 2002 Page I of 2 May 2, 2002 Vincent Candiello, Appellant v. Susan K. Candiello Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status: May 2, 2002 Journal Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations Awaiting Original Record CaseType: Child Support Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.: SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received Next Event Due Date: May 16, 2002 Next Event Type: Original Record Received Appellant Pro Se: IFP Status: COUNSEL INFORMATION Candiello, Vincent Appoint Counsel Status: No Appellant Attorney Information: Attorney: Bar No.: 17512 Law Firm: Address: TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)243-3341 Fax No.: Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: Receive E-Maih No Appellee Pro Se: IFP Status: Candiello, Susan K. Appoint Counsel Status: Appellee Attorney Information: Attorney: Howell, Steven Bar No.: 62063 Law Firm: Howell, Steven, Law Offices of Address: 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Phone No.: (717)770-1277 Fax Ne.: (717)770-1278 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: Receive E-Maih No FEE INFORMATION 5/2/02 3023 12:31 P.M;- Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 714 MDA 2002 Pa;le 2 of 2 May 2, 2002 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt 5/2/02 Notice of Appeal 55.00 Paid Amount 55.00 Receipt Number 2002SPRMD000410 Court Below: County: Cumberland Date of Order Appealed From: Date Documents Received: Order Type: Order Entered TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Judge: Hoffer, George E. President Judge April 2, 2002 May 1,2002 Division: Civil Judicial District: 9 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: April 30, 2002 OTN: Lower Court Docket No.: 93-229 Civil Action- Law Original Record Item ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS Filed Date Content/Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFS DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type May 2, 2002 Notice of Appeal Filed Fi!ed By Appellant Candiello, Vincent May 2, 2002 Docketing Statement Exited (Domestic Relations) Middle District Filing Office 5/2/02 VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON p~[~. ~ ~.u~. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE Rule to Show Cause AND NOW, thislJ dayof~ 2002 a Rule to Show Cause is hereby issued upon Appellant Vincent Candiello tl~now cause if any he might have why the relief requested in this Petition should not be granted. Rule Returnable within~ays of service by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail upon Appellant's counsel of record. Certified Copies To: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BY THE COURT: ~offer, P.J. '~N~A~kSNN~z:I LO :11 N'~ .gl VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this __ day of 2002 it is hereby ORDERED in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 1926 that the docket and record in Case Number 93 - 229 shall reflect the addition of the documents attached to Susan K. Candiello's Petition to Modify or Correct the Record Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1926. BYTHECOURT: Certified Copies To: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 The Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE PETITION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY THE RECORD BY SUSAN K. CANDIELLO PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1926 1. On April 30, 2002 Vincent Candiello filed a Notice of Appeal regarding this Court's April 2, 2002 Order and Opinion. 2. On May 10, 2002 Susan Candiello filed a Notice of Cross Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 903 (b) regarding this Court's April 2, 2002 Order and Opinion. 3. In reviewing the docket it is apparent that the following documents are not listed on the docket but were before the court when it issued its April 2, 2002 Order and Opinion. a. Mrs. Candiello's "Motion for Fact Finding Hearing and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court" which was mailed to the Prothonotary and opposing counsel on September 24, 2001. A tree and correct copy of the Motion is attached as Exhibit "A". There is no doubt that Appellant received this document because he filed and served a response to the Motion on October 15,2001. b. Mrs. Candiello's "Memorandum of Law" submitted to the Court and opposing counsel on November 26, 2002. A true and correct copy of the Memorandum is attached as Exhibit "B". c. Mrs. Candiello's "Proposed Opinion and Order" submitted to the Court and opposing counsel on December 20, 2001 in accordance with this Court's November 28, 2001 Order. A true and correct copy of the "Proposed Opinion and Order" is attached as Exhibit d. Mrs. Candiello's letter dated January 9, 2002 to the Court following Appellant's counsel's letter of January 2, 2002 to the Court. A true and correct copy of the January 9, 2002 letter is attached as Exhibit "D". 8. In accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1926, upon petition the record made be corrected or modified to reflect the troth of documents filed or considered before the lower court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to caUse Exhibits "A", "B", "C' and "D" to be incorporated as part of the lower court's record in Case Number 93- 229 Civil Action - Law. BY: .~ Ben H'o~ell, Esquire ridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Susan K. Candiello Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: May 10, 2002 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 215 S 92 DR 19,828 PA CASES 610000026 CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE MOTION FOR FACT FINDING HEARING AND DOCUMENT EXCHANGE ON REMAND BY SUPERIOR COURT 1. The Superior Court has ordered a remand on three (3) issues: (a) amount of taxes paid by Vincent Candiello in 1998 and 1999; (b) the health insurance premiums Vincent Candiello paid on behalf of his children; and (c) the financial obligation he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. See Opinion at Page 12. Opinion is attached as Exhibit "A". 2. With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes for 1998, Wife's position was that Husband's total taxes for 1998 was $46,169.53. (See Page 7 of Trial Court Opinion). Husband's position is that his total taxes for 1998 was $47,690.56. This figure appears on Page 7 of Superior Court Opinion in which the court writes "Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.$6 in taxes for 1998". The difference between the parties is $1,521.03 or $126.75 per month. 3. With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes in 1999, the Superior Court held: "With regard to the trial cou~t's calculation of Husband's 1999 taxes, we conclude the trial court properly deducted the federal taxes to be paid by Husband. However, the trial court failed to include Husband's local and states taxes in its deduction." Calculation of the state and local taxes can only be determined by an examination of Mr. Candiello's 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns. These tax returns were not part of the record since the fact finding hearing was held in April 1999. Therefore, the tax return for 1999 must be examined if the trial court is to comply with the Superior Court's decision. 4. With regard to the issue of health insurance premiums, the Superior Court directed the sum of $1,320.00 to be deducted from Husband's gross income. See Page 10 of Superior Court Opinion. This results in $110.00 being deducted from Husband's monthly gross income. 5. With regard to the final issue, the case was "remand[ed]for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and present wife." See Page 11 of Opinion. It is vital to note that the Superior Court only directed the court to "consider" whether Husband's obligation to help support his daughter bom to his present wife in combination with his present support obligation exceeds fifty percent of his net monthly income. 6. In this case, under the existing support orders Husband pays a total of $3,656.00 ($1,541.00 in alimony plus $2,115.00 in child support for two children) to his first family. With a monthly net of no less than $10,000.00 it is difficult to see how Mr. Candiello's theoretical support obligation for a single child to his second wife could ever exceed fifty (50%) percent of his net monthly income. 7. It should be noted that Mr. Candiello's second wife earns more than Susan K. Candiello with a gross income of $66,037.02 in 1996 and $68,866.03 in 1997. 8. In order to comply with the remand, Mr. Candiello must produce his 1999 and 2000 federal, state and local income tax returns as well as all 1099s, W-2s for himself and his second wife in order that the court may determine if his theoretical support obligation could ever exceed fifty (50%) percent of his net monthly income. WHEREFORE, Susan K. Candiello respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Order an exchange of documents regarding taxes for 1998 and 1999 as well as health insurance premiums actually paid by Vincent Candiello for 1998 and 1999 to be followed by a fact finding hearing. BY: ,6,19yen Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 Telecopier Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Susan K. Candiello Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: September 24, 2001 BY: /~en I~owo~, Esquire ]-Al8010-01 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, VINCENT CANDIELLO, Appellee.. Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1622 MDA 1999 Appeal from the Order entered September 1, 1999 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Counb/ Domestic Relations No. 215 S 92 Civil Action - 93-229 Civil DR 19, 828 .-. · PASES 610000026 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Appellant Appellee SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : No, 1627 MDA 19gg Appeal from the Order entered September 1, 1999 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Domestic Relations No. 93-229 BEFORE: CAVANAUGH, STEVENS, and TAMILIA, MEMORANDUM: Husband appeals from the September 1, 1999 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County granting Wife's petition to modify child support and alimony· In his appeal, Husband contends that the trial court erred in calculating Husband's and Wife's monthly net income. Specifically, Husband contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to give ]-A18010-O1 Husband proper credit for income taxes he paid; (2) the trial court erred in failing to give Husband credit for income taxes he will be required to pay when his 401K contributions are added back into his income; (3) the trial court erred in failing to treat Husband's fluctuating income on an average annual basis; (4) the trial court erred in failing to deduct health insurance premiums paid by Husband; (5) the trial court erred in calculating Wife's monthly net income since the trial court treated Wife as if she were fully employed; (6) the trial court erred in failing to consider Husband's financial obligations to his daughter from a subsequent marriage; and (7) the Rules of Civil Procedure are unconstitutional to the extent they do not permit consideration of Husband's new family in determining his net income,z We affirm in part, and reverse and remand for further proceedings in part. The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Husband and Wife were married in 1971, and the couple had four children during the marriage. Two children, Robert and Catherine, are currently over the age of eighteen. All four children have resided with Husband and Wife at various times. z We note that Wife also filed an appeal from the trial court's September 1, 1999 order, in which she contended that the trial court erred in failing to make the award of child support and alimony retroactive and In failing to award Wife counsel fees. Although the Issues were ralsed in Wife's appellee brief before this panel, we decline to address the issues. Wife's appeal was not consolidated with the Instant appeal. A three-Judge panel has already addressed Wife's issues, See Candiello v, Candiello, 1589 & 1590 MDA 1999 (Pa. Super. filed 2/26/01), and, therefore, we decline to discuss the ]-A18010-01 On January 21, 1993, Husband filed a complaint in divorce, and the parties followed numerous support orders thereafter. On August 12, 1994, the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement, which provided for child support and alimony. The agreement indicated that modifications to the agreement were to be made pursuant to the support guidelines. On August 15, 1994, a final divorce decree was entered. In ,lune of 1998, the parties returned to the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office (hereinafter DRO) to settle a dispute over child support. Robert, the oldest child, was already emancipated and Wife had petitioned the [trial] court to remove Catherine from the support order because she had graduated from high school. At the time, Husband was paying $816.00 per month In child support. After the conference, the DRO entered a recommended order of $1241.00 monthly child support to be paid by Husband, effective January 1, 1999, after Catherine turned eighteen. The $816.00 per month payment was to continue until the new order took effect in .lanuary. Neither party appealed this order. On September 17, 1998, Wife petitioned the [trial] court for an increase in child support based solely upon Husband's failure to report increases in his regular salary and income that he earned from speaking engagements and lectures from 1996 to the present.2 Wife asked that the increase by retroactive to 1996. On December 10, 1998, DRO entered a revised child support order, increasing Husband's monthly payment to $1,316.00, retroactive to the filing date of September 17, 1998. The court also provided that Husband's child support obligation would increase to $1,774.00 per month on December 18, 1998, [which is] Catherine's eighteenth birthday. Both parties appealed the order [to the trial court for a de novo hearing]. On ~lanuary 11, 1999, Wife petitioned the [trial court] to modify alimony paid by Husband. Husband had been paying $1,100.00 per month since August 12, 1994, pursuant to the issues further. We note that Wife has failed to respond to any of the issues raised in Husband's brief. 2 Noele and Michael were living with Wife at all relevant times hereto. parties' other two children are emancipated. -3- The ]-A18010-O1 marital settlement agreement. Wife's petition to modify alimony was consolidated with her petition to modify child support on ]anuary 12, 1999. A hearing on both petitioned was held before [the trial court] on April 12, 1999. Candiello v. Candiello, Nos. 1589 & 1590 MDA 1999 at 2-3 (Pa.Super. flied 2/26/01) (unpublished memorandum). Following the hearing, the trial court modified child support and alimony based on an increased Income to Husband. Specifically, the trial court concluded that Husband's regular salary increased and he earned income from various teaching/speaking engagements, thereby resulting in Husband's income increasing for support/alimony purposes.3 As such, the trial court ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $3,522.64 for the period of September 17, 1998, through December 18, 1998, $5,388.92 for the period of December 19, 1998, through March 31, 1999, and $2,115.00 per month effective April 1, 1999 until any subsequent order takes effect. The trial court ordered Husband to pay alimony in the amount of $4,559.74 for the period of .lanuary 11, 1999 through March 31, 1999, and $1,541.00 per month effective April 1, 1999 until any subsequent order takes effect. Husband's timely appeal followed, the trial court ordered Husband to file a statement pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 We note that Husband and Wife are both licensed attorneys in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Husband primarily practices labor and employment law, while Wife primarily practices domestic relations law. ]-A18010-01 1925(b), and Husband filed such a statement. The trial court subsequently filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Initially, we set forth our standard of review. The standard of review in child support and alimony cases Is clear. We will not disturb the decision of the trial court unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court abused its discretion. O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 530 Pa. 176, 607 A.2d 735 (1992) (reviewing alimony order under an abuse of discretion standard); Thomson v. Rose, 698 A.2d 1321, 1322-1323 (Pa.Super. 1997) (reviewing support order under an abuse of discretion standard). An abuse of discretion occurs if insufficient evidence exists to sustain a support/alimony award, if the trial court overrides or misapplies existing law, or if the Judgment exercised by the trial court is manifestly unreasonable. /'d. at 1323. Many of Husband's issues on appeal concern the trial Court's calculation of Husband's monthly net income wlt. h regard to child support and allmony. With regard to chlld support, and relevant to the specific issues presented by Husband, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.15- 5(b)4 provides that "[m]onthly gross income is ordinarily based upon at least a six-month average of all of a party's income. The term 'income' is defined 4 Effective April 1, 1999, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure were amended and renumbered. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.15-5(b) is now found at Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a). We note that both Husband and the trial court utilize the amended and former rules in analyzing the issues In this case. However, 3-A18010-01 by the support law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302, and Includes Income from any source." The Rules further provide that: Monthly net income is determined by subtracting only the following items from monthly gross income: (1) federal, state, and local income taxes; (2) F.I.C.A. payments and non-voluntary retirement payments; (3) union dues; (4) health Insurance premiums for the benefit of the other party or the children; and (5) alimony paid to the other party. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b). With regard to alimony, and relevant to the specific issues presented by Husband, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a) provides that "[w]here a divorce decree has been entered, the court may allow alimony, as It deems reasonable, to either party only if it finds that alimony is necessary." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(b) lists numerous relevant factors which the trial court may consider in ordering alimony, including "the relative earnings and earning capacities of the parties," "the sources of income of both parties...," and "the relative assets and liabilities of the parties...." Husband first contends that, In determining Husband's monthly net income for child support and alimony purposes, the trial court abused its discretion in falling to give Husband proper credit for income taxes paid by him. since the petitions at issue were filed prior to April 1, 1999, we shall review 3-A18010-01 As Indicated supra, the amount of Income taxes paid by Husband is relevant in determining his income for child support and alimony purposes. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5, 42 Pa.C.S.A; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701. In the case sub .iudice, the trial court determined that $46,169.53 should be deducted from Husband's 1998 gross Income for income taxes paid by Husband. With regard to 1999, the trial court stated the following: In 1999, [Husband] received a gross monthly pay raise of $583.33. Accordingly, this raise was taxed at the appropriate marginal tax rate of 36% . Upon payment of taxes, his net monthly raise was $373.33. Thus, In calculating his monthly net income, he has been given an additional $210.00 credit each month in determining his 1999 monthly net income. Trial Court Opinion filed 9/5/00 at 6. Presumably, in determlnlng the tax amount for 1998, the trial court added $41,637.73, which was withheld by Husband's employer on his W-2 form, and $4,531.80, which is seventy-eight percent of a check Husband and his new wife wrote to the Internal Revenue Service for their joint return.5 Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.56 in taxes for the year 1998 and that the net monthly increase for the year 1999 should have been $342.71. Husband's claims under the former rules only. s Husband remarried followlng his divorce from Wife. Husband and his new wife sent a check to the Internal Revenue Service for $5,810.00 since insufficient taxes were withheld by Husband's employer. N.T. 4/12/99 at 42. Since Husband earned 78% of the income with regard to him and his new wife, Wife argued that 78% of the $5,810.00 should be added to the amount of taxes withheld by Husband's employer. ]-A18010-O1 Husband presented evidence indicating that his employer withheld $41,637.73 for taxes in the year 1998. However, Husband determined that his employer did not withhold the proper amount of taxes and, therefore, he paid over $6,000.00 in additional taxes for the year 1998. See N.T. 4/12/99 at 42. Husband specifically testified that the additional $6,000.00 in taxes was attributed to Husband solely and not his new wife. N.T. 4/12/99 at 43. This evidence was uncontradicted by Wife, and, therefore, we find that the trial court erred with regard to this issue. With regard to the trial court's calculation of Husband's 1999 taxes, we conclude that the trial court properly deducted the federal taxes to be paid by Husband. However, the trial court failed to Include Husband's local and state taxes in its deduction, lit Is well settled that local and state taxes shall be deducted from gross income. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b)(1). As such, we remand for a proper determination of Husband's taxes for the years 1999 and 1998 and a proper deduction from gross income with regard thereto. Husband's second issue Is that the trial court erred In failing to give credit for the income taxes he will be required to pay when his 401K contributions are added back into his income. Specifically, Husband contends that $10,000.00 of his gross income went into a 401K retirement account, and that the trial court did not include taxes Husband will have to pay on the 401K benefits in the future. We find this issue to be waived. ]-A18010-01 Husband has failed to cite any authority, statutory or otherwise, to support his position that the trial court should have included taxes that Husband will have to pay In the future as a deduction for child support or alimony purposes. His failure to provide proper authority is a violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(b) and prevents meaningful review of his claim. We decline to develop the argument for Husband and find the issue to be waived. Husband's third issue is that the trial court erred in failing to treat Husband's income from teaching/lecturing on a fluctuating basis, and, therefore, the trial court erred in failing to determine the income on a yearly Husband cites Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(c)(3)6 to support his average. argument. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(c)(3) provides the following: "(3) Seasonal Employees. Support orders for seasonal employees, such as construction workers, shall ordinarily be based upon a yearly, average." Here, Husband has not alleged that hls teaching/lecturing jobs are seasonal in nature. Rather, he contends that each year he earns different amounts depending on the number of classes he teaches and the number of lectures he gives. The fact the income earned from teaching/lecturing varies depending on the 6 Husband actually cited to the amended rules, specifically Pa.R.A.P. 1910.16-2(d)(3). However, since the petitions in this case were filed prior to the amendment, we shall review Husband's claim under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-S(c), which is the predecessor to Pa.R.A.P. 1910.16-2(d)(3). 3-A18010-01 number of engagements Husband accepts does not require a finding that his employment is "seasonal." Husband's fourth contention is that the trial court erred in failing to deduct from gross income health insurance premiums Husband paid on behalf of his children. As indicated previously, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 indicates that "health insurance premiums for the benefit of the other party or the children" must be subtracted from gross Income. Here, Husband offered evidence indicating that he paid $1,320.00 per year for health insurance premiums. The trial court failed to account for Husband's payments, and, therefore, we remand so that the Insurance payments can be subtracted from Husband's gross Income.7 Husband's fifth issue Is that the trial court erred in calculating Wife's monthly net income since the trial court treated Wife as if she were fully employed. That is, Husband contends that, in calc. ulating Wife's income, the trial court should have increased Wife's earnings by twenty percent since Wife does not, but could, work full-time. We find this issue to be waived. 7 lin its opinion, the trial court indicated that Husband is not permitted a deduction for payment of the health insurance premiums. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the payment of the premiums should be allocated between the parties. While the trial court's analysis may be correct under the amended rules, See Comment to amended Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6, such analysis is not correct under the rules applicable to this case. - lO- 3-A18010-01 Husband cites no authority, statutory or otherwise, to support his fourth issue. His failure to do so severely hampers this Court's review, and, therefore, under Pa.R.A.P. 2119, we find the issue to be waived.8 Husband's sixth argument is that the trial court erred in failing to consider Husband's financial obligations to his daughter, who was born to of Husband's permissible. ~o Husband and his present wife.9 The trial court indicated that consideration minor daughter, born to a subsequent marriage, was not We disagree with the trial court's conclusion and remand for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and his present wife. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(n) indicates that "It]he goal of the [support] guidelines is to treat each child equitably." The Rule indicates that the fact an obligor has a new family is to be considered in determining whether the obligor's total support obligation equals fifty percent or less of net income. 8 Husband "tacks on" an argument regarding the trial court's use of a three- month average in determining Wife's gross Income instead of a six-month average. We find this issue to be waived since it was not raised in Husband's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Comrnonwealt:h v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998); Lol~augh v. Lol~augh, 753 A.2d 834 (Pa.Super. 2000) ([holding that issues concerning alimony were waived under Lord). 9 We note that Husband cites to amended Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(2) and the former Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o) to support his contention. The Comment to the amended Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16 indicates that Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(2) incorporates former Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o). Since the amended rules were not in effect for this case, we shall analyze this case under former Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-$(o). lo We note that the trial court cited amended Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c) making this determination. -11- in 3-A18010-01 If the total support obligation is fifty percent of less, then there is generally no deviation from the guideline amount on the ground of the existence of a new family. In £1ias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa.Super. 1996), this Court specifically held that the fact an obligor has a new wife and child is to be taken into consideration In determining whether a deviation from the guideline amounts is needed.~ As such, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to consider Husband's obligation to his new daughter; this is true even though no court-ordered support was in effect with regard to the new daughter. See Elias, supra. Husband's seventh contention is that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure violate the Equal Protection Clause to the extent the Rules do not permit consideration of Husband's financial obligations to his new child. Having concluded that consideratlon of Husband's new child is permitted, we decline to address Husband's last issue. For all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand with regard to Husband's Issues concerning the amount of taxes he paid in 1998 and 1999, the health insurance premiums he paid on behalf of his children, and the financial obligation he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. In all other respects, we affirm. Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part; Jurisdiction Relinquished. The rule in effect during Elias and this case are substantially the same. -12- ]-A18010-O1 Cavanaugh, 3. concurs in the result, AUG 09 20~ Date: SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 215 S 92 DR 19,828 PA CASES 610000026 CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ORDERED that: day of ., 2001 it is hereby 1. Vincent Candiello shall provide complete copies of his 1999 and 2000 federal, state and local income tax returns as well as all supporting schedules, forms, W-2s and 1099s for himself and his present wife to Steven Howell, Esquire within days of service of this Order. 2. Vincent Candiello shall provide any documents showing the mount of health insurance premiums he paid on behalf of the minor children covered by this Court's Support Orders for the years 1999 and 2000 to Steven Howell, Esquire within days of service of this Order. 3. A heating is scheduled for ., __ 200 at Courtroom Number __ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. M. in BY THE COURT: GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Certified Copies To: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Thomas J. Williums, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 215 S 92 DR 19,828 PA CASES 610000026 CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE MEMORANDUM OF LAW SUBMITTED BY SUSAN K. CANDIELLO BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Superior Court has ordered a remand on three (3) issues: (a) mount of taxes paid by Vincent Candiello in 1998 and 1999; (b) the health insurance premiums Vincent Candiello paid on behalf of his children; and (c) the financial obligation he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. See Opinion at Page 12. It should be not&d that the Superior Court did not adopt the mathematical calculations tendered by Vincent Candi~ello in his filing of October 15, 2001 and the Superior Court also denied Vincent Candiello's Application for Costs by Order dated October 3, 2001. (See Attachment "1"). QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Is the trial court able to determine Mr. Candiello's taxes for 1999 without reviewing the actual 1999 federal, state and local tax return along with all supporting schedules, forms, W-2s and 1099s for himself and his present wife? Suggested Answer: No. 2. Is the trial court able to determine the mount of health insurance premiums paid by Vincent Candiello on behalf of the minor children covered by this Court's Support Orders for the years 1999 and 2000 without access to the payments made by Vincent Candiello for health insurance premiums and the division between family members covered by the plan? Suggested Answer: No. 3. Is the trial court able to "consider" whether Vincent Candiello is entitled to any deviation under the standard set forth in Elias v. Spencer, 449 Pa. Super. 359, 673 A.2d 982 (I 996) without access to the 1999 and 2000 federal, state and local income tax returns for himself and his wife? SuggestedAnswer: No. 4. Is Mrs. Candiello entitled to present evidence such as Vincent Candiello's expenditure on May 3, 2001 of Twent~ Three Thousand Eight Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($23,800.00) to install an in ground pool at his home in Lancaster County as shown by Attachment "2" (Building Permit from Manheim Township) to demonstrate that he is not entitled to any deviation since he clearly has sufficient discretionary income even after paying his current support order? Suggested Answer: Yes. ARGUMENT It is not possible to determine Mr. Candiello's total taxes for 1999 without access to his 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns and associated documents since they were not available at the time of the hearing in April 1999. Before turning to the 1999 taxes, the issue of Husband's Iaxes in 1998 is easily disposed of by examining the record. With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes for 1998, Wife's position was that Husband's total taxes for 1998 was $46,169.53. (See Page 7 of Trial Court Opinion). Husband's position is that his total taxes for 1998 was $47,690.56. This figure appears on Page 7 of Superior Court Opinion in whit]3 the court writes "Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.56 in taxes for 1998". The difference between the parties is $1,521.03 or $126.75 per month. 2 With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes in 1999, the Superior Court held: "With regard to the trial court's calculation of Husbandts 1999 taxes, we conclude the trial court properly deducted the federal taxes to be paid by Husband. However, the trial court failed to include Husband's local and states taxes in its deduction." Calculation of the state and local taxes can only be determined by an examination of Mr. Candiello's 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns. These tax returns were not part of the record since the fact finding heating was held in April 1999. Therefore, the tax return for 1999 must be examined if the trial court is to comply with the Superior Court's decision. II. It is not possible to determine Mr. Candiello's health insurance premiums beyond December 31, 1998 without additional financial information. With regard to the issue of health insurance premiums, the Superior Court directed the sum of $1,320.00 to be deducted from Husband's gross income. See Page l0 of Superior Court Opinion. This results in $110.00 being deducted from Husband's monthly gross income. However, it does not provide any information on the health insurance premiums paid throughout most of 1999 or 2000. III. The trial court can not "consider" whether Mr. Candieilo is entitled to a deviation under the standard set forth in Elias v. Spencer without having access to the 1999 and 2000 federal, state and local income tax returns for Mr. Candieilo. With regard to the final issue, the case was "remand[ed]for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and present wife." See Page 11 of Opinion. It is vital to note that the Superior Court only directed the court to "consider" whether Husband's obligation to help support his daughter bom to his present wife in combination with his present support obligation exceeds fifty percent of his net monthly income. The standard cited by the 3 Superior Court is found in Elias v. Spencer 449 Pa. Super. 359, 673 A.2d 982 (1996). The Superior Court at Page 12 of its Opinion wrote: If the total support obligation is fifty percent of [sic] less, then there is generally no deviation from the guideline amount on the ground of the existence of a new family. [Elias v. Spencer stands for the proposition] that the fact an obligor has a new wife and child is to be taken into consideration in determining whether a deviation from the guideline amount is needed. In this case, under the existing support orders Husband pays a total of $3,656.00 ($1,541.00 in alimony plus $2,115.00 in child support for two children) to his first family~ With a monthly net of no less than $10,000.00 it is difficult to see how Mr. Candiello's theoretical support obligation for a single child to his second wife could ever exceed fifty (50%) percent of his net monthly income. It should be noted that Mr. Candiello's second wife earns more than Susan K. Candiello with a gross income of $66,037.02 in 1996 and $68,866.03 in 1997. In order to comply with the remand, Mr. Candiello must produce his 1999 and 2000 federal, state and local income tax returns as well as all 1099s, W-2s for himself and his second wife in order that the court may determine if his theoretical support obligation could ever exceed fifty (50%) percent of his net monthly income. IV. Vincent Candieilo is not entitled to any deviation in alimony or child support because he has a surplus of discretionary income which is best illustrated by his purchase on or about May 3, 2001 of an in ground pool for his home in Lancaster County with a dollar value of $23,800.00 (exclusive of landscaping). In the Elias v. Spencer case cited by the Superior Court the facts concerned a man paying child support of approximately $400.00 per month, al[hough he had expenses with a new child and wife and he had also declared bankruptcy. This faqt pattern must be contrasted with Vincent Candiello, who earns no less than $120,000.00 in net yearly income. He is not separated and his spouse earned no less than $68,800.00 in 1997. Together, they support one child. Mr. Candiello 4 had sufficient discretionary income after paying the increased support to Mrs. Susan Candiello since September 1999 that he could afford to spend $23,800.00 on an in ground pool (exclusive of landscaping) in May 2001. Deviations should not be granted in a case where an obligor not only earns a significant income but his spouse is similarly well employed and they together support one child with no special needs. It certainly should not be granted in a case where the obligor is able to purchase a purely luxury item such as an in ground pool. A fact finding hearing would enable Mrs. Susan Candiello to present Attachment "2" and other evidence showing that a deviation is unjustified in this case. CONCLUSION: Susan K. Candiello respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Order an exchange of documents regarding taxes for 1998 and 1999 as well as health insurance premiums actually paid by Vincent Candiello for 1998 and 1999 to be followed by a fact~finding hearing. ~ven How~, Esquire J619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Susan K. Candiello Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record~via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: November 26, 2001 BY: //~en H~well,~sq~iTe ~ 5 3-A18010-01 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Appellee V. VINCENT CANDIELLO, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1622 MDA 1999 VINCENT CANDIELLO, : Appellant ' SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, : Appellee '. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1627 MDA 1999 ORDER AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2001, Appellant Vincent Candiello's Application for Costs is hereby DENIED· TRUE COPY t:~.OM Pd~,OI%D Chigf Clerk - Sup&lot Court of Pa. Middle District PER CUR'rAM 184u Municipal Drive · Lancaster, PA 17601-4162 (717) 569-6406 Fax (717) 560-4183 Please ball point pen andpress hard/ Date: ZIP E PROJECT C~TACT PE~ON NAME a PHONE NUMBER ( '~ TENANT'S NAM~ (IF DIFFERENT THN4 PROPERTY OWNER) APPLICATION FOR ZONING REVIEW, BUILDING PLAN EXAMINATION AND BUILDING PERMIT Permit Number ~ .J ~ ?~'~...S in gle Family Multi-Family Number of Units Hotet, Motel or Dormitory Number of Units Assembly Business Educa0onal PHONE NO USE OF STRUCTURE (Check One) E3 Fac(ory & Industrial [] Institutional [] Mercantile [] Storage [] Utility [] High Hazard [] Other All applicants are rem,,rec evidence of Workers Insurance Coverage (PA ~ct 44 I hereby certify thai the Droposec v.:. - authorized by the owr, e~ of 'eco'd I have been authonzed by F'e %..-e' ' make this application as an agent/~]nd agree to con}cfm to a!, Ma"-e - ._TQwr~ship Ordlna r~ [] Repair, Replace [] Demolition [] Porch [] Garage DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Check Atl Spaces That [] New Building I ~/Swlmm, l~,a ~:: :" : ~ [] Alteration Spa Er:e. :- ,t~S hed/O utbu dd :'9 % Electrical [] Plumbing ,~ HVAC [] Attached [] Detached [] Deck Other (Descnbe Subdivision: .~':'%'/Y( ~t b,,/."~b, ~.t~'L,, Total Square F,~otage: Number of S[Orles .... Lot NO (~ ~ Dollar Value: "?,~./ ~"'~'¢ Height 6f Structu'e __ _ BUILDING PLANS, DOCUMENTS AND DETAILED SITE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTEB. SEE APPLICABLE SUBMITTAL GUIDE Permmt Fee: I~O'~ Sewer Fee: t Sewer Permit ~ Impact Fee: ,,~/,t~ - Water Fee: Water Permit ~ Tax Map #: "~b ) 0 ~ Q ~} .~. Zoning District: /fl I~ Fire Fund: X."/~ Zen,rig Review by: ..%/~'~¢ ~ Zoning Approved Date: ~/'r/¢ ' Refusal DaTe Zoning Comments: ~0~ [ ¢~//[r~ , & ~'0 Cfi ¢~ Code Compliance Approved Date: I~R-30-OI FRI 12:~? PM FOX FAX NO, 180677'~877 .t APPROVED PLANS~PEQFICATiO, ' MANHEIM 'fOWNSHIP £ODE 3!! i:, 2B~l 11:15 7177574~91 FOX CONSUMER FOX MiniMax Pl'us Electronic Pool/Spa Heater en~oy all the fun oFan e,xtendcd swimJning ~eason, De$~Qrted for h(~h Low ~h~ d~tgn wt'lh ~unded comer~. Pot~ted flow ~/ve wtth For e,~cient, reliable heating, trust MiniMax Plus. Its Iow profile compact de_qign will fit ~v :~tal ac:on arc e: .-~ THE ST~tONG[$T NA/~E IN POOLS P.O. BOX 54g YOIqK, PA 17405 B§/15/2BOi 11:18 7177574~-' FOX CONSUMER DIV PAGE 03 FOX Ultra-FlowTM High Performance Pum. p.& Motor Roeomme~'~e~ ~ I:b~e A ~p is ~e hofl of yo~ p~l or spa ~stem, ~ you mt ~u ~ co~t on. ~e ~t~Fl~ p~p wo~ ~ce ~ ~, ~up~ot peffo~nce for bo~ high- ~ medi~.h~d ~m. ~cepUomlly q~e~ mpid-p~ng ~d ve~Ule, ~is pump d~i~ed ~o ~ceed ~ ~ur ~ec~tiom. · ~ to ~'form d~d/l; u~ll/~r both hi~h- and med~d ~llltlo~. ma~ ~. · ~lable in ~ m~ ~m .5bp to 3 ~ mode~ ' ~allp ~ed For qui~t o~tlom · ~ tA~ ~1 ~ $ui~ pour ~ior st~ ~d ~ (, r, AANHEIM TO',NN Sb,!r' OFFiCiAL Rugg~d fibergla~,-nin/orc~d ~olgpt~pglene ta~d~ co~ tho ~h the ~th ~h of for long~ ~ ~ c~&g~ F~a~r~ th~ n~ one~-~ ~d ~. ~ual ~ ~ef o~e ~d c~t~o~ ~e~al att r~e/ ~ to e~ate ~ a~mu~to~ · Rugged fibenffla~-retnforceff~olypr~lene lo'dc combines the strmgth ot flb~r~lass with tt~ smooth ~h ' ~h Fl~TM m~l a~ ~b~fval~ ~ ~o~o~ ~t~al ~r relief · Fo~ d~i~ ~a~r~ la~ ~R~ng ~face ar~ thai For ~a~ d~ c~ci~ ~d longer ~ ~ cl~n~s MA/~MEIM TOWNSHIP PERMIT ADMENDMENTS AND COMMENTS CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: PERMIT NUMBER: REVIEWER: DATE: FOXX POOLS 14 DRAPER CIRCLE B01-0747 EUGENE MURPHY 05/16/01 REF: 1995 CA,BO ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE 1995 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 1996 BOCA NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION CODE 1996 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 1996 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE 1996 BOCA NATIONAL BUILDING CODE DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION OF ;%N IN-GROUND PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL. 1. Pennsylvania One Call must be notified at least three (3) days in advance of any excavation. Call 1-800-242-1776. All underground utilities shall be marked by the appropriate authority. (Act 172/287) 2. Ail electrical wiring shall be in accordance with the 1996 National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) and all work shall be inspected and approved by the Manheim Township Electrical Inspector. (2700.1, 2702.1 Amended) 3. Ail fencing around pool shall be a minimum of 4 feet above the ground and shall have no opening greater than 4 inches. An approved temporary fence must in place untill the.'permanent fence is completed.(CABO D105,D105.2) 4. Gates shall be a minimum of 4 feet high and shall be self- closing with self-latching hardware, mounted 54 inches above grade unaccessible to small children frog the outside. (CABO D105.2) 5. The bonding must be approved prior 6o backfilling inground pools and approved prior to final inspection on aboveground pools. 6. Application for Certificate of ~se and Occupancy must be completed by the permit holder and returned to the Code official prior to the Final Inspection and Use of the pool. (118.0) MANHEIM TOWNSHIP PERMIT ADMENDMENTS A/gD COMMENTS (Continued) CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: PERMIT NUMBER: FOXX POOLS 14 DRAPER CIRCLE B01-0747 REVIEWER: DATE: EUGENE MURPHY 05/16/01 7. The permit holder is responsible for making arrangements for inspection and by insuring that required inspections have been performed by a Township Inspector. Construction shall not proceed until each phase of construction has been approved. (Building Code, Section 113.2 Amended) 8. Building permit shall be posted and visible from the right of way. (Building Code, Section 108.8) 9. Please refer to Contractor, Building Permit Number, Address, and Inspection when calling for inspections or in any correspondence. 10. Inspection of Steel Panel Pools A. After Concrete is Placed Around Panels, Before Backfilling. B. Plumbing, Prior to Backfilling. C. Electrical (Bonding and Final). Bonding, Prior to Backfilling. D. Final. 11. Filling of pool shall not be accomplished until such time as the bonding and plumbing are completed and approved. 12. The final electrical sticker for the pool must be affixed to the electrical panel prior to the final Township inspection being completed. 13. Where a wall of a dwelling serves as part of the barrier to the pool, the access doors shall be eqflipped with an approved audible alarm or a listed powered safety cover for the pool must be provided. (CABO D105.2) t~ SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 215 S 92 DR 19,828 PA CASES 610000026 CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 200 it is hereby ORDERED that effective January 1, 2002 monthly child support shall be $2,075.15 for the support of two children residing with Susan Candiello and monthly alimony shall be $1,495.00. Vincent Candiello shall remain responsible for 77% of un~imbursed medical expenses. By virtue of the remand and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, Domestic Relations shall provide a credit to Vincent Candiello of the following amounts: $ 156.24 for the period 1/I 1/99 to 3/31/99 for overpayment of Alimony $1,315.05 for the period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 for overpayment of Child Support $1.518.00 for the period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 for overpayment of Alimony $2,989.29 Domestic Relations shall deduct fi.om Susan Candiello's monthly alimony of $1,495.00 the sum of $50.00 per month until the credit o1'$2,989.29 is repaid in full. BY THE COURT GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Certified Copies To: Steven Howell, Esquire (619 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire (Ten East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013) SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 215 S 92 DR 19,828 PA CASES 610000026 VINCENT CANDIELLO, ~ : CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DEFENDANT : DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE OPINION HOFFER, P. J.: The Superior Court has ordered a remand on three (3) issues: (a) the health insurance premiums Husband paid on behalf of his children; (b) amount of taxes paid by Vincent Candiello (hereinafter referred to as "Husband") in 1998 and 1999; and (e) the financial obligation he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. See Memorandum Opinion at Page 12. This Opinion will modify our earlier September 1, 1999 Order as follows. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS With regard to the issue of health insurance premiums, the Superior Court directed the sum of $1,320.00 to be deducted from Husband's gross yearly income. See Page 10 of Superior Court Opinion. This results in $1 I0.00 being deducted from Husband's monthly gross income for 1998 and 1999. This adjustment is reflected in the calculations set forth in Schedule "A" and Schedule "B" attached to this Opinion. This sum was not considered in our earlier calculations or the September 1, 1999 Order. The effects of lowering Husband's net monthly income by $110.00 per month are discussed below. RECALCULATING HUSBAND'S TAXES FOR 1998 AND 1999 Husband's 1998 Net Monthly Income With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes for 1998, Wife's position was that Husband's total taxes for 1998 was $46,169.53. (See Page 7 of Trial Court Opinion). Husband's position is that his total taxes for 1998 was $47,690.56. This figure appears on Page 7 of Superior Court Opinion in which the court write, s "Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.56 in taxes for 1998". The difference between the parties is $1,521.03 or $126.75 per month. The Superior Court has directed this Court to utilize Husband's figures for 1998 and the sum of $126.75 shall be deducted from Husband's net monthly income for 1998. Similarly, the sum orS110.00 per month paid by Husband for health insurance premiums shall be deducted from Husband's net monthly income for 1998. After deducting the sum of $126.75 and $110.00 Husband is left with a net monthly income of $9,539.79 instead of $9,776.00 as set forth in the September 1, 1999 Order. The precise calculations for Husband's net monthly income are attached as Schedule "A" to this Opinion. Effect of l, owering Monthly Net Income from $9,776. O0 to $9,$39.79 in 1998for Calculation of Child Support for the Period 9/17/98 - 12/31/98 However, this revision shall have no effect on the child support due Susan Candiello (hereinafter "Wife") for 1998 since our earlier Order was based upon the guidelines' presumptive minimum. In 1998 the guideline amounts reached their maximum at $8,000.00 for an obligor. Whether Husband's net monthly income was $9,776.00 as set forth in this Court's September 1, 2 1999 Order or $9,539.79 following the adjustments required by remand, so long as Husband's net monthly income exceeded $8,000.00 this Cotm's September l, 1999 Order regarding child support payable to Wife in 1998 is appropriate under the guidelines. Husband's 1999 Net Monthly Income i With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes in 1999, the Superior Court held: "As such we remand for a proper determination of Husband's taxes for the years 1999 and 1998 and a proper deduction from gross income with regard thereto. " See Page 8 of Memorandum Opinion. An accurate revision of the taxes due in 1999 can only be determined by an examination of Husband's 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns. These tax returns were not part of the record since the fact finding hearing was held April 12, 1999. Wife requested by Motion dated September 24, 2001 that Husband provide his 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns so this figure could be calculated with certainty on remand. Counsel for Husband declined this offer as set forth in this Court's Order of November 28, 2001. This court is left with the record before us which shows that in 1998 Husband's combined federal, state and local income tax bracket was 28.96%. The precise calculation of the 28.96% tax is set forth in Schedule "A" of this Opinion but is based upon the entire taxes paid by Husband as a percentage of his gross income. It is undisputed that Husband received a raise of $7,000.00 gross yearly or $583.33 gross · monthly in 1999. Since it is clear that Husband's combined federal, state and local bracket is 28.96% we are going to deduct 28.96% or $168.93 from the monthly raise of $583.33 resulting in the sum of $414.40 being added to the revised net monthly figure for 1998 of $9,539.79. This brings Husband's net monthly income for 1999 to $9,954.19. The sum of $9,954.19 takes into 3 consideration both the increased tax payments by Husband in 1998 as well as the health insurance premiums. It would be unjust to deduct 39.8% (36% federal, 2.8% State and 1.0% Local Tax) from the raise as suggested by Husband since his entire withholdings for federal, state and local taxes in 1998 totalled only 28.96%. Further, it would be unjust to adopt the 39.8% figure when Husband declined to produce the records which could confirm or deny the validity of his position. The record simply does not contain the actual taxes paid by Husband in 1999 and that is solely due to Husband's refusal to provide the tax returns as requested by Wife. Effect of £owering Monthly Net Incorne frorn $I0,149.87 to $9,954.19 in 1999for Calculation of Child Support for the Period 1/1/01- 3/31/99 For the reasons set forth earlier, the child support order in effect from January 1, 1999 through March 3 I, 1999 shall not be disturbed since it was based upon the guideline's presumptive minimum which reached its maximum at $8,000.00 net per month for an obligor. Clearly, Husband's revised net monthly income exceeded $8,000.00 for the period 1/1/99 - 3/31/99 so no adjustment in our earlier Order is warranted. Effect of Lowering Monthly Net Income frOth $10,149.87 to $9,954.19 in 1999for Calculation of Child Support for the Period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 Using Husband's revised net monthly income of $9,954.19 this Court has recalculated the child support due Wife for the period April 1, 1999 through December 31,2001. In summary, child support for the period of time April 1, 1999 through December 31,2001 should have been 4 $2,075.15 instead of $2,115.00. This calculation is as follows: Old Order Husband's Net Monthly Income $10,149.00 Wife's Net Monthly Income $ 2,896.00 Combined Net Monthly Income 513,045.00 Basic Child Support $ 2,718.00 Husband's Net Income Percentage )78% Wife's Net Income Percentage 22% Husband's Share of Child Support $ 2,115.00 Wife's Share of Child Support 5 603.00 TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT ~ $ 2,115.00 New Order Overpayment 5 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 512,850.19 $ 2,695.00 77% 23% $ 2,075.15 5 619.115 $ 2,075.15 $ 1,315.05 This is a monthly overpayment by Husband to Wife of $39.85 for the last thirty three (33) months or $1,315.05. Domestic Relations is directed to issue a credit of $1,315.05 to Husband for this overpayment for the period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01. Effect of Lowering Monthly Net Income frorn $10,149.87 to $9,954.19 in 1999for Calculation of ,41irnonyfor the Period 1/11/99 to 3/31/99 Using Husband's revised net monthly income of $9,954.19 this Court has recalculated the alimony due Wife for the period January 11, 1999 through March 31, 1999. In summary alimony for the period of time from January 11, 1999 through March 31, 1999 should have been $1,644.65 instead of $1,703.00. This calculation is as follows: Husband's Net Monthly Income Wife's Net Monthly Income Difference Between Incomes Husband's Child Support Amount Used to Calculate Alimony Multiply By 30% TOTAL ALIMONY DUE WIPE Old Order New Order Overpayment $10,149.00 $ 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 $ 7,253.00 $ 7,058.19 $ 1,576.00 $ 1,576.00 $ 5,677.00 $ 5,482.19 $ 1.703.00 5 1.644.65 $ 4,559.74 $ 4,403.50 $ 156.24 This is an overpayment by Husband to Wife of $156.24 for this period. Domestic Relations is directed to issue a credit of $156.24 to Husband for this overpayment for the period 1/11/99 to 3/31/99. Effect of Lowering Monthly Net Income from $I0,149.87 to $9,954.19 in 1999for Calculation of Alimony for the Period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 Using Husband's revised net monthly income of $9,954.19 this Court has recalculated the alimony due Wife for the period April 1, 1999 through December 31,2001. Alimony for the period of time from April l, 1999 through December 31, 2001 should have been $1,495.00 instead of $1,541.00. This calculation is ad follows: Husband's Net Monthly Income Wife's Net Monthly Income Difference Between Incomes Husband's Child Support Amount Used to Calculate Alimony Multiply By 30% TOTAL ALIMONY DUE WIFE Old Order New Order Overpayment $10,149.00 $ 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 $ 7,253.00 $ 7,058.19 $ 2,115.00 $ 2,075.15 $ 5,138.00 $ 4,983.04 $ 1.541,00 $ 1.495.00 $50,853.00 $49,335.00 $ 1,518.00 This is a monthly overpayment by Husband to Wife of $46.00 or $1,518.00. Domestic Relations is directed to issue a credit of $1,518.00 to Husband for this overpayment for the period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01. CONSIDERATION OF HUSBAND'S CHILD WITH SECOND INTACT FAMILY With regard to the final issue, the case was "remand[ed]for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and present wife." See Page 11 of Opinion. The Superior Court did not direct this Court to recalculate alimony or child support on the basis of Husband's second family. The Superior Court has directed this court to be guided by Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (n) (in effect in 1998 - early 1999) which states that the fact that an obligor has a new family is to be considered (emphasis added) in determining whether the obligor's total support obligation equals rift3, percent or less of net income. See Page I 1 of Opinion. The Superior Court directed that if the total support obligation is fifty percent or less, then there is generally no deviation from the guideline amount on the ground of the existence of a new family. Citing Elias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996). Before discussing this issue the parties are also governed by the provisions of their Marital Settlement Agreement executed oniAugust 12, 1994. On Page 10 at Paragraph 6 (a)(2) Husband specifically agreed to the following: [tlhe parties agree that subsequent children horn to either party shall not be a basis for modification of the child support provisions provided for in this Agreement. Clearly, Husband knew that the birth of his subsequent child to the second wife in September 1994 (See Page 64, Lines 24-25 of Transcript of Proceedings 4/12/99) would not form the basis for any modification of child support paid to his first family. Yet, this is exactly what Husband seeks to do by asking the court to deviate from the guideline award to first family. Even if this court were inclined to ignore in its entirety Paragraph 6(a)(2) of the parties' August 12, 1994 Agreement, Husband is not entitled to any deviation because Husband and second wife have more than adequate financial resources to support their one daughter.. Assuming a monthly net income for Husband of $9,954.19 for 1999, there is generally no deviation from a guideline award unless his total support obligations exceed $4,977.00. In this case, Husband's child support of $2,075.00 and alimony of $1,495.00 totals $3,570.00 payable to first Wife. This leaves $1,407.00 available to support Husband's minor child who resides with Husband and his second wife in an intact household. Husband argues that he should be treated as though he were separated from his second wife and paying a separate support order. Under this scenario, Husband argues that his basic child support obligation for the minor child that he has with his second wife would be $1,398.00. 7 See Page 7 of Husband's "Partial Opposition to Susan Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Heating and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court" filed October 15, 2001. However, at the trial of this matter in April 1999 Husband testified that his child support obligation including hot lunches and day I:are to the child of the second marriage was $1,156.22 ($2,732.22 less $1,576.00 = $1,156.22) not $1,398.00. Did you calculate the total child support obligation for the two children to Susan [Wife] and the one child to Rose Ann [secofld wife]? Yes. And that is what amount? The total combined, was $2,732.33. The amount that I derived offthe grid was, again, that I was at eight thousand and Rose Ann was at two. So, therefore, $920.00 was at the maximum of the grid. We pay $101.00 a week in child support for her to at~end daycare, and we pay $35.00 a month for lunches. She has to have a hot lunch. She cannot carry, that is part of the rules of the daycare. So in taking half of the daycare, and half of the lunch amount, I included that with the $920.00. I included the $1,576 together with that to come up with a total of $2,732.22. [See Page 66-67, Linas 1-16 Transeipt of Proceedings 4/12/99]. Husband does not cross the fifty percent (50%) threshold since his theoretical basic child support obligation does not exceed $1,407.00. He testified on April 12, 1999 that his own calculations showed that he owed $1,156.22 to support the child bom to second wife. Husband also provided an Income and Expense Statement dated 4/12/99 in which he identifies on Page 5 that he owes a child support obligation of $920.00 for the child bom to the second intact marriage. It is worth noting that his Income and Expense Statement for 4/12/99 states that he actually pays $68.00 for child care which if added to the $920.00 comes to $988.00 per month not $1,156.22. If his theoretical support obligation to the child of his second intact marriage does not exceed $1,407.00, Husband is not generally entitled to any deviation from the guideline award to his first family. 8 Wife sought additional information regarding Husband's second wife's income for 1999 to assist the court in this remand proceeding. Husband declined to engage in this information exchange and asked the court to determine the remand without knowing this information. Utilizing the record before us which Husband declined to elaborate, the proper calculation to determine his theoretical support obligation, for the minor child of his second marriage is as follows using second wife's likely income for 1999: ¥ Husband $9,954.00 66.4% $1,349.00 Second Wife $5,030.00* $14,984.00 Combined Family Net Income $ 2,032.00'Basic Child Support 33.6% $683.00 Child Support for Each Parent The Court was not provided Husband's second wife's income for 1999. Exlrapolating from the information provided in 1996, 1997 and 1998 results in the following calculations. Husband's second wife earned $66,037.00 in 1996; $68,886.00 in 1997 and $73,325.42 in 1998 which means that her pay rate increased by 4.3% between 1996 and 1997 and 6.4% between 1997 and 1998. Averaging the increase leads to 5.35% increase. Therefore, it seems reasonable that second Wife's gross income would have increased to $77,247.00 in 1999. Since Wife's tax rate in 1998 was 21.86%, by 1999 second wife's net monthly income would be $5,030.00 ($77,247.00 less 21.86% combined taxes = $60,361.00 + 12 = $5,030.00). This is based upon her W-2 for 1998 showing he monthly net income was $4,774.12 with 21.86% being deducted for taxes. Gross Less $73,325.42 $ 8,028.82 (Federal Income Tax Withholding) $ 4,240.68(Social Security) $ 1,013.62 (Medicare Tax) $ 2,019.61 (State Income Tax) $ 733.17 (Local Tax) $16,035.90 Withholdings (21.86% of Gross Compensation) $57,289.52 + 12 = $4,774.12 Whether the court utilizes Husband's testimony on April 12, 1999 that he paid $1,156.22 in support of the child bom to second wife; or Husband's figure of $1,398.00 in basic child support found in his filing of October 15,2001; or his 4/12/99 Income & Expense Statement showing $988.00 in costs associated with the new child; or our own calculation of $1,349.00, Husband has failed to cross over the fifty (50%) percent threshold set forth in £1ias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996) and no deviation in child support or alimony is warranted. Another factor raised by Wife is that Husband has failed to show that he is entitled to any deviation because he has a surplus of discretionary income. Wife seeks to introduce evidence showing Husband's purchase on or about May 3, 2001 of an in ground pool for his home in Lancaster County. The cost of the pool was $23,800.00 (exclusive of landscaping) and the evidence supporting her claim .was the building permit application from Manheim Township and signed by Husband. Husband has not disputed this fact. In the Elias v. Spencer case cited by the Superior Court the facts concerned a man paying child support of approximately $400.00 per month, although he had expenses with a new child and wife and he had also declared bankruptcy. This fact pattern must be contrasted with Husband, who earns approximately $119,000.00 in net yearly income. He is not separated and his spouse earned $73,325.00 in 1998. In fact, Husband's second wife earns considerably more than his first wife. Together, they support one child. Husband had sufficient discretionary income after paying the increased support to Wife since September 1999 that he could afford to spend $23,800.00 on an in ground pool (exclusive of landscaping) in May 2001. In the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement Husband agreed that his obligation to the child bom to his second family would not affect the child support amount paid to first family. Finally, Husband on January 12, 1999 filed a Praecipe discontinuing his petition to eliminate or lower alimony below $I,100.00 per month. Yet, he continues to argue that monthly alimony should be reduced to $955.00 (See Page 7 of October 15,2001 Filing). 10 Deviations should not be granted in a case where an obligor not only earns a significant income but his spouse is similarly well employed and they together support one child with no special needs. It certainly should not be granted in a case where the obligor is able to purchase a purely luxury item such as an in ground pool. In light of the considerable household income available to Husband from second wife, his standard of living and the best interests of the children Husband has not demonstrated an~, entitlement to a deviation from the guideline awards to Wife. ~ SCHEDULE "A" VINCENT CANDIELLO'S INCOME FOR 1998 AND 1999 1998 YEAR OLD ORDER (SEPTEMBER 1, 1999) Gross $164,687.98 Withholdings $ 46,169.53 Expenses ~ Net Yearly $117,318.45 Net Monthly $ 9,776.54 REVISED ORDER Gross $164,687.98 Withholdings $ 47,690.56* Expenses ~ Net Yearly $115,797.42 Net Monthly $ 9,649.79 Less $ 110.00'* Revised Net $ 9,539.79 Page 8 of Superior Court Memorandum Opinion required the deduction of an additional $1,521.03 which represented the difference between $46,169.53 and $47,690.56. This places Vincent Candiello in the 28.96% tax bracket ($47,690.56 is 28.96% of $164,687.98) for all federal, state and local taxes. Health Insurance Premium Paid by Husband. Page I0 of Superior Court Memorandum Opinion required the deduction of an additional $1,320.00 per year or $I 10.00 per month for health insurance premiums. 1999 YEAR OLD ORDER (SEPTEMBER 1, 1999) Net Monthly $ 9,776.54 Net Raise $ 373.33 Net Monthly $ 10,149.87 REVISED ORDER Net Monthly $ 9,649.79 Net Raise $ 414.40' Net Monthly $ 10,064.19 Less 5; 110.Q0** Revised Net $ 9,954.19 Calculated by deducting 28.96% of Mr. Candiello's gross monthly raise of $583.33 which leaves $414.40 as available net monthly income. ($583.33 less $168.93 = $414.40). Mr. Candiello was offered the opportunity to submit additional information for the actual taxes he paM in 1999 but through his counsel as noted in this Court's Order of November 28, 20001, he represented that "the record contains ali data needed to resolve the three issues remanded". The court is lef~ with the fact that since Mr. Candiello declined to submit his 1999 tax returns and withholding information we must utilize the $28.96% tax rate which is set forth in the record before us. Health Insurance Premium Paid by Husband. Page 10 of Superior Court Memorandum Opinion required the deduction of an additional $1,320.00 per year or $110.00 per month for health insurance premiums. SCHEDULE "B" RECALCULATIONS ON REMAND II. CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATIONS FOR 9/17/98 - 12/18/98 (2 Children Reside with Wife and 1 Child Resides with Husband) Husband's Net Monthly ~ Wife's Net Monthly Child Support for to Wife Credit to Husband ~ Total Monthly Child Support to Wife Total Child Support Owed Wife Old Order New Order Overpayment $9,776.00 $9,539.79 $3,048.00 $3,048.00 $1,576.00' $1,576.00' $ 420.00** $ 420.00** $1,156.00 $1,156.00 $3,522.64 $3,522.64 $ 0.00 Presumptive Minimum to Wife for Two Children Residing With Her. Credit to Husband for One Child Residing With Him. Child Support fOr the period 9/17/98 through 12/18/98 did not change since the adjustments to Mr. Candlelio's income from $9,776.54 to $9,$39.79 makes no difference since he is paying the presumptive minimum and the chart only goes to $8,000.00 net and Mr. Candielio is clearly above that.figure. As long as his net monthly income exceeds $8,000.00 this Courtrs September 1, 1999 Order is correctly calculatetL CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATIONS FOR 12/19/98 - 3/31/99 (2 Children Reside with Wife; Other Turns 18) Husband's Net Monthly Wife's Net Monthly Child Support for to Wife Old Order New Order Overpayment 1998 1998 $ 9,776.00 $ 9,539.79 $ 3.048.00 $ 3.048.00 $1,576.00' $1,576.00' $ 0.00 Husband's Net Monthly Wife's Net Monthly Child Support for to Wife Total Child Support Owed Wife 1999 1999 $10,149.00 $ 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 $ 1.576.00' $1.576.00' $ 5,388.92 $ 5,388.92 $ 0.00 Presumptive Minimum to Wife for Two Children Residing With Her Child Support for the period 12/19/98 through 3/31/99 did not change since the adjustments to Mr. Candiello's income from $9,776.54 to $9,$39.79 for 1998 and $10,149.87 to $9,954.19 makes no difference since he is paying the presumptive minimum and the chart only goes to $#,000.00 net and Mr. Candiello is clearly above that figure. As long as his net monthly income exceeds $8,000.00 this Court's September 1, 1999 Order is correctly calculatetL III. IV. VI. ALIMONY CALCULATIONS FOR 1/11/99 THROUGH 3/31/99 Old Order New Order Overpayment Husband's Net Monthly Income Wife's Net Monthly Income Difference Between Incomes Husband's Child Support Amount Used to Calculate Alimony Multiply By 30% ~ TOTAL ALIMONY DUE WIFE $10,149.00 $ 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 $ 7,253.00 $ 7,058.19 $ 1,576.00 $ 1,576.00 $ 5,677.00 $ 5,482.19 $ 1.703.00 $ 1.644.65 $ 4,559.74 $ 4,403.50 $ 156.24 CHILD SUPPORT 4/1/99 TO 12/31/01 Obi Order Husband's Net Monthly Income $10,149.00 Wife's Net Monthly Income $ 2,896.00 Combined Net Monthly Income $13,045.00 Basic Child Support $ 2,718.00 Husband's Net Income Percentage 78% Wife's Net Income Percentage 22% Husband's Share of Child Support $ 2,115.00 Wife's Share of Child Support 5; 603.00 TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT $ 2,115.00 New Order Overpayment $ 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 $12,850.19 $ 2,695.00 77% 23% $ 2,075.15 5; 619.85 $ 2,075.15 $ 1915.05 Husband has overpayed child support by $39.85 per month (difference between $2,115.00 (Old Order) and $2,075.15 (Revised Order). Thirty (33) months have passed between 4/1/99 and 12/31/01 resulting in an overpayment of $1,315.05 by Husband in Child Support over the last 33 months. ALIMONY CALCULATIONS FROM 4/1/99 TO 12/31/01 Old Order New Order Husband's Net Monthly Income Wife's Net Monthly Income Difference Between Incomes Husband's Child Support Amount Used to Calculate Alimony Multiply By 30% TOTAL ALIMONY DUE WIFE $10,149.00 $ 9,954.19 $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 $ 7,253.00 $ 7,058.19 $ 2,115.00 $ 2,075.15 $ 5,138.00 $ 4,983.04 $ 1.541.00 5; 1.495.00 $50,853.00 $49935.00 Overpayment $ 1,518.00 OVERPAYMENT MADE BY HUSBAND TO WIFE FROM 9/17/98 TO 12/31/01 Alimony Overpayment for 1/11/99 to 3/31/99 Child Support Overpayment 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 Alimony Overpayment from 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 TOTAL 156.24 1,315.05 1.518.00 2,989.29 cause the existing wage attachment order to be adjusted ".aCcordingly as soon as possible. If for any reason said wage 'attachment is not adjusted before September 1, 1994 and Husband's wages are thereafter attached in an amount greater than agreed upon herein, Wife shall immek~iately refund any and all excess amounts to Husband until the wage attachment order is appropriately adjusted. (2)' ~h~l. The parties acknowledge that the child support payments provided for in this Agreement are modifiable in accprdance with law and have been set based on Husband's current net income of'approximately $7,000 per month and Wife's apbroximate net income of $1,500 per month. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, however, the parties agree that subsequent children born to either party shall not be a basis for modification of the child support provisions provided for in this Agreement. (b) Medica1 ~nsurance for Children. Husband agrees that he will continue to maintain medical and hospitalization insurance coverage for the children at no cost to Wife. The parties agree tha= they will share, in proportion to their respective incomes, any and all of the children's unreimbursed or uninsured nacessary and reasonable medical expenses including, but not limited'to, medical, dental, vision, orthodontic, psych~ogioal or psychiatric expenses. Except in an emergency situation, the de~ision to incur extraordinary, or non- dental or o=her such expenses shall be a Joint 10 -40- J i d d d d d d d d d J d d il II Iii ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ..2~3 ~24 25 the law, but whatever you you want Honor, but other than itself. the argument too long. THE COURT: I think that is the state I will allow you to put this in for want to argue. Do you have a citation give me for this proposition? MR. WILL/AMS: No. It is unique, Your THE COURT: No. of MR. WILLIAMS: I THE COURT: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Other than the rule do not have a citation, THE COURT:. I understand. We will take not on the record though. It is getting MR. HOWELL: There is one thing to -- THE COURT: Next question. MR. HOWELL: The property settlement agreement says they can't -- THE COURT: Sir, ws will have an extensive legal argument, bu~ it will be off the record. Next question. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Did you calculate the total child support -219a0 66 113 ~ 124 i1!5 11'6 ' ', ;2O :2 1 1 ;2 2 · 52:3 ,<.214 ~25 :obligation for the i; child to Rose Ann? A. Yes. Q. And A. The amount thac was at eight therefore, $920.00 pay $101.00 a week two children to Susan and the one that is in what amount? total combined was $2,732.33. derived bff the grid was, again, thousand and Rose Ann was at two. was at the maximum of in child for her support The that So, the 9rid. We to attend She cdaycare, and we pay $35.00 a month for lunches. -has :'p a r t to have a hot lunch. She cannot carry, that is of the rules of the daycare. So in takin9 half of the daycare, and the lunch amount, I included that with the included the 1576 together with that to come a total of $2,732.33. That is what is shown on Respondent · half of 920. I up with Q. LExhibit Number 4? Tha~ is correct. The rules require that you take thirty of the difference between -- well, thirty of the difference com~s out to what on a spousal support? percent percent monthly A. Q. $836.78. You mentioned daycare for -- I'm sorry -. 67 -220a- the Court o¢ Common Pleas of I I Plaintiff Name: , Defendant Name: Docket Number:. .. PACSES Case Number:. County, Pennsylvania Other State ID Number. THIS FORM MUST BE Fee. LED OUT i , ......... ~o~ . ~ . P~ymlt No. ~ ~ ~Y ~ ~y ~ $ .. ,,~y ~ (~l~.. b~-~Y.. ~-) Wo~ker ID OTHER ~COM~ ; . PACSE5 Case Hund~r (Fill ia ~'ia= Celum~ MONTt~ U Other TOTAL TOTAL INCOME Oil WEEK (Fill in AI~tt Coluna) -44b- ~ ~ (Fill in Al~n.~rill~ Column) EX[T,N~F,~ MONTH ~mi~ ~K ~ s~ ~ . ~omo~le eayn~ S $ -45b- Focm IN-~08 Page 3 o1'6 W~'kcr lO h,cuflc 3nd GA~tuc SL~lcmem PACSGS ~ Number (lilt in ^~(c C~lum.) I~XFEIqlSES YEAR continued) ~K MO~ CIo~in~ S S ~. ~ S C~ U~on S S ~" S Page 4 of 6 Focm h)canc and GAI~"nsc 5~tcn,,'m PAC~F~ Ca.lC Nuu~ac¢ [NS~ COMPANY ~l FO[iCY I H W C ..,.; I~/ ~.L -Ztf. _~ ~'~ Blue Cross - - - Other _- Medlc~l Blue Shield * H - Hu.~h~,nd W - Wife C - Combined J - Joint Form IN-~8 ~L{L Pale $ of' 6 S~rvlc'c TVI~c -47b- Worker lO I~on~ zmJ ~,~m~ Smcn~m PACSF. S ~ Number ' H - Hush:and W - Wife C - Comhin~J J - Joint Suool~n~tal Income $~t~m~t Nature of business (cheek one) (I) partnership {2) joint 'veomrc '' ~ (3) profession __.~.(4) do,ed corporalion _.~ (~) od~r Annual inco~ Rom busiuess: (I) How oRen ts income rea:ivc-d? (2) On~ income per pay period: (3) Net income per pay period: ' Specified deductions, il' any: (4) Page 6 o1'6 Form IN-008 ~{~ Worker ID Service Type -/~ 8b- 250 COLLEGE AVEIIIJE PO BOX 350~ LANCASTER, PA 17604-3509 14 {:]RAPER CIRCLE LITI'I'Z PA 17543 -6lb- Steven Howell Attorney At Law 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 717-770-1277 717-770-1278 Telecopler January 9, 2002 The Honorable George E. Hoffer, President Judge Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Candiello v. Candiello, No. 229 of 1993 (Cumberland County Divorce) Candiello v. Candiello, No. 215 S 92, DR. 19,828 (PA Cases 610000026) Dear Judge Hoffer: In response to Attorney Williams' letter dated January 2, 2001 I wanted to make the following observations. With regard to the issue of Husband's taxes in 1999, the Superior Court held: "As such we remand for a proper determination of Husband's taxes for the years1999 and 1998 and a proper deduction from gross income with regard thereto." See Page 8 of Opinion. An accurate revision of the taxes due in 1999 can only be determined by an examination of Husband's 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns. These tax returns were not part of the record since the fact finding heating was held April 12, 1999. Wife requested by Motion dated September 24, 2001 that Husband provide his 1999 federal, state and local income tax returns so this figure could be calculated with certainty on remand. Counsel for Husband declined this offer as set forth in this Court's Order of November 28, 2001. This court is left with the record which shows that in 1998 Husband's combined federal, state and local inc6me tax bracket was 28.96% not 39.8% as argued by Mr. Candiello. Using this same tax rate for the $583.33 raise in 1999 is not only fair there is no other option in light of the record. With regard to the "deviation" vs "deduction" argument, the Superior Court opinion speaks exclusively of a "deviation" permitted under Elias v. Spe, ncer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996) and directs this court to "consider" whether any "deviation from the guideline amounts is needed" because of Mr. Candiello's obligation to the child of his intact marriage. See Page 12. Since Mr. Candiello did not file an appeal of the Superior Court's docision he is bound by the remand order which only directs this court to "consider" the case in light of Elias v. Spencer. No deviation is allowed iftbe total support obligations are fifty percent or less of net income. Mrs. Candiello's proposed Opinion discusses in detail whether or not Mr. Candiello's total support obligations exceed fifty percent of net income. The Superior Court did not direct this court to "deduct" the theoretical child support obligation for his intact family from his income thereby lowering alimony. · Page 2 (1/9/02) Candielio v. Candiello Finally, with regard to the $2,989.29 overpayment this represents less than thirty (30) days of support for Mr. Candiello. Under the Rules if this sum represented an arrearage instead of a credit the obligor could repay it at $10.00 to $15.00 per week at no interest. Mrs. Candiello has proposed $50.00 per month and under this scenario the entire overpayment will be repayed on or before the end of child support for the parties' youngest child residing with Mrs. Candiello. An Order incorporating this change is enclosed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. SH/bth Very truly yours, ~/~ S/tt e~ve n ,Esquire Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Susan K. Candiello, Esquire SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 215 S 92 DR 19,828 PA CASES 610000026 VINCENT CANDIELLO, CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DEFENDANT DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 200 it is hereby ORDERED that effective January 1, 2002 monthly child support shall be $2,075.15 for the support of two children residing with Susan Candiello and monthly alimony shall be $1,495.00. Vincent Candiello shall remain responsible for 77% of unreimbursed medical expenses. By virtue of the remand and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, Domestic Relations shall provide a credit to Vincent Candiello of the following mounts: $ 156.24 for the period 1/11/99 to 3/31/99 for overpayment of Alimony $1,315.05 for the period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 for overpayment of Child Support $1.518.00 for the period 4/1/99 to 12/31/01 for overpayment of Alimony $2,989.29 Domestic Relations shall deduct from Susan Candiello's monthly alimony of $1,495.00 the sum of $50.00 per month and following the end of all alimony payments the sum of $50.00 per month from child support until the credit of $2,~}89.29 is repaid in full. B~THECOURT GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Certified Copies To: Steven Howell, Esquire (619 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070) Thomas J. Williams, Esquire (Ten East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013) VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL Notice is hereby given that SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant above, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the April 2, 2002 Order and Opinion issued by the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J., and entered in this matter on April 2, 2002. This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entries. On April 30, 2002 Vincent Candiello filed a Notice of Appeal and this Cross Appeal is timely filed in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 903 (b) within fourteen (14) days of the initial appeal. Date: May 10, 2002 BY: S~n Ho~w~l], L~quire J619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 Telecopier Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Susan K. Candiello Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: The Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire (Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant) Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Court Administrator Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Made Farley, Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: May 10,2002 BY: VINCENT CANDIELLO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant : NO. 93-229 CIVIL : IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff V, VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 : IN SUPPORT ORDER HOFFER, P.J,: AND NOW, this foregoing opinion, the following is awarded: As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at: Alimony arrears are set at: Effective as of December 1, 2001: 2002, in accordance with the $ 303.44 $5,136.88 $2,066.68/month Child support is set at: Alimony is set at: $1,478.50/month Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed medical expenses. BY THE COURT: GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17013 Attorney for Susan K.Candiello Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Vincent Candiello TRUE C('~i'~'Y FROM RECORD In Te~i;~:.~.¥ '~'? :'~,~f, I I~ere unto set my and the ~;~ ::' .,.~d C~ at ~rlis~, Pa. Thi~day of~ 2 VINCENT CANDIELLO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant : NO. 93-229 CIVIL : IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff V, VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL : DR 19,828 : PA CASES 610000026 :IN SUPPORT OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address the remand of the decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granting, in part, the appeal of Husband, Vincent Candielio. On August 9, 2001 the Superior Court issued its opinion as to certain issues raised by Husband to this Court's September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matters. The Superior Court has ordered a remand on three (3) issues: (a) the health insurance premiums husband paid on behalf of his children; (b) the amount of taxes paid by husband in 1998 and 1999; and (c) the financial obligations he has with regard to his subsequent daughter. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS With regard to the issue of health insurance premiums, the Superior Court directed the sum of $1320.00 to be deducted from the husband's gross yearly income as the Superior Court held that the "trial court failed to account for Husband's payments [of health insurance premiums], and, therefore, we remand so that the insurance payments can be subtracted from the Husband's gross income." As such this results in $110.00 being deducted from Husband's monthly gross income for 1998 and 1999. The effects of lowering Husband's net monthly income by $110.00 per month are discussed below. RECALCULATING HUSBAND'S TAXES FOR 1998 AND 1999 In resolving this issue, the Superior Court concluded that the actual amount of income taxes paid in 1998 was $47,690.56 based upon husband's unrebutted presumption. Consequently, we will utilize this figure in our calculation of husband's net income. Additionally, the sum of $110.00 per month paid by husband for health insurance premiums shall be deducted form husband's net monthly income for 1998. As such, husband is left with a net monthly income of $9,539.79 instead of $9~776.00 as set forth in our September 1, 1999 Order. With respect to the increase in husband's income for 1999, the Superior Court held that "the trial court failed to include husband's local and state taxes in its deduction." As such, we must, therefore, determine the state and local taxes husband paid in 1999. The gross amount of husband's 1999 increase is an undisputed $583.33. Based upon the federal marginal tax rate, a deduction for federal taxes should be imposed at 36%. What remains to be determined are the state and local taxes. ,It is clear that the state tax rate in effect at the time was 2.8%. 72 P.S. §7302(a)(2). The local tax attributed to husband's income was 1%. Therefore, the total tax liability for the gross monthly increase of $583.33 was 39.8% (36% federal marginal tax rate, 2.8% state rate, and 1% local rate) or $232.17.~ When this monthly tax liability is subtracted from 583.33, the net monthly increase for 1999 should have been $351.16. As such, we will use this figure in our calculation of husband's 1999 net income. The following revised calculations will illustrate the above changes: Revised 1998 monthly net income calculation: Gross Income Less: Withholdings (federal and state tax) Lecture Expenses Health Insurance Yearly Net Income $164,687.98 $47,690.56 $1,200.00 $1,320.00 $114,477.42 1998 Revised Monthly Net Income $9~539.79 ~ Wife's argument for the calculation of the tax liability on the $583.33 is flawed. Wife asserts that the combined federal, state and local bracket is 28.96% as opposed to 39.6%. Wife fails to take into account that our federal taxation scheme is progressive and that once income reaches a certain level it is taxed at the appropriate marginal tax rate, As such it is not possible to simply place a percentage on one's overall tax liability. 3 Revised 1999 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Monthly Net Income Gross Monthly Net Increase Withholdings (federal and state tax) Monthly Net Increase 1999 Revised Monthly Net Income $9,539.79 $583.33 $232.17 $351.16 $9890.95 The result of these revised figures has an effect on both calculating child support and alimony.2 These revisions will be illustrated in the following: 1. Child Support for September 17 Through December 18, 1998: This revision will have no real effect on the child support due Susan Candiello for 1998 since our earlier order was based upon the guidelines' presumptive minimum. Whether husband's net monthly income was $9,776.00 as set forth in this Court's September 1, 1999 Order or $9,539.79 following the adjustments required by remand, so long as Husband's net monthly income exceeded $8,000.00, this Court's September 1, 1999 Order regarding child support to wife is appropriate under the guidelines. However, for the period between September 17 and December 18, 1998, husband actually only paid $2,487.00 when he 2 This Court will utilize the figures Husband provided in the December 11, 2001 brief for amounts actually paid towards child support and alimony for purposes of determining arrearages or overpayments. 4 should have paid $3,522.64. As such an arrearage is due in the amount of $1,035.64. 2. Child Support For December 19, 1998 through March 31, f999: For the reasons set forth above, the child support order in effect through March 31, 1999 shall not be disturbed since it was based upon the guideline's presumptive minimum. However, for the period between December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999, husband actually paid $6,238.00 when he should have only paid $5,3890.00. As such, an overpayment occurred in the amount of $849.00. 3. Child Support Effective April 1, 1999: Using husband's revised monthly net income of $9,890.95, this Court has recalculated the child support due to wife for the wife effective April 1, 1999 in the following manner: Husband's Revised Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Combined Net Income: Revised Basic Child Support (support guidelines) Husband's Net Income Percentage Wife's Net Income Percentage Husband's Revised Share of Child Support Prior Child Support Order Difference $ 9,890.95 $ 2,896.00 $12,786.95 $ 2,684.00 77% 23% $2,066.68/month $2,115.00/month $ 48.32/month Revised Child Support for April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001: Revised Total Child Support: $2,066.68 x 33 months = $68,200.44 Amounts Actually Paid: 5 From 4-1-99 through 9-31-99: From 10-1-99 through 12-1-01: Total Paid Arrearage ($68,200.44 - $68,004.00): $10,944.00 $57,105.00 $68,094.00 $ 116.44 4. Child Support Summary September 17 through December 18, 1998 December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999 April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001 Total Arrearage: $1,036.00 ($849.00) $116.44 $303.44 5. Alimony: Using husband's revised net monthly income of $9,890.95 this Court has recalculated the alimony due wife for the following periods: Revised Alimony For January 11, 1999 through March 3, 1999: Husband's Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Difference In Net Incomes: Less Monthly Child Support: Difference: Monthly Alimony Owed ($5,419.00 x 30%) $9,890.95 $2,896.O0 $6,995.00 $1,576.00 $5,419.00 $1,625.70 Total Owed For Period ($1,625.70 x 2.68 month) $4,356.88 Amount Actually Paid: ($1,100.00 x 2.68 month) $2,948.00 Arrearage: $1,408.88 Revised Alimony Effective April 1, 1999: Husband's Monthly Net Income: $9,890.95 6 Wife's Monthly Net Income: Difference In Net Incomes: Less Monthly Child Support: Difference: Monthly Alimony Owed ($4,928.32 x 30%) Effective 4-1-99 Monthly Alimony Paid: Monthly Difference Actually paid from ~-1-99 through 9-31-99 Actually paid from 10-1-99 through 11-30-99 Total Actually paid from 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 Revised Alimony for 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 Arrearage: $2,896.00 $6,995.OO $2,066.68 $4,928.32 $1,478.50 $1,541.00 $62.5O $6,6OO.OO $36,984.00 $43,584.OO $47,312.00 $3,728.00 6. Alimony Summary Arrearage 1-11-99 to 3-31-99 $1,408.88 Arrearage 4-1-99 to 11-30-01 $3,728.00 Total arrearages as of 11-30-01 $5,136,88 PERCENTAGES: When the support order is revised, the alimony paid to Wife should be included for the entire period for purposes of her percentage of available income to pay excess medical costs, as alimony was not included in the calculation for child support owed by her. This would produce the following result: Husband's Revised Monthly Net Income: Wife's Monthly Net Income: Combined Net Income: Deduct Alimony From Husband $9,891.00 - $1,478.50 = Add Alimony to Wife $9,890.95 $2,896.00 $12,787.00 $8,412.50 $2,896.00 + $1,478,50 = $4,373.50 Net Income as a Percentage for Husband for unreimbursed Medical Expenses: 66% Net Income as a Percentage for Wife for unreimbursed medical E~(penses: 34% FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO HUSBAND'S SUBSEQUENT DAUGHTER With regard to the final issue, the issue was remanded for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband and present wife. Husband argues that his child support obligation to his child from his present marriage (Katelyn Candiello) should be considered as a deduction for his gross income. However, the Superior Court has directed this court to be guided by Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(n) (in effect in 1998 - early 1999) which states that the fact that an obligor has a new family is to be considered in determining whether the obligor's total support obligation equals fifty percent or less of net income. The Superior Court directed that if the total support obligation is fifty percent or less, then there is generally no deviation from the guideline amount on the ground of the existence of a new family. See Elias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996). This Court's interpretation of the Superior Court's decision requires that we treat Husband's child support obligation to Katelyn only as a deviation under Rule 1910.16-4, renumbered as ~1910.16-5 in 1999. Because of the respective incomes earned by Husband and his current spouse, we do not believe that a deviation is warranted under the facts of this case. In determining the alimony paid to wife, it is the decision of this Court not to deduct any sum for child support for Katelyn. 8 Case # -S 229 Date of Entry: aar~a_~ 22, 1 993 at Appearances: Plaintiff: vtnc~t Ca~diello Defendant: su~an K. C~diello February 3, 1993, ~tft~av~t May 31, 1994, ~fi~t ~ ~t~ 3301(d) o~ t~ DI~ ~e, ~1~. ~ 31, 1994, ~i~te o{ ~, ~. J~ 2, 1994, ~ti~ ~ ~, to ~t, t~ ~ ~oE ~, 1}~, ~, ~i~ is ~ to ~ h30 o'~ p.m. ~ J~ 16, 1994, ~ttt~ ~ 16, 1994. ~'S ~t~M{~t 3301(d) O~ t~ ~ ~, {t~. -~ ~ · ~t 8, 1994, ~, Entry by Summons Complaint Petition Appeal Revival Action in Assumpsit ( Trespass Habeas Corpus Divorce Grounds Equity Mortgage Foreclosure Ejectrnent Quiet Title Replevin Condemnation Service by SHF: Date of ~ Return: x Ah~ NC~, th/a 8th day of August, 1994, atto~y f~ ~f~t, for ~t 8, 1994, ~ ~' J. ~, Jr. ~t 15, 1949, ~, fi~. ~ ~, t~ 15th ~t 12, 1994, t~ ~t 12, 1994, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~l~t~ ~ ~ ~ A~t 15, 19~, Plaintiff's M~t Of ~t ~t 15, 1994, ~t~. Taxation of Costs Receipt of Fees 9165.50 Pd Att~ Joh~ C. ~o~tt, Jr. $10.00 Ps Surcharge Pd Atty .~5.00 Pd Co. *qs. oo I~. oztb. 6-ta.¢~ August 12, 1994, O~ter, filed. IN ~f Plaintt£f's Motino for Btfurcatino. AND NC~, this 12th day of Aught, 1994, it ~ that all matters /n the above ~ott~n for Bifumcattcel have not be~ rmgolv~d as previously anticipated by counsel, the hearing that ~s e.a,,,"~'~!,,,d ~or August 8, 1994, is ~SO~UD~D for Thoredey, Aught 18, 1994, at 3~30 p.m., in cx~xtroc~ No. 5, Cta~erland Cowry Courtkx~ues, Carlisle, Permsylvanta. AIX'i1 6, 1995, Emergency Petiti~ for Enf~rfc of Marital Settlement Agreement, and ~le to Si~ow Cause, filed. A~D N~W, this 5th ~ay of ~ril, 1995, upo~ conslderatio~ of Plaintiff Vincent Candiello's ~rergency P~ition to l~foi~e M~rital Settlea~rrt Agareea~nt, a Rule is hersby er~ter~d upo~ O~fendant Susan K. Candiello to s~ow ca,se, if any she has, w~y the rslief r~quested not be granted. Rule ~ur~able at hearing on the 18th day of F~y, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtmc,~ Cu~berlar~ County Courtt~use, i Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Per~sylvania, 17103. By the CouP: J. W~sley Oler, Jr., J. Notices r~ailed 4/6/95 Please withdraw, with p~Juclice, Plm!~ttff Vir~e~t Ca~diello~! ~merc3~ncy ~etitino for Enforcer Of M~rital Settl~t A~'e~lt filed with the Court c~ A~ril 4, 1995. By: Jc~l~ C. No~tt, Jr., l~q. May 3, 1995, (~er of Court, filed. IN i~: ~ l~titio~ for ~nforc~nt of Msrital Settlemeslt ~t. A~) NOW, tb/s 2rd day of M~y, 1995, ~? c~idersttxal of the sttache~ letter frcm C. P~tt, Jr., ~q., artec-ney for Pla/ntiff, t~e b~n-h~g l~eviously scbedu/ed in the matter for May 18, 1995 is (~.z~. By t~e Court: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. August 13, 1998, Petition for Enforc~nt of Marital Settlement Agree~er~ to Suspend, Tel~ir~te or ~odify Alimony, filed. AU~iSt 21, 1998, ~ule to S~o~ Cause, filed. IN ~: Petition fo= Enforcement of Marital Settlement ~ to ~_~d_, Te~slr~te, or Modify ~ A~D N~M, this 19~h (lay of August, 199~, ~ co~si~ratton of Plair~ciff Vincent Cancliello's Petition to Enfo~c~ Marital Settle~J~c Agrees~ to Suspe~, Terminate, or F~lify Alimony, a Rule is hereby entered up~ hespo~ie~t Susan K. Candisllm to ~ cause, if any she bas, why the relief reclueeted s~ould not he granted. ~ule ret~%~ble at ~ari~g on t~e 28th day of September, 1998, at 1:30 ~.m. i~ Courtro~ i, Cumberland Cot~ty Cour~P~ae, I Courthouse Sol, are, Carlisle, Permsylva~/a, 17013. By t~e Corot: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Notice ~ailed 8/21/98 August 21, 199S, Entry of ~arance for Defend~lt Susa~ K. Candiello, filed. Please anter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant Susan K. Car~iello in ~/~is matter. By: Ste~n ~11, Rsq. Septe~i~r 1, 1998, Orcler of Oourt, flied. IN RE: Pla/l~ciff~s P~cttion to Enforce ~u:ital settl~nt P~/r~snt to Suspand, Tersi.at~, or ~xlif~ ~ A~ N~, this let day of August, 199~, upon agr~t of counsel, the ~earlng previously scheduled in this matter for Septes~er 28, 1998, is ~ to ~sday, D~c~mber 2, 19998, at 1:20 p.m., in Cot~t~u~, No. 1, Ct~berla~d County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pen~ylva~ia. By the Court: J. Wesley 01er, Jr., J. Copies mailed 9/2/98 September 11, 1998, Notice Of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to ~ Documents and Things for Discovery P~rsuant to ;~le 4009.21, filed. September 11, 1998, Notice of Intent to Serve a S~0oe~a to ~ Doct~rents and ~r~s for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21, filed. Septesg~r 11, 1998, Notice of Intent to Serve s Su~0oe~a to Produce Doctmp_nts and Thtngs for Discovery P~rsuant to F~ls 4009.21, filed. September il, 1998, Defer~l~t~s P~Lt~r~ry 0bJec~lo~s to Plaintiff's Notice of Praecipe for Entry of Default ~ and Petltion to Modify Atil~ny, filed. Septe~be~ 28, 1998 Plaintiff's preliminary objections to deferdant's Prelimir~r~ objecito~s to Pleintiffs notice Of pr~ecipe for e~try of ~efault Judgment and petitio~ to modify alimony, by Vincent Car~lielio Novest~ 10, 1998, Defer~lant's Obejctions to Plaintiff's Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas for Discovery, filed. November 25, 1998, Plaintiff's ~t~tton to Make Ruls Abanlute, filed. No. 229 Civil 1993 (B.F. From ~age 124) Canal/clio vs. Candiello D~=s~er 1, 1998, Praecipe to with~l~aw Motion to ~ake ~ule ~l~e, fil~. Vi~t ~e~ ~ ~s ~t ~s ~i~ to ~e ~e ~l~e, fil~ on 25, 1998, ~ ~t~. ~ 1, 1~8, ~fi~e of ~, fil~. ~ 1, 1998, ~i~ f~ ~i~, fil~. ~ 3, ~8, ~ of ~, fil~. IN ~: P~iff's ~i~ ~e ~e ~lute ~ ~, t~s 3rd ~y of ~, 1998, ~ ~i~ of P~iff's ~i~ Rule ~l~e, ~ a ~ ~ ~ fil~ ~ ~ 1, 1998, to ~t~ Pl~n~ff's ~ion, t~ ~e is~ in t~s ~tt~ ~ ~ 19, 1998, ~ Pl~ff ~t ~lo's is D~. ~ t~ ~: J. ~sley Oler, Jr., J. ~ies ~1~ 1~/4/9S ~ 7, ~, ~, fil~. IN ~: ~l~ f~ ~i~ ~, t~s 3~ ~y of ~, 1998, it is ~y ~ t~t ~ ~i~ ~S ~ ~tter ~ly ~ ~r ~ 2, 1998, 1:3~ p.~ ~ ~ J. ~sl~ ~., is ~nti~ ~il 24th ~y of ~, 199~, at 2:0~ P.M. in ~ ~. 1, ~ ~ ~= J. ~sl~ ~, Jr., J. ~ies ~1~ 12/7/98 ~ 22, ~8, ~a~, fi~. ~ter t~ a~ of ~, ~, ~ & ~ ~ ~lf of P~ntiff t~ a~ ~. J~ ~, ~999, P~intiff's ~i~ to ~fy ~, fil~. J~ ~, 19~9, ~r of ~, fil~. ~ ~; Pl~iff's ~i~ to ~ ~i~ny ~ ~, t~s 12~ ~ of J~ 1999 it is ~ ~ ~ Pl~ntiff's ~ on ~ 24, 1~ ~ 2:~ ~ in ~ ~ 1, ~ ~y C~, ~rlisle, ~ylv~a 17013. J~ ~, 1999, ~, fil~. Pin,tiff, ~t J. ~ello, ~ ~ ~ ~s~t~ ~s ~iti~ for ~s fil~ ~t 13, 1998. ~: ~s J. ~1~, J~ 14, 1999, ~r of ~, fil~. ~ ~, t~s 13th ~y of J~, 1999, u~ ~ti~ of t~ at~ l~ter f~ ~s J. Willi~, ~., a~o~y f~ Pl-~iff, t~ ~ ~ly ~h~ in ~ter for ~b~ 24, 1999, is ~ ~= J. ~sl~Oler, Jr., J. ~es ~il~ 1/14/99 ~ 19, 1999, P~iff's ~i~ to ~ t~ ~'s ~1~ ~ of J~ 12, 1999, fil~. J~ 19, 1999, ~ of ~, fil~. ~ ~, t~s 15th ~y of J~, 1999, ,~ ~i~ati~ of t~ attac~ l~ter f~ St~ ~11, ~., att~ for ~f~, ~ o~r of ~ ~t~ J~ 3, 1999, is ~. ~ ~ng p~ly ~ for ~b~ 24, 1999, on P~ntiff's ~ ~iti~ for ~fo~nt of ~ ~tl~t ~ to ~, ~te or ~fy ~y is ~11~, b~ ~ ~ ~ly ~ f~ ~ 24, 1999, at p.~ on ~f~nt's ~iti~ to ~fy ~ ~ s~ ~or ~t ~ t~ ~ J. ~1~ Oler, ~., 4. ~ies ~1~ 1/20/99 J~ 1~, 1999, ~er of ~, fil~. IN ~: Pl~iff's ~i~ to ~nsi~r t~ ~'~ ~n~li~ti~ ~r of J~ 12, 1999 ~ ~, t~s 22~ ~y of J~, 1999, u~ ~i~ti~ of P~tiff's ~in ~si~r t~ C~'s ~li~tion ~ of J~ 12, 1999, a ~ is ~ for ~y, ~b~ 16, 1999, at 9:00 a.~, in t~ c~rs of ~ ~i~ j~. ~ t~ ~= J. ~sl~ Oler, Jr., J. ~ies ~1~ 1/25/99 ~ 18, 1999, ~er of ~, fil~. ~ ~, ~is 18th ~y of Feb--, 1999, ~ ~ p~y s~ for ~4. 1999. on ~san K. Candlello's ~tltion ~ ~fy ~ny is ~.~, ~use the ~tter No. 229 Civil 1993 (B.F. frc~pmge 124-A) Ca~diello vs: Candiello Februar~ 19, 1999, Or, er of C~urt, filed. A~D N~W, this 18th ~a¥ of ~, 1999, after a ~i~ in ~s ~th ~s J. Willi~, ~., atto~ f~ ~ ~ello, ~ ~n ~11, ~., atomy for S~ ~ello's) ~iti~ ~ ~ ~ is ~by t~f~ to t~ ~ble ~ E. ~ffez ~ ~ 25, ~999. ~ t~ ~: J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. C~ies ~il~ 2/19/99 ~ 1, 1999, ~in~ ~ ~ of ~, fil~. IN RE= P~it~s tO ~lfy ~ ~, S~er ~, 1999, ~t~ ~ ~si~at~ ~ ~t to the ~ fil~ t~s date, Wife ~ K. C~e~lo'm ~it~s to ~ ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ t~ ~ ~e E. ~ff~, P.J. ~ti~ ~1~ 9/1/99 S~r ~ ~ ~l~a f~ ~ ~r 1, 1999 ~ ~ S~ 29, ~999, ~e S~t~t ~ ~tt~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ 29, 1999, ~t ~ ~1 ~, f~. ~ 29, 1999, ~i~ ~ ~, f~. 1999, a ~ of ~h ~ at~ ~ ~ ~it "A". ~ ~ ~t=,~r 1, 1999; A ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ of ~, ~, ~ & ~to ~ 4, ~9, Pl~iff/ ~1~ ~ ~f~/~ ~ K. Ca~el~'s ~tion in t~ ~~ ~tt~, it is o~ ~ ~ t~t t~ ~lla~ fo~ file ~th t~ tri~ j~e a ~se ~at~ of ~ ~tt~s ~,~1~ of on t~ a~, with ~f~e~ to ~ ~at~o~ a~ or ~ ~e of ~. a~ll~t ~ file ~ re~ns ~t~n ten ~, t~ ~ will ~ t~t ~ t~ ~: ~e E. ~ffer, P.J. ~ ~1~ 10/5/99 ~ 7, ~9~, ~r ~ ~t~n ~ ~ss ~s of ~, fil~. ~ 12, 19~, ~, fil~. Bff ~;. ~L. ~ -. ...... ~ 5, 2~, In ~ ~ of ~ ~t ~ ~. R. A. P. 1925 ~ ~, ~1, ~r of ~, fil~. ~ta n~ to ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ d~ to f~e ~fs wi~ t~ ~; d~t ~'s wi~ t~ d~, p~t~f wife's ~ ~ t~ ~, ~ E. ~f~, P.J. ~pi~ ~ 11/29/01 Cop~[es ma~.led 4/3/02 Z ~ ~3 rn VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE REQUEST FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPT Susan K. Candiello, Esquire by and through her counsel, Steven Howell, Esquire, has filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal in Case Number 93 - 229 from the Order and Opinion dated April 2, 2002 issued by the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. Marie Farley, the official court reporter, is hereby ordered to produce, certify and file the transcript in this matter in conformity with Rules 1922 and 904 (c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respectfully submi~,~ Jf~ .,,,,~3~ven Howell, Es'~uire' 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 Telecopier Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Susan K. Candiello Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: May 10, 2002 VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT A Notice of Appeal having been filed in this matter, the official court reporter is hereby ordered, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 904(c), to certify that a the transcript in this matter in conformity with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure was previously filed. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO TiDh°~o .aSl J7'5 lW2illiarr~Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Vincent Candiello Date: April 30, 2002 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of PA.R.A.P. 121: Service bv first class mail addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire (717) 737-8690 619 Bridge Steret New Cumberland, PA 17070 Counsel for Plaintiff (Appellee) Service in person as follows: Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. (717) 240-6292 Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 Ms. Taryn Dixon (717)240-6200 Court Administrator Cumberland Coumy Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO D. Ecke~road ast High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: April 30, 2002 super%O; COUrt o~ Pe°~SYWa~a AddreSs** hone ~o.'. [7.~71770'VZ77  o~Se/ Ststus: o O~° e~%ee " do~, se: __.~ ~n~o~at~s ~. _. AttorneY~ ~75~o~' Oea{do~' et Bat ~o.: ~a ~n~ street AddreSs: ~0 ~* ~ ~_. ~70~3 .~e~&:~es ..-~5 md~o.COm p~ooe ~o.; 3:45 P.M. Appeal,' Docket Sheet Dock#t Number: 775 MDA 2002 May 1~, 2002 Superior Court of Pennsylvania V ncer~t Candiello v. Susan K. Candiello, Appellant ~g Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case ProCessing Status: May 15, 2002 Joumat Number: Case Category: Domestic Relations Awaiting Original Record CaseType: Divorce Ce~,~olldated Docket Nos.: 714 MDA 2002 775 MDA 2002 Cross Appeal Cross Appeal Related Docket Nos.: Next Evem TYpe: Docketing Statement Received Next Event ~ype: Original Record Received SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Due Date: May 29, 2002 Next Event Due Date: June 24, 2002 Appellant Pro Se: IFP Status: COUNSEL INFORMATION Candiello, Susan K. Appoint Counsel Status: No Appellant Attorney Information: Attorney: Howell, Steven 3ar No.: 62063 Law Firm: · ,ddress: 619 BRIDGE STREEET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 Phone No.: (717)770-1277 Fax No.: Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: Receive E-Maih No Appellee Pro Se: IFP Status: Candiello, Vincent Appoint Counsel Status: Appellee Attorney Information: Attorney: Williams, Thomas J. Bar No.: 17512 Law Firm: Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Address: Martson, Deardorff, et al 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)243-3341 Fax No.: (717)243-1850 Receive Mail: Yes E-Mail Address: twilliams@mdwo.com Receive E-Maih No §/15/02 3023 ~.~"~ ~' 3:45 P.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 775 MDA 2002 Pa~e 2 of 2 May 15, 2002 Superior Court of Pennsylvania FEE INFORMATION Paid Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Number 5/15/02 Notice of Appeal 55.00 55.00 2002SPRMD000449 Court Below: County: Cumberland Date of Order Appealed From: Date Documents Received: Order Type: Order Judge: TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas April 2, 2002 May 15, 2002 Hoffer, George E. President Judge Division: Civil Judicial District: 9 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: May 10, 2002 OTN: Lower Court Docket No.: 93 - 229 Original Record Item ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS Filed Date ContentJDescription Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFS DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By May 15, 2002 Notice of Appeal Filed Appellant Candiello, Susan K. May 15, 2002 Docketing Statement Exited (Civil) Middle District Filing Office 5/15/02 3023 Carbon Copy Recipient List Addressed To: Carbon Copied: 3014 - 10/99 Steven Howell, Esq. 619 BRIDGE STREEET NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 Thomas J. Williams, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, et al 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 The Honorable George E. Hoffer President Judge Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Coud Reporter Coud Reporter Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 10/1/99 ViNCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER ~ AND NOW, this ~.~ day .c~~, ~002, in consideration of the Petition of Susan K. Candiello to Correct or ModifyIre Rec~ Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1926 and the Answer and Counter-Claim filed by Vincent Candiello, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the following documents be, and therefore are, made part of the record in this case: a. Susan Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Heating and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court, which was mailed to the Prothonotary and opposing counsel on September 24, 2001. b. Vincent Candiello's Partial Opposition to Susan Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Heating and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court filed on October 15, 2001. c. Susan Candiello's Memorandum of Law submitted to the Court and opposing counsel on November 26, 2001. d. Vincent Candiello's Brief on the Remand issues, styled in the form of a proposed Court Order under cover of December 11, 2001. e. Susan Candiello's Proposed Opinion and Order submitted to the Court and opposing counsel on December 20, 2001. f. A Supplemental Brief styled as a letter from counsel for Vincent Candiello to the Court dated January 2, 2002. g. Susan Candiello's letter dated January 9, 2002 to the Court. ViNCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff V. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant AND NOW, this day of iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER ,2002, in consideration of the Petition of Susan K. Candiello to Correct or Modify the Record Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1926 and the Answer and Counter-Claim filed by Vincent Candiello, both the Petition and the Counter-Claim are DENIED. BY THE COURT, George E. Hoffer, P. J. ViNCENT CAND1ELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM OF VINCENT CANDIELLO TO PETITION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY THE RECORD BY SUSAN K. CANDIELLO PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1926 1. Admitted. 2. While it is admitted that the referenced documents were not filed of record, it is observed that some of them, to wit the Memorandum of Law, Proposed Opinion and Order and letters to the Court by counsel are not matters of record and so would constitute none of the evidentiary legal basis for the Court's decision, nor could they. Mrs. Candiello's "Motion for Fact Finding Heating and Document Exchange on Remand of the Superior Court" is irrelevant and immaterial to an appeal. While Vincent Candiello has no objection to any of these documents being included in the record, irrelevant though they may be, so long as the related documents that he filed are also included. 3. Using the numbering system used by Susan Candiello, they are as follows: a. Vincent Candiello's Partial Opposition to Susan Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Heating and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court filed on October 15, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." b. Vincent Candiello is not aware of any "Memorandum of Law" submitted to the Court by Susan Candiello on November 26, 2002; therefore, opposes sanle. c. Vincent Candiello's Brief on the Remand issues, styled in the form of a proposed Court Order under cover of December 11, 2001, attached hereto as Exhibit "B." A supplemental Brief styled as a letter from counsel for Vincent Candiello to the Court dated January 2, 2002, a true copy of which is attached and marked as Exhibit "C." 8 (sic) No answer required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Vincent Candiello, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to deny the Petition to Correct or Modify the Record by Susan K. Candiello, or, in the alternative, enter an Order including the related documents on the part of Plaintiff, Vincent Candiello. COUNTERCLAIM 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 6. Without waiving any irrelevancy and immateriality of the documents sought by Susan Candiello to be made part of the record for appeal, Vincent Candiello requests that, if the Court should grant that Petition, that the Order should include the provision of the corresponding documents of Vincent Candiello. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Vincent Candiello, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to deny the Petition to Correct or Modify the Record by Susan K. Candiello, or, in the alternative, enter an Order including the related documents on the part of Plaintiff, Vincent Candiello. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Thomas J. Will/tans, Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attomeys for Plaintiff Vincent Candiello Date: May 28, 2002 2 Exhibit A VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, : Plaintiff : VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL ACTION DR 19,828 PASES 610000026 IN SUPPORT VINCENT CANDIELLO'S PARTIAL OPPOSITION T( CANDIELLO'S MOTION FOR FACT FINDING HEAR] OOCV ENT ON svPm COURT I. INTRODUCTION On August 9, 2001 the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted, in part, Vincent Candiello's appeals to this Court's September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matters. Previously, we provided a copy of that decision and remand to this Court. There, the Superior Court addressed the following issues with the outcome noted as follows: A. Calculation of Monthly Net Income: 1. Taxes Paid: The Superior Court noted the precise issue raised by Mr. Candiello as follows: Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.56 in taxes for the year 1998 and that the net monthly increase for the year 1999 should have been $342.71. EXHIBIT "A" August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 7. In resolving this issue, the Superior Court concluded that the actual amount of taxes paid in 1998 was $47,690.56. Id._..~. at 8. With respect to the increase in income found by the trial court of $373.33/month for 1999, September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order at pp. 7-8, the Superior Court held that, "the trial court failed to include Husband's local and states taxes in its deduction." August 9, 2001 Memorandum, at 8. The issue for remand then is to deduct the actual monthly taxes Mr. Candiello paid in 1998 from his gross increase, including state and local taxes. 2. Health Insurance Premiums The Superior Court held that the "trial court failed to account for Husband's payments [of health insurance premium], and, therefore, we remand so that the insurance payments can be subtracted from Husband's gross income. August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 10. According to the Court, Mr. Candiello paid $1,320.00 per year in health insurance premiums or $110.00/month. B. Calculation of Alimony The Superior Court identified this issue as follows: Husband's sixth argument is that the trial court erred in failing to consider Husband's financial obligations to his daughter, who was born to Husband and his present wife. The trial court indicated that consideration of Husband's minor daughter, born to a subsequent marriage, wus not permissible. 10__/ We disagree with the trial court's conclusion and remand for consideration of Husband's obligation to his daughter born to Husband his present wife. August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 11. In footnote 10, the Superior Court noted that this contention must be analyzed under former rule Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o). At that time, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o) provided: "Awards of Spousal Support When There Are Multiple Families. An order of spousal support for second or later spouses will be calculated based upon obligor's net income less all child support obligations and any obligations to former spouses." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Superior Court remanded this matter to deduct that child support Mr. Candiello owed to his child from his current marriage from the net income he had available from which he would pay alimony. 2 ARGUMENT AS TO MITS. CANDIELLO'S PRESENT MOTION Mrs. Candiello's A~reements With Deductions From Mr. Candiello's Annual Gross Income In her motion, Mrs. Candiello acknowledges it is appropriate to deduct from Mr. Candiello's annual gross income $1,320.00 for health insurance premiums he paid. Motion at 2. She also agrees that Mr. Candiello's actual taxes paid is $47,690.56. Id_~. at 1. Therefore, those deductions can be made without further consideration from the court. B. Mrs. Candiello's Proposed Discovery As to Mr. Candiello's increase for 1999, however, Mrs. Candiello proposes to have this court consider further evidence relative to the taxes owed on the minor increase already found to exist by this court. But there is no need for further discovery. The gross amount of the increase already is known and determined to be $583.33 by this court in its September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order at 7. This court already deducted federal taxes of 36%. Id__,. at 8. There was no dispute by the parties as to this marginal federal tax, and there is no suggestion in the remand order that this court needs to address further the federal taxes on this increase. Rather, this court only must determine what the state and local tax rates were in 1999 on that increase and to make an appropriate calculation. It is clear that the state tax rate in effect at the time was 2.8%. 72 P.S. § 7302(a)(2). The local tax attributed to Mr. Candiello's income was 1%, as reflected by the varions pay stubs introduced during the hearing before this court. Therefore, the total tax liability for the gross monthly increase of $583.33 was 39.8% (36% federal marginal rate, 2.8% state rate, and 1% local rate) or $232.16. When this monthly tax liability is subtracted from $583.33, the net monthly increase is $351.16. Clearly, there is no need for discovery or for any further factual findings other than the application of the appropriate tax rates as shown above. C. Consideration of Mr. Candiello's Support Owed to Katelyn Again, Mrs. Candiello suggests that additional discovery is necessary to determine the amount of child support owed Katelyn. However, that detail was developed fully at the trial below. Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. No increase of income for 1999 for Roseann Candiello was argued by Mr. Candicllo. No attempt was made to detemaine thc increase in income Susan Candiello received in 1999 either. In short, the alimony calculation proposed by Mr. Candiello included that income earned by Roseann in 1998 which was continued forward in the 1999 calculations. Therefore, there is no need to conduct additional discovery as Mr. Candiello proceeded on 1998 income except as it related to himself. III. REVISED CALCULATIONS We present our calculations demonstrating an overpayment by Mr. Candiello of $21,069.29 for the period of September 17, 1998, through August 3 l, 2001, consistent with the remand from the Superior Court in the above-captioned matters. A. Monthly Net Income 1. Revised 1998 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Gross Income $164,687.98 Deductions: Lecture Expenses Health Insurance Federal and State Taxes Yearly Net Income $1,200.00 $1320.00 $47,690.56 $114,477.42 Revised Monthly Net Income (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) (Page 1'0 of August 9, 2001 Decision) (Page 8 of August 9, 2001 Decision) $9,540.00 Gross Monthly Net Increase Deductions: Federal Taxes State and Local Taxes Monthly Net Increase Revised Monthly Net Income 2. Revised 1999 Monthly Net Income Calculation: $583.33 (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) $210.00 $22.17 $351.16 (Page 8 of September 1, 1999 Order) (Page 8 of August 9, 2001 Decision) $9~891.00 Utilizing these revised figures to calculate the support owed results in the following: 4 B. Child Suuuort Owed 1. September 17 through December 18. 1998: Paragraph 5, Septomber 1, 1999 Order: Amount actually paid: $1,156.00/month x 3.05 months = $3,522.64 $816.00/month x 3.05 months = $2,487.00 Arrearage = $1.036.00 2. Child Support for December 19, 1998, through March 31. 1999: Paragraph 6, September 1, 1999 Order: Amount actually paid: $1,576.00/month x 3.42 months = $5,389.00 $1,824.00/month x 3.42 months = $6,238.00 Overpayment = ($849.00) 3. Child Suooort from Aoril 1, 1999. throueh Aueust 31.2001: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $12,787.00 $2,684.00 August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Combined net income: Revised Basic Child Support: (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) (Support Guidelines) Net Income as a percentage for Vince: 77% Net Income as a percentage for Susan: 23% Vince's revised share of child support: $2,115.00 $48.32/month $2.066.68/month Pr/or Child Support Order (Paragraph 7, September 1, 1999 Order): Difference between revised child support and that ordered: Revised Child Suooort for Aoril I. 1999, through September 30. 2001: $2,066.68 x 30 months = $62,000.40 Child Support Owed: Amounts actually paid: From 4/1/99 through 9/31/99: From 10/1/99 through 10/1/01: $1,824.00 x 6 months = $10,944.00 $2,115.00 x 24 months = $50,760.00 Total Paid: $61,704.00 Arrearage ($62,000.40 - $61,704.00): $296.40 4. Child Supuort Summary Arrearages: $1,036.00 + $296.40 = $1,332.40 Overpayment: ($849.00) Total Arrearage: $531.72 C. Alimony 1. Alimony for January 11. 1999 through March 21. 1999: August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Difference in net incomes: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Monthly Child Support Owed Michael and Noele: $1,576.00 Child Support Calculation for Katelyn: Vince's monthly net income: Ruseann's monthly net income: Total combined net income: Vinee's share of net income: Presumptive minimum for one child: Additional Annual Child Care Costs: Husband's 73% share of costs: Monthly share of costs: $9,891.00, $3,636.73 (Respondent's Trial Exs. 2-4) $13,527.73 73% $920.00/month $5,672.00 (N.Y. at 67) $4,140.56 $345.05 Monthly Child Support Owed Katelyn: $1,265.00 Combined Monthly Child Support Owed All Children: $2,$41.00 Difference Between Obligor and Obligee's Net Income: Less Combined Monthly Child Support: Difference: Multiplied by 30%: $6,995.00 $2,841.00 $4,154.00 $1.246.20/monthly alimony owed Total owed for period: $1,246.20 x 2.68 months = $3,339.82 Amount actually paid: $1,100.00 x 2.68 months = $2,948.00 Arrearage: $391.82 2. Alimony Owed from 4/1/99 through 9/30/01 August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vince's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Difference in net incomes: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Monthly Child Support Owed Michael and Noele from IH.B.3., supra: $2,066.68 Child Support Calculation for Katelyn: Vince's monthly net income: Roseann's monthly net income: Total combined net income: Husbands share of net income: Child Support for one child: Husband's 73% share of support: Additional Annual Child Care Costs: Husband's 73% share of costs: Monthly share ofcusts: $9,891.00 $3,636.73 (gespondent's Trial Exs.2-4) $13,527.73 73% $1,916.00/month (Support Guidelines) $1,398.00/month $5,672.00 (N.T. at 67) $4,140.56 $345.05 Monthly Child Support Owed Katelyn: $1,743.83 Combined Monthly Child Support Owed All Children: $3,810.05 Difference Between Obligor and Obligee's Net Income: Less Combined Monthly Child Support: Difference: $6,995.00 $3,810.05 $3,184.95 Multiplied by 30%: $955.49/revised monthly alimony owed Monthly difference between revised alimony and alimony ordered: $585.51/month Total owed for period: $955.49 x 30 months = $28,664.47 Amount actually paid from 4/1/99 through 9/31/99:$1,100 x 6 = $6,600.00 Amount actually paid from 10/1/99 through 9/30/01 = $1541 x 24 = $36,984.00 Total Paid: $43,584.00 Total Overpayment: ($43,584.00-$28,664.47) ($14.919.53) 3. Alimony Summary Arrearage: Overpayment: 7 $391.78 ($14,919.53) Total Overpayment: ($14,527.72~ D. Total of All Calculations and Other Credits A. Child Support Arrearage: $531.72 B. Alimony Overpayment: ($14,527.72) C. Other Credits Lump Sum October 1999 Arrearage Payment Order: ($6,840) Wife's share of Catherine's tuition (page 10 of September 1,1999 Order): ($819) Total Overpayments to date: $21,655.00 For each additional month in which the prior support order continues in effect, Mr. Candiello is entitled to an additional credit of $633.83/month ($48.32/month child support overpayment + $585.51/month alimony overpayment) towards his total overpayment of $21,655.00 to date. Finally, when the support order is revised, the alimony paid to Mrs. Candiello should be included for the entire period for purposes of her percentage of available income to pay excess medical costs, as alimony was not included in the calculation for child support owed by her. This would produce the following: August 9, 2001 Decision Revision: Vinee's monthly net income: Susan's monthly net income: Combined net income: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $12,787.00 Deduct Alimony from Vince: Add Alimony to Susan: (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) $9,891.00 - $955.49 = $8,935.51 $2,896.00 + $955.49 = $3,851.49 Net Income as a percentage for Vince for unreimbursed medical expenses: Net Income as a percentage for Susan for unreimbursed medical expenses: Date: October 15, 2001 70% 30% Respectfully submitted, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Thomas J. Williams Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson DeardorffWilliams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Vincent Candiello's Partial Opposition To Susan Candiello's Motion For Fact Finding Hearing And Document Exchange On Remand By Superior Court October 14, 2001, by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Date: October 15, 2001 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Exhibit B VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL ACTION DR 19,828 PACSES 610000026 IN SUPPORT:: ORDER AND NOW, this foregoing opinion, the following is awarded: As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at: Alimony arrears are set at: Effective as of December 1, 2001: __ day of December,.2001, in accordance with the $303.44. $5,136.88. Child support is set at: $2,066.68/month. Alimony is set at: $1,478.50/month. Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed medical expenses. BYTHECOURT, EXHIBIT "B" VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL ACTION DR 19,828 PACSES 610000026 IN SUPPORT IN RE: PETITIONS TO MODIFY ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address the remand of the decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granting, in part, the appeal of Husband, Vincent Candiello. On August 9, 2001 the Superior Court issued its opinion as to certain issues raised by Husband to this Court's September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order in the above- captioned matters. There, the Superior Court addressed the following issues with the outcome noted as follows: A. Calculation of Monthly Net Income: 1. Taxes Paid: The Superior Court noted the precise issue raised by Husband as follows: Husband argues that he actually paid $47,690.56 in taxes for the year 1998 and that the net monthly increase for the year 1999 should have been $342.71. August 9, 2001 Superior Court Memorandum at 7. In resolving this issue, the Superior Court concluded that the actual amount of income taxes paid in 1998 was $47,690.56 based on Husband's unrebutted presentation. Id. at 8. Consequently, we will use this figure in our calculation of Husband's 1998 net income, infra. With respect to the increase in Husband's income for 1999, the Superior Court held that, "the trial court failed to include Husband's local and states taxes in its deduction." August 9, 2001 Memorandum, at 8. We must, therefore, determine the state and local taxes Husband paid in 1999. This represents a simple task. The gross amount of Husband's 1999 increase is known and determined to be $583.33 by this court in its September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order at 7. This court already deducted federal taxes of 36%. Id. at 8. There was no. dispute by the parties as to this marginal federal tax, and there is no suggestior~ in the remand.order that this Cou~ need address further the federal taxes~for this: increase. ~ ~ What remains is to determine the state and local taxes, It is clear that the state tax rate in effect at the time was 2.8%. 72 P.S. § 7302(a)(2). The local tax attributed to Husband's income was 1%, as reflected by the various pay stubs introduced during the hearing before this Court. Respondent's Exhibit 2. There was no contrary evidence provided at trial by Wife. Therefore, the total tax liability for the gross monthly increase of $583.33 was 39.8% (36% federal marginal rate, 2.8% state rate, and 1% local rate) or $232.16. When this monthly tax liability is subtracted from $583.33, the net monthly increase for 1999 should have been $351.16. We will use this figure in our calculation of Husband's 1999 net income, infra. 2. Health Insurance Premiums The Superior Court held that the "trial court failed to account for Husband's payments [of health insurance premium], and, therefore, we remand so that the insurance payments can be subtracted from Husband's gross income." August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 10. According to the Court, Husband paid $1,320.00 per year in health insurance premiums or $110.00/month. In the argument and papers filed byWife, there is no dispute regarding this amount and it is accepted, and used in the calculation of net income, infra. B. Calculation of Alimony The Superior Court identified this issue as follows: Husband's sixth argument is that the trial court erred in failing to consider Husband's financial obligations to his daughter, who was born to Husband and his present wife. The trial court indicated that consideration of Husband's minor daughter, born to a subsequent marriage, was not permissible.~-°/ We disagree with the trial court's conclusion and remand for consideration of Husband's . obligation to his daughter born to Husband.his present . wife. August 9, 2001 Memorandum at 11. ' In footnote 10, the Superior Court noted that its resolUtion of this issue was under former rule Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o). Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o) is now embodied in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(e)(4) which, in turn, is now referred to in the formula for calculated spousal support in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4 Part IV. When they divomed, the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement which provided for alimony which was modifiable "in accordance with the uniform support guidelines." Agreement, Article 8(d). At that time, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(o) provided: "Awards of Spousal Support When There Are Multiple Families. An order of spousal support for second or later spouses will be calculated based upon obligor's net income less all child support obligations and any obligations to former spouses." Thus, the Superior Court remanded this matter for our consideration of the child support Husband owes to his child from his current marriage. 3 Husband argues that his child support obligation to his child from his present marriage (Katelyn Candiello) should be considered as a deduction from his gross income in accordance with the above. The detail surrounding the child support Husband owed to the child of his current spouse was developed fully before this Court without contradiction by Wife. Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. The unrebutted evidence was that Husband's current spouse had a monthly net income of $3,636.73 in 1998. Under the Support Guidelines then in effect, Husband and his current wife earned in excess of the support guidelines and resulted in a presumptive minimum owed Katelyn of $920. After the change in the rules in 1999, the amOUnt of total support owed Katelyn · ~ would increase to $1,910.00. In addition, Husband provided unrebutted testimony ~ that Katelyn incurred an additional annual cost of $5,672.00 for'which he owed an appropriate share. (N.T. at 67.) Wife, on the other hand, argues that Husband's support obligation for Katelyn may only be considered, if at all, as a deviation from the guideline recommendation and points to the fact that the Superior Court decision refers to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16- 5(n) and the case of Elias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996), both of which pertain to deviation from the guideline recommendation and, specifically, the fifty percent of income standard. My interpretation of the Superior CoUrt's decision requires that I treat Husband's child support obligation to Katelyn only as a deviation under Rule 1910.16-4, renumbered as 1910.16-5 in 1999. Because of the respective incomes earned by Husband and his current spouse, I do not believe that a deviation is warranted under the facts of the case. In determining the alimony to be paid Wife, I chose not to deduct any sum for child support for Katelyn. C. Revised Calculations: A. Monthly Net Income 1. Revised 1998 Monthly Net Income Calculation: Gross Income $164,687.98 (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) Deductions: Lecture Expenses (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) Health Insurance (Page 10 of August 9, 2001 Decision) Federal and State Taxes (Page 8 of August 9, 2001 Decision) Yearly Net Income $1,200.00 $1,320.00 $47,690~56 $114,477.42 'Revised Monthly Net Income for 1998: ': ,: $9~540.00' 2. Revised 1999 Monthly Net Income Calculation:' Gross Monthly Net Increase: (Page 7 of September 1, 1999 Order) $583.33 Deductions: Federal Taxes (Page 8 of September 1, 1999 Order) State and Local Taxes (Page 8 of August 9, 2001 Decision) Monthly Net Increase $210.00 $22.17 $351.16 Revised Monthly Net Income for 1999 $9,891.00 B. Child Support Utilizing the revised figures to calculate the child support results in the following: 1. Child Surmort for Ser)tember 17 throu~lh December 18, 1998: Paragraph 5, September 1, 1999 Order: 1,156.00/month x 3.05 months = $3,522.64 Amount actually paid: $816.00/month x 3.05 months = $2,487.00 Arrearage = $1,036.00 2. Child Support for December 19. 1998 throuqh March 31. 1999: Paragraph 6, September 1, 1999 Order: $!,576.00/month x 3.42 months = $5,389.00 Amount actually paid: $1,824.00/month x 3.42 months = $6,238.00 Overpayment = ($849,00) 3. Child Su_~ort effective April 1, 1999: Husband's revised monthly net income: Wife's monthly net income: (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Combined net income: Revised Basic Child Support (Support Guidelines): $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $12,787.00 $2,684.00 Net Income as a percentage for Husband: Net Income as a percentage for Wife: Husband's revised share of child support: Prior Child Support Order: (Paragraph 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Difference: 77% 23% $2,066.68/month $2,115.00/month $48.32/month Revised Child Support for April 1, 1999 throuqh November 30, 2001: Revised Total Child Support: $2,066.68 x 33 months= $68,200.44 Amounts Actually Paid: From 4/1/99 through 9/31/99:$1,824.00 x 6 months = $10,944.00 From 10/1/99 through12/1/01: $2,115.0Ox 27 months=S57,105.00 Total Paid: $68,094.00 Arrearage ($68,200.44 - $68,094.00): $116.44 4. Child Support Summary September 17 through December 18, 1998 December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999 April 1, 1999 through November 30,200~1 ' ~ Total Arrearage: $1,036.00 ($849.00) $116.44 $303.44 ' C. Alimony Utilizing the revised figures to calculate alimony to Wife results in the following: 1. Revised Alimony for January 11, 1999 through March 3, 1999: Husband's monthly net income: Wife's monthly net income: (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Difference in net incomes: Less Monthly Child Support1: Difference: $5,419.00 x 30% - monthly alimony owed: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 $1,576.00 $5,419.00 $1,625.70 'Only for children subject to this Order. 7 Total owed for period: $1,246.20 x 2.68 months: Amount actually paid: $1,100.00 x 2.68 months: Arrearage: $4,356.88 $2,948.00 $1,408.88 2. Revised Alimony effective April 1, 1999 Husband's monthly net income: Wife's monthly net income: ~ ~ '(Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Difference in net incomes: Less Monthly Child SupportS: Difference: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $6,995.00 $2.066.68 $4,928.32 $4,928.32 x 30% - monthly revised alimony effective 4/1/99: Monthly alimony paid: Monthly difference: $1,478.50 $1,541.00 $62.50 Amount actually paid from 4/1/99 through 9/31/99: $1,100 x 6 = Amount actually paid from 10/1/99 through 11/30/01: $1,541 x 26 = Total Paid for period 4/1/99 through 11/30/01: Total Revised Alimony for period 4/1/99 through 11/30/01: $1,478.50 x 32 months: Arrearage: $6,600.00 $36,984.00 $43,584.00 $47,312.00 $3,728.00 8 3. Alimony Summary Arrearage 1/11/99 - 3/31/99: Arrearage 4/1/99 - 11/30/01: Total arrearages as of 11130101: $1,408.88 $3,728.00 $5,136.88 D. PercentaGes When the support order is revised, the alimony paid to Wife should be included for the entire period for purposes of her percentage ofavailable income to pay excess medical costs, as alimony was not included in-the calculatiOn for child support owed by her. This would produce the following: :, . . HuSband's revised monthly net income: Wife!s monthly net income: ~ (Para. 7, September 1, 1999 Order) Combined net income: $9,891.00 $2,896.00 $12,787.00 Deduct Alimony from Husband: $9,891.00 - $1,478.50 = Add Alimony to Wife: $2,896.00 + $1,478.50 = $8,412.50 $4,373.50 Net Income as a percentage for Husband for unreimbursed medical expenses: 66% Net Income as a percentage for Wife for unreimbursed medical expenses: 34% 9 ORDER AND NOW, this __ day of December, 2001, in accordance with the foregoing opinion, the following is awarded: As of November 30, 2001: Child support arrears are set at: $303.44. Alimony arrears are set at: Effective as of December 1,2001: Child support is set at: Alimony is set at: $5,136.88. $2,066.68/month? $1,478.50/month. Husband is responsible for 66% of unreimbursed medical expenses. BY THE COURT, l0 Exhibit C MARTSON DEARDORFI: '~/1LLIAMS & OTTO MDW stO TELEPHONE (717) 243-3341 FACSt~ICE (717} 243-1850 WILLIAM F. MARTSON JOHN B. FOWLER 11I EDWARD L DANIEL K. DEARDORFF THOMAS 1- ~?ILLIA~$ IVO V. Orro Iii G£om£ B. F^LLt~ J..' CARt C. Janual~ 2, 2002 Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 Vincent Candiello v. Susan K. Candiello No. 93-229 - Cumberland County C.C.P. and Susan K. Candiello v. Vincent Candiello No. 215 S 92 - Cumberland County C.C.P. Our File No. 9752.1 Dear Judge Hoffer: I have reviewed the proposed Order submitted by Susan Candiello and conclude we are making good progress: there are only three errors in her proposed Order and, although the errors are major, they are obvious and easily correctable. I would like to take the opportunity to point these three errors out to the Court. 1. The use of average for federal income tax calculation versus marginal rate. In its previous decision, the Court determined Husband's 1999 income by adding his 1999 raise to his 1998 income and applying his federal marginal tax rate of 36% to the raise. The Superior Court accepted that (indeed, it was not disputed by Wife at the hearing), but remanded for this Court to add state and local taxes which were not included in your original 1999 decision. This would seem to be an easy instruction to understand and to follow, but apparently not so. In her proposed Order, Wife suggests using the average tax paid by Husband in 1998 and apply the average to Husband's 1999 raise. I'm sure the Court can take judicial notice of Wife's obvious failure to understand the concept ora marginal tax rate. The corrected calculations using the 36% tax rate are attached. 2. Wife argues against a deviation When Husband has requested a deduction. In her proposed Order, Wife argues extensively (several pages) why Husband's support obligation to his newest child should not cause a deviation from the support guidelines recommendations for his older children who are subject to a support order. Husband has never requested such a deviation, nor has Husband ever sought to change his existing child support order because of his newest child. It should be sufficient tq,sav in the opinion that such a request was EXHIBIT INFORM^TION ' ADVICE ' ADVOCACYTM Honorable George E. Hoffer, P,J. January 2, 2002 Page 2 never made, and is, therefore, not an issue. This would save a lot of paper. Our proposed Order covers this point succinctly and clearly. So that there is absolutely no confusion on this point, we will reiterate Husband's position that his total child support obligation, including his child support obligation to the ckild of his present marriage, should be deducted from his gross income in the calculation of alimony to be paid to his ex-wife. This has nothing to do with child support, nor with any deviation from the guidelines~ 3. Wife proposes reimbursement of overpayment at $50.O0/month. Although the amount is in dispute, Wife admits she has received some overpayment of alimony and proposes to repay it with a $50.00/month credit to Husband. This is patently um-easonable. Wife should reimburse Husband for the entire overpayment immediately. She has had the use of this money, interest free, for years. Any delay in repayment would compound that unfairness. Moreover, when the Court gave retroactive effect to an alimony increase, the Court ordered Husband to pay the arrears immediately and he did. There is no reason to treat Wife any differently. Even if the Court was persuaded to allow Wife to reimburse Husband in installments credited against Husband's alimony, the alimony obligation will expire August 31, 2002, i.e. eight more months. Any installments must at least be in an amount sufficient to complete the repayment prior to the termination of the underlying alimony obligation. With these three corrections, we are in agreement with Wife's proposed Order. Finally, and in addition to setting a revision of percentages for uure~mbursed medical expenses noted in Husband's Proposed Order, we ask the Court to make clear that Husband's alimony obligation ceases as of August 31, 2002. We attach page 20 of the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement which provides ninety six months of alimony commencing on September 1, 1994, and concluding at the end of August, 2002. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Very truly yours, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO TJW/tde Enclosure cc: Steven Howell, Esquire (w/enc.) I~:mmS~ATAFILE\Cr~ltr cur~2~F O R M A T I O N Thomas J. Williams · ADVICE · ADVOCACYsM CORRECTED CALCULATIONS A. Child Support Overpayment From 9/17/98 To 3/31/99:$0.00 Based on our Proposed Decision, we agree with Mrs. Candiello's computation of $0.00 B. Child Support Overpayment From 4/01/99 To 01/31/02: Husband's Net Monthly Income Wife's Net Monthly Income Combined Net Monthly Income Basic Child Support Husband's Net Income Percentage Husband's Share of Child Support Old Order New Order Overpayment $10,149.00 $ 9,890.95* $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 $13,045.00 $12,786.95 $ 2,718.00 $ 2,684.00 78% 77% $ 2,115.00 $ 2,066.68 $ 1,642.88 Husband has overpaid child support by $48.32 per month (difference between $2,115.00 (Old Order) and $2,066.68 (Revised Order as modified by a correct calculation for Husband's total taxes ($232.16) paid on his increase - See Mr. Candiello's Proposed Order at 2. By January 2002, Husband will have paid this overpayment for 34 months, resulting in an overpayment of $1,642.88. C. Alimony Calculations From 1/11/99 Through 3/31/99: Old Order New Order Husband's Net Monthly Income $10,149.00 $ 9,890.95* Wife's Net Monthly Income $ 2,896.00 $ 2,896.00 Difference Between Incomes $ 7,253.00 $ 6,994.95 Husband's Child Support $ 1,576.00 $ 1,576.00 Amount Used To Calculate Alimony $ 5,677.00 $ 5,418.95 Multiply By 30% $ 1,703.00 $ 1,625.69 Alimony Due Wife $ 4,559.74 $ 4,352.74 Overpayment $ 207.00 D. Alimony Calculations From 04/01/99 Through 01/31/02: Husband's Net Monthly Income Wife's Net Monthly Income Difference Between Incomes Husband's Child Support Amount Used To Calculate Alimony Multiply By 30% Total Alimony Due Wife Old Order $10,149.00 $ 2,896.O0 $ 7,253.00 $ 2,115.00 $ 5,138.00 $ 1.541.00 $ 52,394.00 New Order $ 9,890.95* $ 2,896.00 $ 6,994.95 $ 2,066.68 $ 4,928.27 $ 1,478.48 $ 50,268.32 Overpayment $ 2,125.68 E. Overpayment Made By Husband To Wife From 9/17/98 Through 01/31/02: Alimony Overpayment From 1/11/99 Through 3/31/99 Child Support Overpayment From 4/1/99 Through 1/31/02 Alimony Overpayment From 4/1/99 Through 1/31/02 $ 207.00 $1,642.88 $ 2,125.68 TOTAL $ 3,975.56 C :~i°cs~I-Io fferltt.floc 2 ~][ (n} Warranty as to Future Oblicatione. Husband -..'and W~fe each represents and warrants to the other that he or she will not at any'time in the future incur or contract any debt, charge or liability for which the other, the other's legal representatives, property or estate may be responsible. From the date of execution of this Agreement, each party shall use only those credit cards and accounts for which that party is individually liable and the parties agree to cooperate in closing any remaining accounts which provide for joint liability. Each party hereby agrees to indemnify, save and hold the other and his or her property harmless from any liability, lose, cost or expense whatsoever incurred in the event of breach hereof. (a) periodic Payments. criteria set forth in the Divorce Code, In recognition of the commencing on Septen~er 1, 1994, and continuing for a total period of eight (8) years or ninety six (96) consecutive months through August, 2002, Husband shal~ pay to Wife, as alimony for her support and maintenance, the sum of One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100) per month pursuant to the other terms of this paragraph. (b) ~ethod of Payment. Alimony payments as provided'for herein shall be made through the Domestic Relations Section of the Cumberland County court of Common Pleas by wage attachment. ..~. pr~visions of. subparagraph (a) , -~..~../...,. .... (c) Termination Events. Notwithstanding the above, the alimony payments 2O VERIFICATION Thomas J. Williams, Esquire of the firm of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, attorneys for Vincent Candiello in the within action, certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and Counter-Claim are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Thomas J0/qilliams CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for Martson DeardorffWilliams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: May 28, 2002 3 PRINTED IN USA PLEAS£ 0100115013 DO NOT USE YOUR 2001 PA*40 LABEL Page I of 2 527-70-5303 CA 180-48-7858 EX 0 RS R CANDIELLO VINCENT A 0 FS d CANDIELLO ROSEANN C FY 0 XX 14 DRAPER CIRCLE SC 36450 LITITZ PA 17543 PN lA 296089.00 lB .00 1C 296089.00 2 291.00 3 9.00 4 2017.00 5 .00 6 -00 7 .00 8 .00 9 298406.00 10 .00 11 298406.00 12 8355.00 Please fold page along this line Local Information. Enter where you lived as of 12/~1/01. School District: Manheim Townshi p School Code: 36450 County: Lancaster Municipality: Nanheim Township Residency Status. (Check the correct box) R X Pennsylvania Resident NR Nonresident p Part-Year Resident From: To: Extension, (check this box) Amended Return, (check this box) Fiscal Year Filer, (check this box) Type Filer. (Check only one box) S Single J X Marhed, Filing Jointly M Married, Filing Separately F Final Return. Indicate reason: D Date of death Deceased 3 Dividend income. Complete and submit PA Schedule B, if over $2,500 ........... 3 Total Pennsylvania taxable income. Add only the positive income amounts from lines 1 c, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Do not add any losses reported on lines 4, 5, or 6 9 Contributions to your Medical Savings Account. See instructions 10 Adjusted Pennsylvania taxable income. Subtract line 10 from line 9 11 12 Pennsylvania tax liability. Multiply line 11 by 2.8/, (0.028). Also enter on line 13, page 2 12 PAIA0412 t2r~1~01 EC FC 296,089 00 00 296,089 00 291 00 9 00 2,017 00 00 00 00 00 298,406.00 .00 298,406.00 8,355.00 .J 0100215011 2001 PA-40 Page 2 of 2 CANDIELLO VINCENT 13 8355.00 14 8281.00 15 16 .00 17 .00 18 19 .00 20A 00 20B 21 .00 22 .00 23 24 .00 25 .00 26 27 8281.00 28 74.00 29 30 .00 31 .OB 32 33 .00 34 .00 35 36 .00 527-70-5303 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total PennsJ/Ivania tax liability. Enter ~/our Pennsylvania tax habilib/trom line 12 on page I 1 Total Pennsylvania tax withheld. See instTuctions 14 Credit from your 2000 Pennsylvania Income Tax Return 15 2001 estimated imstaHment payments 16 2001 extension payment Nonresident tax withheld on your PA Schedule(s) NRK-1. (Nonresidents only) Total estimated payments and credits. Add lines t5, t6, t7, and 18 Forgivaness C~:lit. Complete lines 20a, 2Ob, 2t, and 22. Read the instructions. Filing Status: Unmarried or separated Married Deceased 20a Dependents, Part B, line 2, PA Schedule SP 20b Total ellglbihty income, Part C, line 11, PA Schedule SP 21 Tax For~liveness Credit from Part D, line 76, PA Schedule SP Total credit for taxes paid to other states or countTies. Submit your PA Schedule O or RK-1 23 Pennsylvama Employment Incentive Payments Credit. Submit your PA Schedule W, RK-1 or NRK-1 24 Pennsylvama Jobs Creation Tax Credit. Submit your certification or PA Schedule RK.I or NRK. I Z5 Pennsylvama Research and Devel0pment Tax Credit. Submit your certification or PA Schedule RK.1 or NRK-1 Z6 Total Payments and Credits. Add lines 14 and 19 and 22 through 26 27 Tax Due. If line 13 is more than line 27, enter the difference here 28 Overpayment. If line 27 is more than line 13, enter the difference here 29 The total of lines 30 through 36 must equal line 29. Refund - amount of ~ine 29 you want as a check mailed to you Refund 30 Credit - amount ot line 29 you want as a credit to your 2002 estimated tax account 31 Donation - amount of line 29 you want to donate to the Wild Resource Conservation Fund 32 Donation - amount of line 29 you want to donate to the United States Olympic Committee . 33 Donati.on - amount of line 29 you want to donate to the Governor Robert p Casey Memonal Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Trust Fund 34 Donation - amount of line 29 you want to donate to the Korea/Vistnam Memorial, Inc 35 Donation - amount of line 29 you want to donate to Breast and Cervical Cancer Research 36 8,355 O0 8,281 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 8,281.00 74.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 er penalties of perjury, I (we) declare that I (we) have examined this return, including all accompanying schedules and statements, and to _?t o~ely (our) belief t~are true, correct, and complete. L f-Prepared 010.0215011 n~.nn~.cn~.~. I 2001 Earned Income Tax Return Lancaster County Tax Collection Bureau 299 Hess Blvd., Suite 2 Lancaster PA 17601-4097 (717) 569-4521 RETURN THIS FORM TO LCTCB LCXC, ^c,h so: M1-21065~ Part A - Taxpayer Information p ease make leg b e corrections where necessary. If this is not a pre-printed form please complete all information. Instructions a~e on he reverse side of your cop)'. "f~me(s): Address: VINCENT-ROSE-ANN C CANDIELLQ 0014 DRAPER CIR LEITI'Z, PA 17543-9032 h,.llh,,hhh,h,h,lhhh,ih,,.lh,.hl,.Ihh,h,,lll Your Soc. Sec. No. 527-70-5303 Spouse's Soc. Sec. No. 180-48-7858 City, Borough or Township of Current Address Part B - Employer Information GROSS LOCAL TAX EMPLOYER'S NAME AND ADDRESS (Include all W-2 forms) H W EARNED iNCOME .~NITHHELI~ COLUMN TOTALS (To Part "C" Lines I and 8 respeclivelyl [ : Part C - Tax Computation rOTAk Wa EARNINOS !~ro,~ Pa, "B" ahoy, e) 2. LESS ALLOWABLE EMPLOYEE BUSINESS EXPENSES (Enclose Federal Form 2106 and/or State UE Form) 2 3 TAXABLE W-2 EARNINGS (Line I minus line 2) 3 4. OTHER TAXABLE EARNED INCOME (Do not include interest and dividends) a : 6. TAXABLE EARNED INCOME AND NET PROFITS (Add lines 3, 4, and 5) 6. 5. TAX LIABILi~9: J% of Line 6 (Multiply Line 6 by .0U 7. / f7 8. TOTAL LOCAL INcoME TAX WITHHELD (From Pan "B' above) 8.[ '~ ~ ~ ~. TOTAL BALANCE DuE - Payable to LC~T. CB. ~Line 7 minus line 8) Less than $1 ~ need not be paid 9. -~ ]~7 ~ 10. REFUND DUE (Line 8 minus line 7) 10 Part D / We declare under penalties provided by law, that this return and all accompanying schedules and statements have been examined by me and to the best of njty knowledge and bel.~ are true, correct, and complete. Spouses..~,~;nalure_ -- .. , , ,/','~,,1~ ~_c'. ~ r,'~,~c'L~;./.~' Paid Pr~parcr's-'~a~e & Firm (Please print) Date I / g Tele.~hone Date/ t Telephone Tclcph(mc ' Part E ~ Complete only if you moved during the tax year TIME PERIOD MAILING ADDRESS CiTY / B()ROUGH / TOWNSHIP I / I 01 TO / / / TO / / / TO / / Current Address (if different) CI 087 3174 BUREAU COPY- Please do not staple or tape contents MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Earnings Statement Peiriod Ending: 04/30/2002 pay Date: 04/30/2002 Ea, minc18 Ltd Earnings Pacmutual E~rn Deductions Taxable Marital Status: Married Exempfio ns/AJiowan ce s: Federal:. 0 State: N/A Local: Sociad Security Number. 527-70-5303 162~10.00 1 a0. ~ 4al. 0o ' ~"~-':' "'. laA.~ale In<mine Tax oe~eneem care ~ Life .0.~ LItJ P~e Te, x -120.25' 481.00 Me<l IRex Spend' -250.e0' 1,0oo.o0 Medical ~ -24~ ~00' g6~L 00 ~ I~lutuat Dad -1:~7.~$ I~emenai Cl~rge -2a. 70 Pre-Tax Park -gO.00* 360. Savings .Aect. - Spouse Life -6 00 Urfltm:l Way .5.00 20,00 401(10 Contrib -1,147.13. 4,Saa. S2 Opt 10.0o VINCENT CANDIELLO 14 DRAPER CIRCLE LITITZ PA 17543 * Ex<:luded hem federal taxabll wages Yeur fe~Jeral taxable wages this peric~ are ~t4,~)~.45 M~i~ ~lum 4,s~.58 SOC. SEC. NO. NAME PAY END PAY DATE CH½NUM 537-70-5303 Vincent Candtello ~ORAD SCH IR HBO SAL FAC P 639.08 HOURS CURRENT YTD Sala~g &39.08 Oross Pag 639.08 31~5.4~ Li~e Ins Prem ~00 .00 ~FICA W/H 3~.6~ 1~8. 10 04/15/~00~ 04/15/~00~ ~859 State W/H Medicare W/H Net Pa§ CURRENT YTD 17,89 89.45 ~27 46.35 572.30 ~8&1. 5~ SAINT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY . LORETI'O, PA. 15940-0600 Please detach & retain Check Total Check NO. $1,400,00 Check Date DATE DESCRIPTION P. EFE~ENCE AMO~TT 02/28/2002 CANDIELLO/0227-2 $ FNAY 1,400.00 Page 1 208865 Mar 21, 2002 DATE DESCRIPTION R~FE~NCE 12/06/2001 CAND~ELLO/1205- 06 G032 Check Total Check No. $1,200.00 Check Date 1,200.00 Page 1 208262 Jan 24, 2002 VINCENT CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO VINCENT CANDIELLO'S ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM TO PETITION TO CORRECT OR MODIFY THE RECORD PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1926 5. DENIED AS STATED. If an answer were required Susan K. Candiello incorporates by reference her allegations set forth in ¶1 through ¶4 of her Petition to Modify Record. 6. DENIED AS STATED. Susan K. Candiello is not opposed to the documents which Vincent Candiello seeks to incorporate within the record, however, it is DENIED that her documents are irrelevant or immaterial to the remand order. NEW MATTER 7. Susan K. Candiello has consistently argued since the remand order that Vincent Candiello "must produce his 1999 and 2000federal, state and local income tax returns as well as all 1099s, W-2s for himself and his second wife in order that the court may determine if his theoretical support obligation could ever exceed fifty (50%) percent of his net monthly income". See ¶8 of Susan K. Candiello's Motion for Fact Finding Hearing and Document Exchange on Remand by Superior Court dated September 24, 2001. If Mr. Candiello's 2001 tax returns had been available she would have requested them as well in the Motion filed in September 2001. 8. The reason for this request is clear because Vincent Candiello's income dramatically increased between 1999 and 2001 as shown on Exhibit "A" which is his 2001 federal income tax return showing a gross pay of $192,217.00 from his employment as a lawyer; $10,874.75 from teaching and $2,800.00 from lecturing for a combined gross pay of $205,891.00. The current order on appeal assumed his gross pay from all sources was $164,687.98 in 1998 and $171,687.94 in 1999. This information was only obtained at a child support conference held on May 28, 2002. 9. This dramatic difference in income which was not reported to Domestic Relations or Susan K. Candiello should be included in the record forwarded to the Superior Court because it demonstrates why Mr. Candiello is not entitled to any reduction in alimony due Susan Candiello because of his theoretical child support obligation to his intact second family in light of this significant and unreported increase in income between 1999 and 2001. WHEREFORE, Vincent Candiello's 2001 tax return with schedules and current paystubs attached as Exhibit "A" should be included in the documents forwarded to the Superior Court as part of the record. BY: y6 t;;~i~eW~ l~l; eEtsqu're New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Susan K. Candiello Jun 03 0£ O!:lSp SKC .as 71', 786-1833 VERIFICATION I hereby verify '~hat ~e statements m~e in tile foregoing document arc truc ~nd co~ec~ lo the best of my knowledge, information ~ belief, I uM~stmd that f&se s~temen~s herein are made subject to ~he ~nalties of 18 Pa, C.S.A. ~4~4, rela~in8 to ~wom f~sification ~o authorities. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: June 3, 2002 040 u.s. Individual Income Tax Return 2001 Use the IRS label. pm. sidential Election C~mpaign Filing Status 3 4 Check only 5 Exemptions It mo~e than Six dependents, see instructions. ~or the )~ar Jan 1 - D~: 31, 2GOI, or other tax )sst tie~innin~ ,2~01, endin~ Vincent Candietto Roseann C Candtet[o 14 Draper Circte Lttitz PA 17543 ;27-70-5303 180-48-7858 · Important! · security number(s) above. You Spouse Note Checking 'Yes' will not change)our tax or reduce your refund. Do you, or your spouse if tilinc~ a ioint return, want $3 to (~o to this fund? ...... ~' ~ Yes J--1 NO ~-] Yes ~-~ No I ~ Single 2 Married filing joint return (even if only One had income) Married filing separate return. Enter spouse's SSN above & full name here . ~" Head of household (with qualifying person). (See instructions.) I1 the qualifying person is a child but not your dependent, enter this child's name here ~' g Qualif~in~l widow{er) with deper~lent child (,yea' spouse died > ). (See instructions.) youmetf, if yoor parent (or semeone else) can claim you as a deper~dent on his or --~d,e~kedK~' M ~e~e~on iqer tax return, do not check box 6a .......................................... ~- .... 2 b ~--~ Spouse (2) Depefldent's (3) Dependent's I (4) ~if kw#o: c Dependents: socia/security relationshrp I ch~'~' · number to you I taxcmdlt Mt~¥eu (1) First name Last name I O-. imtr~) · did Catherine C Candietto 213-15-7965 OauJ~hter J J Noette M Candietto 213-15-9817 Daughter IXl o'~:.~.,.~'~ Katel. yn R Candietto 211-74-4365 Oaul{hter ~X (..mt..) .. m,M. [ d Total number of exeml ~tions ctaimed .............. d w.. '*1 7 Wages, salaries, tips, etc. Attach Form(s) W-2 .................................j 7 27b, 007 Income 8a Taxable interest. Attach Schedule B if required , 8a 2 ~) 1 Rttach Forms b Tax-exempt interest. Do not include on line 8a ............. J dUI ~V-Z end W-2G 9 Ordinary dividerYls. Attach Schedule B if required .................................... 9 9 Form(s) 1099-R if 10 Taxable refuncls, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes (see ins~'uctions) 10 :ax was withheld. 11 Alimony received ........................................................... 11 12 Business income or 0Dss). Attach Schedule C or C-EZ ................................ 12 2 ~ 017 It you did not ~- [] get a W-2, see 13 Capital gain 0~ (loss). Attach Schedule O if required, ff not required, chedx h~e ........... 13 ~nstructions. 14 Other gains or (losses). Attach Form 4797 ............................................ 14 15a Total IRA distributions ..... 1Sa J b Taxable amount (see instrs) . 15b 16a Total pensions & a~nu ties . L 16aJ b Taxable amot~t (see instrs) . 16b 17 Rental real estate, royalties, parlnefships, S corporations, trusts, etc. Attach Schedule E . 17 =.nclose, but do 18 Farm income or (loss). Attach Schedule F .......................................... 18 not attach, any 19 Unemployment compensation .................................................... 19 payment. Also, 20a Social security benefits J 20al J b Taxable amount (see Jnstrs) . 20b please use Form 1040.V. 21 Other mc0me 21 22 Add the am~u~ ~ fa ric~ht column for lines 7 throuo. P 21. This is }/our total income ~' 22 272,324 23 IRA deduction (see instructions) ........................ 23 Adjusted 24 Student loan interest deduction (see insb'uctions) ......... Z4 Gross 25 Archer MSA deduction. Attach Form 8853 ................ 25 Income 26 Moving expenses. At.ch Form 3903 ...................... 26 27 Orca.half of self.employment tax. Attach Schedule SE ..... 27 27 28 Self-employed heal~ rnsu~ance deductio~ (see instructions) 28 29 Self-employed SEP, SIMPLE, and qualified plans ......... 29 30 Penalfy on early withdrawal of savings .................. 30 3'1 a Alimony paid b Recipienr$ SSN ~' 2 ] O- 40 - 1399 .. 311 19,000. ~2 Add lines 23 through 3ia .............................................................. S2 19~027 33 Subtract line 32 fi'om tine 22. This iS ~,our adjusted ~lrOSS income .................... ~' ~ 2 5 3,2 97 BAA For Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Papeflvod( Reductio~ Act Notice, see instructions. FOliO112 t2110~31 Form 1040 (2001 C Candietto 527-70-5303 Pa~e Tax and ~4 Amount from line 3~ (a~jusbad g~oss ;, ~,-,e) ............................ ~ . ~4 253,2 ~'7 1~ { b f w~j are married filino separabaly and your spouse itemizes deductions, n L or'~o-u were · dual-sba{us ·lien, see inst]'uctions and check here ............. ~" 35b LJ I /e People who 36 itemized deductlens (lmm Schedule A) or your staedard deduction (see left margin) ........... 36 29~ 036 /checked any box /on lil3e 35a or {be claimed as a on line 6d, If line 34 is over $99,725, see the worksheet in the instTuctlon$ 38 8 ~ ]20 / dependent, see ff line 38 is m~re than line 37, rater -0- linsb'uctions. 40 Tax (see instrs). Check if any tax is from · [~Form($)8~14 b E~F0~m4972 40 59,478 Single: ~' 42 59,478 ' 46 [QuallY~ing 47 R·te reduction credit. See the worksheet 47 ! W~dow(er), 48 Child tax credit (see insb'uction$) 48 ~Married filing 50 0ther credits from · r--~Form380Q b E~Form8396 ] separately, i c [] Form 8~01 d U Form (specify) : 50 ] $3,800 51 Add lines ~3 throu§h 50. These are your total credtts 51 58 Add lines SZ-57. Thi$isyourtotalta~ ~' 58 59,532 qualifying 61 a Earned income credit (EIC) child, attach F b Nontaxable earned income ..... Schedure EIC._ 62 Excess soci·l security and RRTA tax withheld (see instrs) 62 674 total payments ............................................................. >' 66 57,625 Refund 67 If line 66 i$ mom than line 5~, subtract line 5~ from line 66. This is the am0~nf YOu overpaid ......... 67 See insb'uctions ~ b Routing number .... ~ ¢ Type; [] Checking [] Savings F~Sc, and 6~d. 69 Amount of line 67 YOU Owe 71 Estimated tax penalty. Also include on line 70 ........... Third Party Designee De you want to allow another person to discuss this return with the IRS (see instructions)7 ....... Yes. Complete the following. [] Nc Sign Here Joint return? See inslructions. Keep · copy for your records. Paid Preparer's Use Only Fi.,'. ~.,. S e !. f - P r e pa r ed Form 1040 (2001) 2001 · '(Fo.n~schedule1040)a ..A Treasury ~) Itemized Deductions ~.' Aftsch to Form 1040. See Instructions for Schedule A 0rom1 1040). O7 llo M~lical Caution. Do not include expenses reimbursed or paid by others. arid I Medical and dental expenses (sen instructmns) 1 Dental 2 Enter amount from Form J040, line 34 J 2 J Expenses 3 Multiply line 2 above by 7.5% (.075) 3 4 Subtract line 3 Eom line 1, If line 3 is more than line 1. enter O- 4 Taxes You 5 State and local income taxes i 5 3. 1,38 3 Paid 6 Real estate taxes (see instructions) 6 4,075 7 Personal property taxes 7 49 (See instrucbons,) 8 Other taxes· List type and amount - ............. 0ccu. pati ona i Tax 20. 8 20. 9 Add lines 5 ~roucjh 8 ....... 9 15.527 10 14,204. Interest 10 Home mtg interest and points reported [o you on Form 1098 You Paid 11 Home modgage interest not repoded to you en Form 109& If paid to the p~rson from whom you bought the home, see instructions and show that person's name, identifying number, and address thstructlons.) .................. 7 - - - _ _ ~ .... Note. Personal 12 Pmnts not reported to you on Fo~m I09~. S~ inslrs for spcI rules 12 14 14,204 Casualty and Theft Losses 19 Casualt~ or the/t Ioss(~es/. Attach Form 4684. (See instructions.) .... 19 Job Expenses 20 Unreimbursed employee expenses - ob tTavel, union dues, Other 2O 21 Tax preparation fees 21 35 (See 24 Enter am0unt tr0m Form1040,1ine 34 J 24 J 253,297. Miscellaneous Total 28 Is Form 1040, line 34, over $132,950 (over $66,475 if MFS)? for lines 4 through 27. Also, enter this ami on Form lu,-~, line 36. i 28 29,036 / Itemized 0eductions Limited per IRC Sec. 68. BAA For Paperwork Rnduction Act Notice, see Form 10~ instructions. FDeA030t 01/07,~2 Schedule A (Form 10z~3) 200 ' Schedule C-EZ I (~o~tn 1040) V~ ncent Cand ~ el. !.o Net Profit from Business I o~.~. ,~s~7~ I 2001 partnerships, joint v~u~, etc, mint file F~ 1~ ~ 1~- ~A [Part-I 'l General Information You May Use J Schedule C-EZ Instead of _ Schedule C Only if You: · Had bustness expenses ot $2,500 · Use the cash method of accounting. · Did not have a net loss from your proprietor· And You: · Had no employees during the year· · Are not required to file Form 4562, Depreciation and Amortization, for this business. See the instructions for Schedule C, line 13, to find out if you must tile. · Do not deduct expenses for busi ness use of your home. · Oo not have pnor year unallowed passive activity losses from this business. LECTURING 14 Draper Circle Enter code from inst~ctions 611000 EmployerlDnum~r(El~,ifany 68-0367707 C~, town or post othce, state, and ZIP code Lititz, PA 17543 [Part II J Figure Your Net Profit Gro~s receipts. Caution h s ncome was reportedstatutoryO yOUEmployeesOn Form inW'2[*heandinst~uctionsthe 'StatutorYfor employee' box on that form was checked, see ~- I I Schedule C, line t, and check here .... Total expenses. If more than $2,500, you must use Schedule C. See instructions ......... Net profit. Subb'act ne 2 h-om line 1. ff less t~an zero, you must use Schedule C. Enter on Fo~m line 1Z, and a so on Schedule S£ line 2. (Statutgry employees do not report this amount on Sohedule SE, line 2. Estates and trusts, enter on Form 1041, hne 3.) .......................................... 2,800 783 2,017 Part Ill 1 Information on Your Vehicle. Complete this part only if you are claiming car or b'uck expenses on line 2. 4 When d,d you place you~ vehicle ~n service for business purposes? (month, day, year) ~'_0_4 ~_0_/1_9~9_~ _ - _ . 5 Of the total number ol m~les you drove 'your vehicle during 2001, enter the number of miles you used your vehicle for: a Bus,ness ...... _2 ,_ 1_60 b Commuting ..... j_9 ,_COg c Other .... 2_9 ,_8_49 6 Oo you (or your spouse) have another vehicle available for personal use? [] Yes 7 Was your vehicle avadable for personal use during off-duty hours? ' [] Yes 8a Oo you have ewdence to support your deduction? [] Ye~ b Il 'Yes,' ts the evidence wrltlen? BAA For paperwork Eedudion Ad Notice, see Form 1040 instrlJctions- [~No [] No Schedule C-El_ (Form 1040) ' S ciaec~te S~ . ~s~ Ir~-~me (~ S/~own ~ F~ lO4O) Vincent ~and~ello 17 ---'~Soc~al Security ~ - with s~ f-emp~ymeclt throne "' ]527-70-5305 Section B -- Long Schedule SE Patti '1 Self-Employment Tax ~ . em to ee income, sk p nec 1 through 4~. Enter -0- on line 4c and go to I~ote f your only income subject to se. il-emp, loyme_n~_t~.s..c.h=UrCmhembePtr ~f a religious order is not church employee income. See inst~ucbons. line 5a. income from services you pe~ormea as a ..H~,=' '~' ~ member of a religious order, or Christian Science practitioner and you filed Form 436t, but you had $40(3 ~ ~ A arm rofit or (loss) fi.om Schedule F line 36, and farm partnerships, Schedule K 1 (Form 1065), line 1 1N~at, Notep. Skip this line if you use the farm optional method. See ~nstrucbons 2 Net profit or 0oss) Eom Schedu[e C, line 31; Schedule C-EZ, line 3; Schedule K-I (Form 1065), ilne · e K-1 orm 1065-B), box 9. M nisters and members of religious orders, other than farming) and Schedu (F ~ in~tr~Jc f ther income to report. Note Skip ~ee ~nstruct ons for amounts to report on ~s line. S .......... boris or o this line if you use the nonfarm optional method. See instructions 4a If hne 3 is more than zero, multiply line 3 by 92.35% (.9235). Otherwise, enter amount from line 3 b Il you elect one or both of the optional methods, enter the total of lines t5 and t7 here c 4a and 4b If less than $400, do not file this schedu e; you do not owe self-employment 5a Enter your church employee income from Form W-2. Caution. See the 5a b Multiply line 5a by 92.35% (.9235) [f less than $1,00, enter -0 6 Net earnings from self-employment. Add lines 4c and 5b 7 Maximum amount of combined wages and 5e f-employment earnings subject to soctal securdy tax or the 6.2% portion of the 7.65% railroad retirement (tier ~) tax for 200 8aTotalsoca secunty wages and tips (total of boxes 3 and 7 on Form(s) w-2) / 8b 8a 91,2 and railroad retirement(tier ]) compensation b Unreported tips subject to social security tax (from Form 4137, hne 9) c Add lmes 8a and 8b Subtract line 8c from line 7. If zero or less, enter -0- here and on Jthe ~0 and go to line 1 ] 10 Multiply the smaller of line 6 or line 9 by t2.4% (.124) 11 Mumbply line 6 by 2.9% (.029) 12 Self-employment tax. Add lines 10 and 1 t. Enter here and on Form 1040, line 55 13 Deduction for one-half of self-employme_nt.t.a~.. Mut.~tiply hne 12 by 50% 13 27 (.S). Enter the result here and on Form 1u4u, une z:/ 2,017. 2,017. 1, 863. 1,863. 1,863. 80,400 91,275 0 0 54 ~art II I Optional Methods to Figure Net Earnings (See instructions.) Farm Optional Method. You may use this method only if: · Your gross farm income0) was not more than $2,400 or · Your net farm profits(2) were less than $t,733. 14 Maximum income for optional methods 15 Enter the smaller of: two-thirds (2/3) of gross farm income(I) (not less than zero) or $] ,600. Also, include this amount on line 4b above Nonfarm Optional Method. You may use this method on[y if: · Your net nonfarm profits(3) were less than $1,733 and also [ess than 72A89% bt your gross nonfarm ~ncome(4) and · You had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400 in 2 of the prior 3 years. Caution. You may use this method no more then five times. 16 Subb'act line 15 from line 14 17 Enter the smaI er of: tw°'thirds (~/3) °f gr0ss n°nfarm ~nc°me(4) (n°t less than zer°) or the am°unt °n line t6. Also include this amount on line 4b above (1) From Schedule F, Ithe 11, and Schedule K.1 (Form i065), hne tSb. CZ) From Schedule F, line 36, and Schedule K-1 (Form t065), line t5a. 1,600. ~5 16 (3) From Schedule C, line 31; Schedule C-EZ, line 3; Schedule K-1 (Form t065), line 1Sa; and Schedule K-] (Form tO65-B), box 9 (4) From Schedule C, line 7; ScheduLe C-EZ, line t; Schedule K-t (Form 1065), line 15c; and Schedule K-! (Form 1065-B), box 9. Schedule SE (Form 1040) 2091 BAA 8332 Release of Claim to Exemption for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents (Rev. Decembe~ z000) · Attach to noncustodial parent's return each year exemption is claimed. a'.~la Release of Claim to Exemption for Current Year Sequence No 1 1 5 · ~ - Name(si of child (or children) for th~,tax year 2~. % ~¢~ '%,gnature~f cu-- '~i%l%arem releasing claim ,o exemp,,o~ ' ' -- n Custod;al Note If ~ou choose nor t~laim an exemption for this c~ild (or children} for future tax ~ear& also complete Parr II I~il/ Release of CAlm to Exemption for Future Years (If completed, see Noncustodial parent below.) I agree not to claim an exemption for for the tax year(s) Signature ct custodial parent releasing claim [O exemption Name)s) of child (or children) Custodial parent's SSN General Instructions Purpose of form. If you are a custodial parent and you were ever married to the chJid's noncustodial parent, you may use this form to release your claim to your child's exemption. To do so, complete this form (or a similar statement containing the same information required by this form) and ~]ive it to the noncustodial parent who will claim the child's exemption. The noncustodlal parent must attach this form or similar statement to his or her tax return each year the exemption ~s claimed You are the custodial parent if you had custody of the child for most of the year. You are the noncustodial parent if you had custody fcc a shorter period al time or did not have custody at all, For the definition of custody, see Pub. 501, Exemptions. Standard Deduction, and Filing Information. Support test foK children of divorced or separated parents, Generally, the custodial parent is b'eated as having provided over half of the child's support if: · The child received over half of his or her total support for the year from one or both of the parents and · The child was in the custody of one or both of the parents for more than half of the year. Note: Public assistance payments, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ~TANF), are not support provided by the parents, For this support test to apply, the parents must be one ol the following: · Divorced or legally separated under a decree ol divorce or separate maintenance, · Separated under a written separation agreement, or · Living apart at all times during the last 6 momhs ol the year. Caution: Th~s suppo,'f test does not apply to parents who never married each other. II the support test applies, and the other four dependency tests in your tax return instruction booklet are also met. the custodial parent can claim the child's exemption. Exception. The custodial parent will no[ be treated as having provided over hall ol the child's support ilany ol the lollowing apply · The custodial parent agrees not to claim the child*s exemption by signing this form or similar statement. · The child is treated as having received over half ol his or her total support from a person under a multiple support agreement (Form 2120, Multiple Support Declaration} · A pre-1985 divorce decree or written separation agreement states that the noncustodial parent can claim the child as a dependent. But the noncustedial parent must provide at least $600 for the child's suppOrt during the year. This rule does not apply if the decree or agreement was changed after 1984 to say that the noncustodial parent cannot claim the child as a dependent. Additional information. For more details, see Pub. 504, Divorced or Separated Individuals, Specific Instructions Custodial parent. You may agree to release your claim to the child's exemption for the current tax year or for future years, or both. · Complete Part I if you agree to release your claim to the child's exemption lor the current tax year. · Complete Part II it you agree to release your claim to the child's exemption for any or all future years. If you do. write the specific future year(s) or "all future years" in the space provided in Part II. To help ensure future support, you may not want to release your claim to the child's exemption for future years. Noncustodiat parent. Attach this form or similar statement to your tax return for each year you claim the child's exemption, You may claim the exemption only if the other Note: If the custodial parent released his or her claim to the child's exemplion /or any future year, you must attach a copy of this exemption Keep a copy for your records. figure and collect the right amount of tax. You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the Iorm displays a valid OMB control Revenue Code section 6103. form will vary depending on individual Copying, assembling, and CA 95743-0001. Do not send the form ~o this Focm 8332 {~e, 12.2000) SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION TO INCREASE ALIMONY AND ASSESS RETROACTIVE ARREARS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PETITION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. TO: Defendant Vincent Candicllo, Esquire c/o Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1. Plaintiff Susan K. Candiello, Esquire is an adult individual residing at 393 Alison Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant Vincent Candiello, Esquire is an adult individual residing at 14 Draper Circle, Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 17543. 3. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement on August 12, 1994 which provided in ¶8 for alimony payments to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,100.00 per month for ninety six (96) consecutive months through August 2002. 4. The Marital Settlement Agreement set forth in ¶8 (d): Modification. Alimony as provided for in this Agreement shall be modifiable in accordance with the provisions of the Divorce Code except that under no circumstances shall the period of alimony extend for more than eight (8) years or ninety six (96) months. Any modification shall be determined in accordance with the uniform support guidelines. [Emphasis added]. 5. After Vincent Candiello filed a Petition to Terminate Alimony and Susan Candiello filed a Petition to Modify Alimony, a hearing was held in April 1999 and an Order dated September 1, 1999 was issued which increased Vincent Candiello's alimony payments. The Court used his income in 1998 and 1999 to perform the calculations. 6. After an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which resulted in a remand, a new Order dated April 2, 2002 was issued by the Court using Vincent Candiello's income from 1999. Susan Candiello repeatedly requested this Honorable Court to examine the 1999 and 2000 federal income tax returns before issuing the new order. See Susan Candiello's "Motion for Fact Finding Hearing and Document Exchange" filed on September 24, 2001 following the remand order. The April 2, 2002 Order is now on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 7. On May 28, 2002 a child support conference was held at which time it was revealed that Vincent Candiello's income had increased from $171,687.94 in 1999 to $205,891.00 in 2001 as shown by his 2001 federal income tax remm attached hereto as Exhibit 8. This information was never disclosed in 1999, 2000 or 2001 to Susan Candiello or the Court when considering the remand issues. 9. Defendant Vincent Candiello failed to comply with 23 Pa. C.S.A. §4353 which requires: An individual who is a party to a support proceeding shall notify the Domestic Relations section in writing or by personal appearance within seven days of any material change in circumstances relevant to the level of support ... including but not limited to: (1) change of employment. 2 10. Defendant Vincent Candiello failed to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.17 (b) which requires: The order shall notify the obligee and obligor that each is under a continuing obligation to inform the domestic relations section and all other parties in writing within seven days of any material change in circumstances relevant to the level of support or the administration of the support order including but not limited to, loss or change of income or employment ... The order shall also notify the parties that ifa party willfully fails to inform the domestic relations section of the required information, the court may adjudge the party to be in contempt of court pursuant to Rules 1910.21-1 through 1910.21-7 and may order the party to be punished by one or more of the following: jail, fmc or probation. 11. Defendant Vincent Candiello's failure to report this large income increase from 1999 to 2001 was willful and calculated to deprive Plaintiff and his children of necessary support and alimony. 12. Defendant Vincent Candiello should be compelled to repay Plaintiffs legal fees incurred in uncovering his conduct pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §4351 which states: If an obligee prevails in a proceeding ... to obtain a support order, the court may assess against the obligor filing fees, reasonable attorney fees and necessary travel and other reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the obligee and the obligee's witnesses. Attorney fees may be taxed as costs and shall be ordered to be paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order, in the attorney's own name. 13. In addition, the parties Marital Settlement Agreement specifically provided that it could be enforced by the Court and that any party breaching its te~ms would be responsible for "all costs, expenses and legal fees actually incurred in the enforcement of the rights of the non-breachingparty." In this case, Defendant Vincent Candiello owed a duty to share his salary increases during the pendency of the appeal and when the court was considering the remand issues in April 2002. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to utilize Defendant Vincent Candiello's actual income in 2000, 2001 and 2002 in accordance with the Uniform Support Guidelines to determine the appropriate alimony he should have paid to Plaintiff Susan Candiello from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2002. Respectfully submitted, BY: S~n Hov~el~, EsqUire' J619 Bridge Street / umberland, P^ 17070 (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 Telecopier Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: July 31, 2002 BY: St~ Ho~ei~qt~ire VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts averred in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. 040 For the )ear Jan I · Dec 31, 2001, or other lax ~,ar beginning ,2001, mdin~ Y~r fi~l ~ ~ L~I ~ Vincent Cand~elto Label U~ the IRS label. Omerw~se, pleaSe prml or ~ype. p r~sidential Election Campaign Firing Status Check only Exemptions ~ mo~e man s,x dependenls. see ~nstrucbons I Depa~t~4nt of I~e T~ -- Internal Rwenae .See~c~ I U.S. Individual Income Tax Return2001,m , ~ ~ No. 1~5~74 527-70-5303 Roseann C Candietto 80-48-7858 Aa,~,.t~. ~ ImpoKant! ~ 14 Draper Circle Lititz PA 17543 YOU must enter your soc,a, secunb/number(s) adore You Spouse Note: Checmng 'Yes' will not change ),our tax or reduce your refund. Do you, or your spouse if hlinc, I a iointretum, want $3 to cjo to this fund? . ~' ~'J Yes ["-] No [~ Yes ~-q No 1 [._J Single 2 {XJ Married hhng joint return (even if only O~e had income) 3 LJ Married fihng separate return. Enter spouse's SSN above & full name here 4 L._J Head of househol0 (with quali~ing person). (See ins0'uctions.) If the qualdy~ng person ~s a chfla bul not your dependent, enter t~is child's name here ~' 5 [--J Qualityinc~ w~dow(er) with dependent child (,year spouse died "' t' (See ins~uctions.1 6a Yourself If your parent (or someone e se) can claim you as a dependent on his or '--1 ~'J * h K box 6a L her tax return, do not c ec .................................. spou. -' li~, ~ (se~ - r' I -r .... (2) Dependent's (3) DepenOent's (4) ,/',r c Dependents: socia/security relationship ch~- kx number to you (1) First name Last name Catherine C Candiello 213-15-7965 Daughter X Noette M Candietto 213-]5-98~7 Oaughter Kate~yn R Candie[],o 2]]-74-4365 Daughter X Add number~ Total number of exemptions claimed ................................... uae, ,t,~v~. ~'' 270,007 7 Wages, saJartes, tips, etc. Attach Form(s) W-2 ............... Income Atlach Forms W-Z and W-ZG hef~e. Also attach ror'rn(s) lOgg-R if tax was withheld. it you Ci~d r~t get a W-2, see Enclose. bul do not attach, any Form 1 040.V. Adjusted Gross Income Sa b 9 ~0 11 1g 13 14 1Sa 16a 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 3O Taxable ~nterest. Attach Schedule E~ if rec~dlred ....... Tax-exempt ~nterest. Do not include on line 8a ....... I 8bi Ordinary dw~dends, Attach Schedule E~ if required ................. Taxable re.rids, creOits, or offsets of state and local ~ncome taxes (see ~nst~uctions) Alimony received IBusineS~s income or (los. S), Attach Schedule C or C-EZ ....................... Capital ~ain or (less). Attach Schedule O if r~luired. If nol rmuir~l, ch~ck here ......... ~ [] Other gains or (losses). Attach Form 4797 ................................... Total IRA dis~-ibutJons ..... 1Sa I b Taxable amount (see instzs) Total pensions & annuities 16a I b Taxable amount (see irises) Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, ~usts, etc. Attach Schedule Farm income or (loss). Attach Schedule F Unemployment compensation ..................................... Soctal security benefits J z0al Ib Taxable amount (see inst~s) 01her income IRA deduction (see ins~uctions) ..................... Student loan ~nterest deduction (see instruchons) Archer MSA deduction. Attach Form 8853 ............... Moving expenses. Attach Form 3903 One.half of seN.employment tax. Attach Schedule SF' .... Self-employed heal~ ~nsurance deduction (see instructions) Self-employed SEP, SIMPLE, and qualified plans ........ Penalty on early w~thdrawal of sawngs ................ Alimony paid b Reciplenrs SSN ~'' 2 ] 0- 40- ! 399 ! 9 Add lines 23 through Subb'act I~ne 32 Eom hne 22. Th~s is our ad'uste~ ross Income ......... 'r'ivacy Act, and Papal"work Reduction Act Notice, see Ins'lructions. 291 . 9. 2,017, 272, 324 19,027 Form 1040 (E~C1 · Tax and Credits Standard Deduction · People who cl~ecKed any box on hne 35a or 3.50 or who can De claimed as a dependent, see ~ns~ucfions · Ali Single: $4.550 lnouselnoI0. $6.650 Mamed hhng ~,uo~n rix or ahfylng w~dow(er), [ Marr*ed fihn§ / separately. / ~3,8o0 ,27-70-5303 Page Vincent & Roseann C Candietto sa / 253,297 34 Amot~t fro~ line 33 (adjusted gross income) ............................. 35 a Check if: [] You were 65/older, [] B,ind; [] Spouse was 65Id,der. Add ~e number of boxes c~ecked above and enter the total here b f you are married fitinq separately and you~ s0ouse itemizes deductions. or you were a dual-sta'[us a ten, see instructions and check here ..... --36 Itemized deductions (from Schedule A) or your standard deduction (see left margin) -37 Sub~*act line 36 from line 34 ........................ ~--~ 3~ ne 34 is $99 72.5 or less mu tlply $2,900 by t~e total number of exemptions cJmmed on line 6d. If line 34 s ova;" $99,725, see t~e worksheet n the instructions 39 Tamable income. Subtract line 38 from line 37. If line 38 is more than line 37, enter .0- . ................... 40 Tea (sm instrs). 0~eck if any tax is from a [] Form(s) 5314 b [] Form 4972 41 Alternative minimum tax (see instructions). Attach Form 6251 42 Add hnes 40 and 41 43 Foreign tax credit. Attach Form 1 ~16 it requ*red Oedg fo~ child and dependenl care expenses. Attach Form 2441 45 Credd lot the elderly or the disabled. Attach Schedule Education credits. Attach Form 8~o3 47 Rate reduction credit. See the worksheet 48 Child tax credit (see instructions) ........... 49 Adopbon credit. Attach Form 8839 ........... 50 Other credits froma [] Form 3300 b [] Form c [] Form ~301 d La Form (specify) 5O 51 Add lines 43 through 50. These are ),our total credits 5:) SubtTact line 51 h'om tine 42. If line 51 is more than hne 42, enter -0- Other Taxes 53 Self.employment t~x. Attach Schedule SE ..... 54 Social security and Medicare ts on tip ~ncome nol reporled to empio)~f Attach Form 4137 55 Tax on oualilied plans, including tEAs, and other tax.lavored accounts Affach Form $3~ d reqwl~ 56 Advance earned income credit payments from Form(s) W.2 2~6,]4~ 59,478 51 '~1 52 59,473 57 58 Add lines 5~-57. This is your total tax ................... Payments If yOU nave a I quahh/~ng j~_ ScheOure EIC. 59 Federal income tax withheld from Forms W*2 and 1099 . 60 L~0l esbmated tax payments and amount applied from 2000 return . 61 a Earned income credit (FTC) b Nontaxable earned income ..... I 6'1 bI 62 Excess social security and RRTA tax withheld (see ~nsb's) 63 Addibonal child tax credit. Attach Form 8812 64 Amount pa~d with request for extension to file (see instructions) .... 6.5 01~er payments. Check if from .... a [] Form 2439 · 57 Household employment taxes. Attach Schedule H ..... > r~. 59 56,951.I 62 674 -- 59,532 Refund O~rect depos47 See ~ns~'ucttons and hll ~n 68b, ~>~4:. and 68d. Amount You Owe Third Party Designee b [] Form 4136 ........................... 65 66 Add lines 59, 60, 6la, and 62 through 65. These are your total pa~/ments [] sa¥,ogs"~ 170 71 Estimated tax penalty. Also include on line 70 ......... J 71 ] / you wahl to allow another person to discuss this return with the IRS (se~ msttuctions)? [] Yes. Complete t~e followu~9 6'7 If line 66 Is more than line 53, sublracl line 58 from line 66. This is the amount you overpaid. 68a Amount of line 67 you want refunded to you · ' b Routing number .... ~' c Type: [] Checking - d Account number ..... 69 Amount of hne 67 you want applied to }tour 2~2 e~timated tax ~'J 69 I 70 Amount you owe. Subtract line 66 from line 58. For details on how to pay, s~ mslruchons 57,625 : , 90' Sign Here Joint re~rn? See insU-uchons. Keep a copy lot your records. Paid Preparer's Use Only Set f-Prepared Itemized Deductions "Attach to Fon~ 1040. ~' Se~ Instructions for Schedule A 0ron~ 1040). 2003 07 527-70-5303 Vincent l~-dical Dental Expenses Taxes You Paid (See ~nstruct,ons ) Interest You Paid (See =nsb'uctlons ) deduchbte. Gifts to Charity If you made a girt an0 got a Demerit for it, see instructions Casualty and Theft Lo~ses .Idb Expenses and Mo. st Other Miscellaneous Dedudions (See & Roseann C Candietlo 1 Mad ca and dental eq:~ses (see instructions) .... l 2 Enler amount from Form 1040. hne 34 3 Mulhply line 2 above dy 7.5% (.075) 3 4 Subtract line 3 from tine I. If hne 3 is more than hne 1, enter .0- State and local mcome taxes ~ Real estate taxes (see *nstruchons) Personal property taxes Other taxes. List type and amount" ............ 0ecu. pat i ona_t... _Ta_x_ ............... _20 9 Add hnes 5 through 8 ...... 10 Home mtg mterest and points reported to you on Form I098 10 11 Home mortgage rotate, st not repor1~ Id you on Form 1098. If paid to the person from whom you bought the home. see mstruclions and show that person's name, ,denbfymg number, and address '" 12 Pc{nfs not repoded Io y~u on Form 109B. See inslf$ for spcl rules 13 Investmenl ~nlerest All.ich Form 4952 ,t [equ,red (See mslrs ) 14 Add hnes l0 througt~ 13 15 Gd~s by cash or check. If you made any 9,/1 ct $250 or more. see ins~-uchons 16 Other than by casn or check II any gill of $250 or more, see ~nstrucbons You must atlach Form 8283 over $500 17 Carryover h'om prior year .. 18 Add hnes t5 throuOn t7 ..... 11.:,383: 4 4 075.} 20. 14,204 ll 13 15 I 2 475 I 16 440 17 14 18 19 19 Casualb/ or thett Ioss{;es/. Attach Form 4684. {;See ,nstructions.) Unreimbursed employee expenses - ob travel, union dues, lob education, etc. You must attach Form 2 06 or 2106.EZ ~f required· (See instrucbons.) 21 Tax preparahon fees 21 35 2? Other expenses - ~nvestment, safe deposH box, etc. Lit type and amount '"' 23 Add lines 20 Uqrough 22 2.3 35 24 Entel amount from Folm t040. hne34 { 24 J 253,297 25 Mulbply hne 24 above by 2% (02) 25 5,066 26 Subtract hne 25 t[om hne 23. iI line 25 IS more than line 23, enter .0, ] 26 i 27 Ot~er - from hst ~n 'Ce insb'ucbons. L~st type and amount" ............... 28 Is Form I0~. hne 3~. over $132,950 (over $66.475 if MFS)? 15,527 2,913 Other Miscellaneous Deductions Total Ilemized Deductions E]No. Your Oeduchon ,s not hmited. Add the amis in the far right col /or lines 4 through 27. Aisc, enter t~is ami on Form 1040, hne 36. b~] Yes. Your deduction may be hmlted. See instrucbons for Uae amount to enter 28 29,036 Itemized Deductions Limited per IRC Sec. 68. BAA For Pap.,ei'~ork Redudion Ad Notice, ~ Form ]040 instructions. FOIA0301 01,'07/(12 [,chedule A (;" trn f';.~,} ]")~ Net Profit from Business partnerships, joint v~u~, etc, m~t file F~ 1~5 ~ 10~. Affach to F~ 1~ or 1~1. ~ S~ in~io~- 527-70-5303 IPa~ I I General Information You I~ay Use Schedule C-EZ Instead of Schedule C Only if You: · Had business expenses ol $2,500 or less. · Use Ihe cash method bi accounbng. · g~d not nave an ,nventory at any time during the year. · Did nol have a net loss from your bLJsil~ess · Had only one bus,ness as a sole propuetor And You: ' A Pr~r~c~p~ business or prolessJon, including product or service LECTURING · HaD nO employees C~Urlng t'~r ye:l~ · Are not requ,red Io hie Form 4562, Depreciation and AmorhzaI,en. 611000 Employer ID number (EI~'~. it any I 65-0367707 14 Draper C~rc!e ..... C~ty to'*~ or DOSt oH~ce, state, and ZiP code L it ~ tZ, PA ]7543 J-Part II J Figure Your Net Profit Gross receipts. C.a~tion. II h~s ,ncome was reported o you on Form W.2 and the 'Slatutory 1 employee' box on ~al form was checked, see Statutory Employees ~n the irlstruct~ons lot ~ J~ Schedule C, hne I. and check hele 2 Total expenses. If more than $2.500, you must use Schedule C. See Jnstrucbons . 3 Nm pro(it. Subtract line 2 from t~ne I. I! tess than zero, you must use Schedule C. Enter on Focrrl 1040, line 17_ and also on Schedule SE, line Z. (Statutory employees do not report this amounl on ScheduJe SE, hne 2. Estates and b'usts, enter on Form 1041, line 3.) 2,017 J Part ill J Information on Your Vehide. Complete this pact only if you are claiming car or truck expenses on hne 2 4 a ~us,ness ...... _~ ,_. 1...,~_0 b Commut,ng ..... .1_9 ,_0_09 G OD you (or your spouse) have another vemcle avadable Ior personal use? 7 Was your vemcie available for personal use during otl.Outy hours? . 8a ©o you have evidence lo support your deduchon? lb Jl YeS. ~S tt~e evtdence written? When d,d you place your yen,cie in service tot business purposes? (month, day, year) '"_0_4/_3_0_J ]_9_9_8 _ _ _ c Othe, ...... J_~ BAA For papecwock Redudion Act Notice. see I:'orm 1040 instrudions. ScheDule C-F-Z 0:erin t FOIAS~01 10/30/01 ~am,~ of p e'~ w,e S. elC~-mele~''- -~' [r'c°m~ (a~ s/~°wn [ w~th s~tl.employme~qt thcome" 1527-70- 5303 Vi ncent Cand~et[o Section B - Long Schedule SE [-Part'~ ~ Self.Employment Tax It-em o ent tax s church employee income, skip hn. es I th~Ou~gc~ e~ )EI;teere 0n~o°nm~n~e~e Note I1 your only ~ncome sub)ecl to se. p~ ym --~-;.,., -r = member of a rehglOUS order ts not c P Y · hne 58 Income from serwces you penormeo as a u,,,,,o.~- ~ ~ ter member ol a rehOlOUS order or Chr st an Science practiboner and you hied Form 436~, but you nad $400 ~- - A I you are a minis , ,'/ ...... ~* check re and continue with Part I or'more of other net earnings from seu-emu uy,,,~,,,, ____ he Net farm profit or (losS) bom Schedule F, hne 36, and farm partnersmps. Schedule K 1 (Form 1065). nne 2 15a Note. Smd th~s line if yOU use the larm optional method. See instructions 1'4et profit or (loss) from Schedule C, hne 31; Schedule C-EZ, hne 3; Schedule K.1 (Fom~ /065), linc (o~er than farming); and Schedule K. I (Form 1065.B), box 9 Ministers and members of rehg~OUS orders, see ~nstrucbons for amounts to report on th~s hne. See irlstrucbons tot other ~ncome [o report Note. SKip tis [,ne *f you use the nonlarm optional method, See ~nstrucbons 3 Combine hnes t and 2 4a If hne 3 ~S more than zero, mulhpiy line 3 by 92.35% (.9235). Otherwise, enler amount Irom ur3e 3 b If you elect one or bo~ of the opbonal methods, enter the total of hnes I5 and 17 here c Come,ne hnes 48 and 4b. if less than $400, do not file this schedule; you do not owe self.employment tax Exception. If tess than $400 and you had church employee income, enter .0- and continue En er your church employee income from Form W.2. Caution. See the I 5a ............ 5a ,nsLrdctions Ior dehnd on of church employee ~ncome b Mull,ply hne 58 by 92.35% (.9235). Ii less than $1.00, enter -0. 6 Net earnings from sell-employment. Add hnes 4.c and 5b 7 Ma×,mum amount o comb ned wages and sel .employment earnings subject to sooal security tax or me 6.2% portion of the 7.65% railroad ret rement (t er l) tax for 200 8a To al social security wages and tips (total ut boxes 3 and 7 on Form(s) W-2) / 8a 91 275. and radroaO retirement(tier I) compensation b Unreported t~ps subiect to social security tax (from Form 4]37, hne 9) , 8b c Add hnes 88 and 8b 9 S,JDTact nne 8c from hne 7. If zero or less, enter -0- here and on hne 10 and go to hne 'iCI Mulhbly the smaller of hne 6 or line 9 by ]2.4% (.124) 'l 1 MuH~oly line 6 by 2.9% (.029) 12 Selt..~mployment ~ Add I~nes 10 and 11. Enter here and on Form 1040, line 53 13 Deduction for one-halt o! self-employment tax. Multiply line 12 by 50% (.5) Enter the result here and on Form 1040, line 27 ........ 13 4c ] . 3G: 6 . .~ G 3 7 ,~0 40C 275 JPart II J Optional Methods to Figure Net Earnings (See instzuctions,) Farm Optional Method. You may use th~s method only if: · Your gross farm ~ncome(I) was not more than $2,400 or · Your net farm profits(2) were less than $1,733, 14 Maximum ~ncome for ophonal methods .......... 15 Enter the smeller of: two.thirds (2/3) ut gross farm JncomeO) (not lesS than zero) or $1,600 Also, include this amount on line 48 above Nonfarm Optional Method. You may use th~s method only if: · Your net nonfarm proh],s(3) were less than $1,733 and also less than 72.189% ol your gross nonlarm ,ncome(4) and · You nad net earmngs from self employment ol at least $400 in 2 of the prmr 3 years Ca~ion. You may use this method no more than five times. 16 SuDb'act line t5 from line 14 17 Enler the smaller of: two-th~rds (2/3) of gross nonfarm income(4) (not less than zero) or ~e amoun~ on I~ne 16, Also ~nclude th~s amount on line 48 above () From Schedule F, hne I1, and Schedule K.t C-otto une lSD. C2') From Schedule F, hne 36, and SchedCe K-I (Form 1065), hne 1Sa. ~4 1. 60 15 (3) From Schedule C, line 31; Schedule C.EZ, hne 3; ScheOu'e r (Form 1065), hne fSa; and Schedule K.I (Form IC)65 B), ~x 9 (4) From Schedule C, hne 7; Schedule C,EZ, hne I; Schedule Y 1 (l:'orm 1065), line 15c; and Schedule K.i (Form 1065-B), box g Schedule SE (%Orr~' lcd;; ~ 8332 I Release of Claim to Exemption ~em~Z~ I for Child o! Divorced or Separated Parents I,- Attach to noncustodial parent's return each year exemption is claimed. Oep~lmen~ ~f [f~ Treasury Caution: Do not use this form if.you were never married. Name O~OnCuStOdial parent c/~mmg e~xernpuon Noncustodial parent's ~ Release of Claim to Exemption for Current Year AHachneql Sequence r~O 1 1 5 , agree noltoc/aim an exemption for /'//~C~.//t'~ I~' ~1~'1~/~)/'~j-'~'~ Note: I[ 7ou choose not ~ ~aim an exemption for ~nis child (or chfldrenJ for future ~ax /ears, also complete Par~ II ~ Release of C~im to Exemption for Future Years (ff completed, see Noncustodial parent beJow) I agree not to claim an exemption for for the tax year(s) Name(s) of child General Instructions Purpose of form. If yOU are a custodial parent and you were ever married to the child's noncustodial parent, you may use th~s Iorm tO release your Claim to your Child's exempbon TO do so. complete Lhis form (or a s~milar statement conlaining the same ~nformat~on required by ibis form) and ewe ~t [o the noncustodi81 parent who will claim the Chdds exempbon. The noncustodial parent must attach this Jori or similar statement to h~S Or her [ax return each year the exemption You are the custodial parent if you had custody of the child for most of the year. You are the noncustodial parent if you had custody for a shorter period of time or did not have custody at all, For the definition of custody, see Pub. 501, Exemptions. Standard Deduction and Filing Information, Support test fo( children of divorced or separated parents. Generally, the custodial parent ~s ueated as having provided over half of the child's support il: · The child received over half of his or her total support for the year from one or Doth of the parents and · The child was in the custody of one or bOth of the parenls for mole than half of the year. Note: Pul2tic assistance payments, Such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [?'ANF), are no~ support prowded by the ~arenls For th,s support Les[ to apply, the parents must be one o/ the following: · D,vorced or legally separated under a agreement or · Llwng aparl at all times dur;ng the last 5 months Of the year Caution thcs support (est does nol apply to If me support test applies, and the other instruction booklet are also met, the custodial parent can claim the child's exemption. Exception. The custodial parent will not be treated as having provided over half of the child's support if any of the following apply · The custodial parent agrees not to claim the child's exemption by signing this form or similar statement, · The child is treated as having received over half of his or her total suppod from a person under a multiple support agreement (Form 2120, Multiple Support Declaration) · A pre-1985 divorce decree or written separa4ion agreement states that the noncustodial parent can claim the child as a dependent. But the noncustodial parent must provide at least $600 for the child's support during the year. This rule does not apply if the decree or agreement was changed after 1984 to say that the noncustodial parent cannot claim the chitd as a dependent. Additional information. For more details, see Pub. 504, Divorced or Separated individuals Specific Instructions Custodial parent, You may agree to release your claim to the child's exemption for the current tax year or for future years, or Doth. · Complete Part I if you agree to release your claim to the child's exemption tOt the current tax year · Complete Part I1 if you agree to ~elease your claim to the child's exemption for any or all future )'ears, If you do. write the specific future year(s) or "all future years" in the space provided in Part II, To help ensure future support, you may not want to release your claim to the child's exemption for future years, Noncustodial parent, Attach this form or similar statement to your tax return for each year you claim the child's exemption, You may claim the exemption only if the other four dependency tests in your tax return instruction booklet are met. Paperwork Reduction Act Nobce WL: Js~ for the reformation on this fo~m Id raft/ Out the Internal Revenue laws of the Un,la3 information requested on a form thai i,, unless the form displays a vahd OMB corn,( form will vary depending on ind,¥1euaJ Recordkeepmg ~ 'T'' Preparmg the form ¢ ~ , Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS ~4 ~, CA 95743.0~1 Od no~ send [he form ~o Lb,,, Form ]040 of Form ~040A Cat No t3910F 8332 I~c. ~ .!orci PRINTED IN USA mc) g. oo~ ~o~0 ~'o~ o_.<.. ~ z o PLEASE DO NOT USE YOUR LABEL 0100115013 2001 PA 0 Page 3 of 2 527-70-5303 CANDIELLO CANDIELLO CA 180-48-7858 14 DRAPER CIRCLE LITITZ PA 17543 EX 0 RS VINCENT A 0 FS ROSEANN C FY 0 XX SC 36450 PN lA 296089.00 lB .00 1C 296089.00 2 291.00 3 9.00 4 2017.00 5 .00 6 .00 7 ~00 8 .00 9 298406.00 10 .00 11 298406.00 12 8355.00 ................. Please fold page along this hne Local Information. Enter where you hved as of 12/31101. School Ois~r~ct Manheim Township SChO0: Coae 36450 Sounb' Lancaster M~;a~c~D ah ,fy ldanhe im Townshtp Residency Status. (Check the COllect box) R X Pennsylvania Resident NE Nonresident p Part-Year Resident F rom TO Extension. (check t~lS Amended Return, (check Ils DO:, Fiscal Year Filer, (check U~s bo~) Type Filer. (Check only one box) $ Single J X Married. Filing Jointly M Mar'ned, Filing Separately F Final Return. Indicate reason D Date of death Deceased Gross compensaton See tnstyucttons Onre~mOursed emg~oyee business expenses. See insb'ucbons . Net compensabon, Subb'act line iD from hne la ~nterest income. Complete and submit PA Schedule A, if over $2,500 D,wder~d :ncome. Complete and submit PA Schedule B, ~f over $2,500 Net income or 10SS from the 0peratl0n of a business, pr0feSSl0n, or farm Net gain or loss horn the sale, exchange, or d~spositlon of property Nel ~r~come or loss from rents, royalties, patents, or copyrights F_state or trust +ncome. Complete and enclose PA Schedule J Gambling and Io[lery w~nn~ngs lb lc 3 4 5 6 7 8 296,089.09 09 296,089 O0 291 O0 a 09 2.017 09 9 10 Total Pennsylvania taxable income. Add only the positive income amounts fTOm lines lc. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, and 8. Do not add any losses reported on lines 4, 5, or 6 Contnbutions to your Medical Savings Account. See instrucbons 1 l Adjusted Pennsylvania taxable income, Subb'act mine 10 from line 9 12 Pennsylvania tax liability. Multiply line 11 by 2.8% (0.028). Also enter on line 13, page 2 EC FC 9 298,406.0( ~o .Ct ]~ 298.406 00 0100115013 J 0100215011 2001 PA-40 Page 2 of 2 CANDIELLO VINCENT 13 8355.00 14 8281.00 16 .00 17 .00 19 .00 20A 00 21 .00 22 .00 24 .00 25 .00 27 8281-00 28 74.00 30 .00 31 .00 33 .00 34 .00 36 .00 15 18 20B 23 26 29 32 35 Total Penns~vlvania te.x liability. Enter your Pennsylvania tax IlaDdl~ from hne 12 on pat. lO t Total Pennsylvama tax wR~held. See ~nstructlons Credit from your 2'000 Pennsylvania income 'rax Return 2% ~ estimated installment payments No'~'es,dent tax w~tnheid on your PA Schedule(s) NRK*I. (Nonresidents only) Total estimated payments and cr~:lits. Add lines 15, 16, 17, and 18 Forgivene.~s Credit. Complete hnes 20a, 2Ob, 21, and 22. Read the instructions, Status UnmanSed or separated Married Deceased SJer)en~ents. ~ar: B. hne 2, PA Schedule SP e:g,Dmb ~r'come PartC, hne li, PAScheaute SP Forgiveness Cred~I from Part D, line 16, PA Schedule SP . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20a 20b 21 2.2. T .iai credit fo~ taxes paid to other states or countries. Submit your PA Schedule C; or RK- 1 23 P?n%ywanla Employment Incentive Payments C;edll. SuDrn*t y~ur PA Sch~ule W, RKd or NRK.I 24 P~qr sfwama Jobs ~tmon Tax ~t Submml ~uf cedmhcatmon or PA Sch~ule RK-I or NRK. I ~ Peq~symvama Res~rch and Dwelopmem f~ Q~it Submmt ~uf cerbficatmn or PA Sch~ule RE.1 o¢ NRK-I ~ Total Payments and Credits. Add hnes 14 and ]9 and ~ ~rough 26 ~ T~ Due. If h~8 ~3 15 more ~an hne 27, enter ~e d~Merence here 28 Ove~yment. If hmo 27 ~S more ~an hne ]3, enter ~e difference here ~ The total of li~ ~ though ~ mu~ ~ual line ~. Relund - amount of line ~ you want as a c~eck mailed to you Refund ~ C~it - amount of line ~ you want as a credit to your ~02 esbmated tax account ~ Oo~ation - amoum of hne ~ you want to donate to ~e ~ld Resource Consolation Fund ~ Donation - amoum of hne 29 you want to donate to ~e Unit~ States Olympic Commi~ ~ Donation - amou,m of hne ~ you want to donate to ~e ~vemor Ro~d P. ~y Memorial O~an and Tissue Donation Awa~n~s T~st Fund . ~ Donation - amoum o( hne ~ you want to donate to ~e Kom~etnam Memorial, In¢ ~ Donation - amount of hne ~ you want to dona[e to Breast and Ce~ical Cancer R~earch ~ 527-70-5303 O0 O0 dO Od O0 O0 O0 O0 8,355 8,281 8,281 74 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 er penalties of perjury, I (we) declare that I (we) have examined this return, including all accompanying schedules and statements, and to ~t o'~,'m¥ (our) belief t~."~) are t~e, co~, and complete, .... ,;~/'~.~ ~. (¢,' '~'/,r, ~/.t 7//5~~ Nurse Educator f - F repar ed 2001 Earned Income Tax Return Lancaster County Tax Collection Bureau 299 Hess Blvd., Suite 2 Lancaster PA 17601-4097 ('717) 569.4521 RETURN THIS FORM TO LCTGB ILCTCB ^cci. No: M1-21065~ Part A - Taxpayer Information .Address P ease make egible corrections where necessary. If this is not a pre-printed form please complete all information. Instructions a{e on the reverse s de of ),our cop). VZN~-ROSEANN C CAND~LLQ .... 0014 DRAPER CIR L1TITZ, PA 17543-9032 Part B - Employer Information Your Soc Sec No 527-70-5303 Spouse's Soc Sec 180-48-7858 I ()( A[.'I x,', ' GROSS L_:MPLOYER S NAME AND ADDRESS (Include all W-2 forms) W ILARNED COLUMN TOTALS (To Part "C" Lines ¢,'I~ HitE .1' Part C - Tax Computation TOTAL W-2 EARNINGS (From Part "B" above) LESS ALLOWABLE EMPLOYEE BUSINESS EXPENSES (Enclose Federal Forln 2106 and/or Slam UE TAXABLE W-2 EARNtNGS (Line I minus line 2) OTHER TAXABLE EARNED INCOME (Do g9t include inlerc..t and divider, ds) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME: Business:/'~..'% O ! ? Framing: Paru/etsh~p TAXABLE EARNED INCOME AND NET PROFITS (Add lines 3, 4, and 5) TOTAL LOCAL INCOME TAX WITHHELD (From Pad "B' aboveI 8 TOTAl- BALANCE DUE - Payable IO L.C.T.CB. (Line 7 minu~ line 8) Less than $100 need not be paid REFUND DUE (Line 8 minus line 7) Part D I We declare under penalties provided by law, that this return and all accompanyir~g schedules and statemenls have been examined by n c and :~ best of ~ knowledge and bel. i.e~ arc true, CO~TeCt. and complete. 1 Dale ~/ / Tel~ho c (.)c~ u Pard Pr~parcr's~a~ne & Finn (Please print} ~art E - Complete only if you moved duriug the tax year TIME PERIOD MAILING ADDRESS L ..... CI}'Y_/_B! Hi()t_'.(;t_l, I, )\_k~SLi_[P- I I ~)~ TO t / ~ I'O / / - ......................... ]0 / / ~- ...................... L , Current Addrcsq (if dtfferem) ~: o~ ,,~, BUREAU COPY - Please do not staple or tape contents MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Earnings Statement Period Ending: 04/30/2002 Pay Date: 04/30/2002 Earnin,qs Regular Lid Earnings Pacmutual Earn Deductions Taxable Marital Stalus: Married Exemptio ns/AJlowances: Federst. 0 State: N/A Local: 0 Social Security Number, 527-70-5303 ra~ holm th~li t 6250.0© 16,280.00 120 ¥,ear to date 4~1. O0 71,281 . 32 8~ Security Te.x -~7~.t.9 4,214.28 Medk:are T~ -227.37 ~85,~0 PA ~ate Inoo~ T~ -~;08 1,927,32 H~ C In~ T~ -1~,~ 71~.~ Dependent ~e .0.38 G~hme~ - 3,6~, 18 ~ Pm T~ -120.2~* 481.00 Mad Flex Spe~' -250.~* 1 ,~0.00 Medtc~ Prem~ -242.00* 068,00 P~ Mutual Dad - 137. B8 5S0.32 Pemon~ ¢~rge -22,70 Pre-T~ Pa~ -90.~* 360.00 Savings -Acct. -5, S57,23 Spo~e ~fe -6.~ Uni~ Way - 5.00 20,00 401(~ Contrib -1,147.13' 4,S88.52 Opt 10.00 VINCENT CANDIELLO 14 DRAPER CIRCLE LITITZ PA 17543 * EXcluded from federal taxable wages Your federal ta~xabte wages this parted are $14,5)~. 45 Other Benefits and M~i~ Fremlum ~1 - K tc~tal to date 968. o~ 4,588.52 SOC. SEC. NO. NAME PAY END PAY DATE CHKNuM 527-70-5303 Vincent Candielio ORAD SCH IR HB~ SAL FAC P 639.08 HOURS CURRENT YTD Salaeg 639,08 ~oss Pag 639,08 3195.4~ Li~e Ins P~em . O0 . O0 FICA W/H 39.62 198. 10 04/15/2002 04/15/2002 22859 State W/H Medica~e W/H Net Pag CURRENT YTD 17.89 89.45 9.27 46.35 572.30 2861. 5~ S~dNT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY . LORETFO, PA. 15940-0600 Check Total $1,400.00 DATE DESCP. IPTION REFERENCE AMOUNT 02/28/2002 CANDIELLO/0227-28 FNAY 1,400,00 Page 1 Check No. 208855 Check Date Mar '~1, 2002 DATE DESCRIPTION ~2/o~2oo~ c~.o~L,,o/~2%s-0~ ......... G032 Check Total $1.200.00 AMOUNT 1, 200. O0 Page 1 Check No. 208252 Check Date Jan 24, 2002 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this l~day of ~_, 2002 it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Petition shall be heard within thirty (30) days of the decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the pending appeals. CERTIFIED COPIES TO: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BY THECOURT: ~~UDGE F:\FILES\DATAl~LE\Gendo¢.¢ur\9752-PLEAD NOTxtde VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff Vo SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE TO: SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff, and her attorney, STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Vo VINCENT CANDIELLO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, : PENNSYLVANIA .' : NO. 93-229 : CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE : Defendant. : DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION TO INCREASE ALIMONY AND ASSESS RETROACTIVE ARREARS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 Vincent Candiello, by and through counsel, responds to the paragraphs set forth in the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff's Petition as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") on August 12, 1994. However, he denies Plaintiff's characterization of the portion of that Agreement specified in this paragraph of the Petition because thc Agreement, as a writing, speaks for itself. Moreover, the Agreement is to bc read as a whole and referring only to a portion thereof is argumentative which distorts and misrepresents its terms. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that the Agreement contains a paragraph 8 (d). However, he denies Plaintiff's recitation thereof as thc document speaks for itself. Defendant also denies Plaintiff's emphasis of a particular portion of a paragraph of the Agreement as argumentative. Moreover, the Agreement is to be read as a whole A:\101759.doc and referring only to a portion thereof is argumentative which distorts and misrepresents its terms. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits there was a hearing held before the Honorable George Hoffer, President Judge for the Common Pleas Court for Cumberland County, in April 1999, after which he issued an Opinion and Order dated September 1, 1999. However, Defendant denies the balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph as argumentative and misleading. In fact, Plaintiff filed several modification petitions prior to the hearing, and Defendant filed several as well. Defendant filed one such petition to remove the support obligation for his son, Robert Candiello, who reached the age of majority and who graduated from high school. He also filed a modification petition when his daughter, Catherine C. Candiello, left Plaintiff's household to live with him. Finally, he filed and then withdrew a modification petition regarding alimony, all of which preceded the April 1999 hearing. Plaintiff filed approximately six (6) modification petitions prior to April 1999. Responding further, the April 1999 hearing dealt with two modification petitions, both of which were filed by Plaintiff. Defendant also denies Plaintiff's characterization of what income the court used to calculate the September I, 1999 Opinion and Order, which as a writing speaks for itself. Moreover, as Plaintiffknows, Defendant's income for over eight (8) years was presented at trial, including an adjustment to his income up to the date of the hearing. Finally, as the hearing was held in April, the court could not consider any income received after the hearing date in 1999. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that both parties appealed the September I, 1999 Opinion and Order. On February 26, 2001, the Pennsylvania Superior Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff's appeals, including a denial ofretroactivity originally A:\I 01759.doc 2 sought by Plaintiff then. Judge Hoffer originally denied that request, in part, due to his considered conclusion that Plaintiff was not credible in her testimony that she reported increases in her income either to Defendant or to the Domestic Relations Office. On August 9, 2001, the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's appeals, remanding the matter back to Judge Hoffer for further proceedings. Defendant further admits that Judge Hoffer issued another Opinion and Order dated April 2, 2002, which, as a writing, speaks for itself. Consequently, Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization upon what that decision was based. Defendant also admits that Plaintiff repeatedly requested income information during the temporal period that Judge Hoffer contemplated the remand directive. However, Defendant denies Plaintiff's requests were appropriate. Rather, the information demanded completely was unnecessary given the limited issues for remand and the fact that the evidence relevant to the remand was fully developed at the April 1999 heating without contradiction by Plaintiff. In his April 2, 2002 decision, Judge Hoffer correctly rejected Plaintiff's demands as unnecessary. Defendant also admits that both parties appealed the April 2, 2002 decision, which divests this court of jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Plaintiff here. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that, on May 28, 2002, the parties attended a child support conference. That support conference was the direct result of Plaintiff seeking a modification of child support in the latter part of 2001 on the basis of her belief that Defendant experienced an increase in income. However, Plaintiff did not simultaneously seek a modification of alimony. Defendant further admits that attached as Exhibit A to the Petition is a correct copy of the tax return he and his spouse filed for 2001. There, gross income is presented. Responding further, at that same support conference, Plaintiff A:\101759.doc 3 also provided income information reflecting that her gross income substantially increased fi.om the time of the April 1999 hearing. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff did not obtain the information reflected in Defendant's 2001 federal tax return as it was not prepared in prior years nor was it prepared by the time of the April 2, 2002 Opinion of this Court. Responding further, Defendant denies that the remand from the Pennsylvania Superior Court contemplated any consideration of income earned past the date of the April 1999 hearing. Moreover, Plaintiff also failed to disclose the almost 30% increase in income she experienced from the April 1999 hearing until the date of the May 2002 support conference. 9. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. I 0. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. 11. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. 12. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that the parties entered into the Agreement. However, he denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Agreement as it speaks for itself. Responding further, Defendant denies he owed Plaintiff the duty she seeks to manufacture in this paragraph of the Petition. NEW MATTER 1. This Court is without jurisdiction to consider any matter on appeal, including whether Plaintiff is entitled to reach back into time to retroactively consider modification of alimony under the guise of a remand directive from the Pennsylvania Superior Court. A:\101759.doc 4 2. On June 12, 2001, Plaintiff, through her counsel, requested that Defendant share his income facts for calendar year 2000. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of a letter dated June 12, 2001, from Steven Howell, Esquire. 3. On June 21, 2001, Defendant, through his counsel, agreed to share his income information upon the express commitment from Plaintiff to do the same, including information of income from several businesses, rents, as well as expenses. Further, Defendant requested a clear understanding why Plaintiff left her former employment. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy ora letter dated June 21, 2001, from Thomas J. Williams, Esquire. 4. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel ever replied to the June 21, 2001 letter. 5. Plaintiff failed and refused to make any commitment to share her income information. Thereby, Plaintiff waived any right or entitlement to information from Defendant for the calendar year 2000 by her deliberate and willful refusal to share her income information. 6. During the April 1999 hearing, Defendant introduced two charts reflecting the history of his income increases for each year from 1991 through 1998 from all sources. For the years 1997 and 1998, Defendant experienced average increases in excess of seven and half percent (7.5%) for his income from legal work. 7. The increase in gross income reflected in Defendant's 2001 tax return is not a material change from the type and amount of increases he experienced in the two years preceding 1999. 8. Therefore, Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that Defendant was receiving income increases for his law and educational work on an annual basis and the relative percentage of those increases. A:\101759.doc 5 9. Despite knowledge that Defendant received annual increases and the relative size thereof, Plaintiff deliberately chose not to seek any modification of alimony and cannot seek it now as Defendant's alimony obligation to Plaintiff ceased as a last payment for August 2002. 10. Plaintiff currently is a Registered Nurse in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of her license verification from the Pennsylvania Department of State Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. 11. Plaintiff also has earned a Master's Degree in nursing. 12. Plaintiff routinely advertises the fact of her nursing education achievements. 12. There has been and continues to be a nursing shortage in the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and specifically, the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Lancaster. 13. Health-care providers in those counties routinely offer bonuses and increasing levels of pay to attract nurses to employment, particularly Master's prepared nurses. 14. Those same health-care providers offer no-cost refresher courses to nurses who have not practiced nursing recently to enable them to resume nursing careers. During such courses, full nursing wages are paid. 15. Plaintiff's earning capacity as a Master's prepared nurse is at least fifty (50) percent greater than the income she earned as an attorney in 1999, 2000, and 2001, as well as for 2002. 16. By failing and refusing to pursue a career in nursing, Plaintiff willfully has deprived her minor children of the income she could earn. 17. PIaintiffhas failed to demonstrate any need for an increase in alimony. A:\101759.doc 6 18. This current petition seeks to enlarge the time period during which Plaintiff seeks alimony. Pursuant to the parties' Agreement, Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees in resisting this petition. 19. In 1995, Plaintiff claimed that the Agreement required Defendant to disclose his income to her on an annual basis. 20. In 1995, Defendant denied there was any obligation to disclose his income to Plaintiffon the basis of the Agreement. 21. From 1995 until the date of this Petition, Plaintiff has acted as if the Agreement between the parties imposed no disclosure obligation upon each other, as neither made such a disclosure fi.om that date until the present on the basis of the Agreement. 22. Even in 1999, when Defendant sought discovery of Plaintiff's prior year income information, she resisted any attempt by Defendant to obtain such information. 23. Plaintiff's claim that the Agreement imposes a disclosure obligation seeks to amend the parties' Agreement without the formalities required by the Agreement. 24. The basis of the instant petition is frivolous. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Petition forthwith and award him attorney's fees in defending against it. Re. spectfully submitted, Thoma~.~J Williams MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: August 19, 2002 A:\I01759.doc Attorney for Defendant Exhibit A Steven Howell Attorney At Law 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 717-770-1277 717-770-1278 Telecopier June 12, 2001 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Candiello v. Candiello, No. 229 of 1993 (Cumberland County Divorce) Candiello v. Candiello, PA Cases Number 610000026 (No. 215 S 92; DR 19,828) Dear Tom: I am requesting that your client voluntarily provide his 2000 Federal Income Tax return with all attached schedules, forms, W-2s, and 1099s as filed. Please provide these documents within the next fifteen (15) days. If no documents are produced I shall seek the court's assistance. In addition, is your client willing to compensate Mrs. Candiello for the legal fees incurred in responding to your dismissed Motion to Preclude Oral Argument which was summarily dismissed by the Superior Court by Order dated April 11, 20017 As you know the filing of this fi'ivolous motion and the accompanying memorandum necessitated the research and filing by Mrs. Candiello of an Answer with New Matter on March 16, 2001. With his motion summarily dismissed by the Court and the complete lack of any statutory or case law supporting its initial filing, my client has directed me to recover the counsel fees expended in responding in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 2744 and 42 Pa. C.S.A. §2503 (6)(7)(9). SH/bth CC: Susan K. Candiello, Esquire Very truly yours, ~, Esqmre EXHIBIT "i" Exhibit B ]VIARTSON DEARDORFF ~/'ILLIAMS ~T OTTO O T~ Dar HIGH STRICt C~mJSt~, P£NNS~tV~IA 17013 TE~moNE (7ID 243-3341 FA~IMILE (7ID 243-1850 IN--NET ~.md~.com June 21, 2001 A~I'ORN£VS ~ COUNSELLORS AT LAW xY~rl LLIAM' F- JOHN B. F~LER HI EDWARD L. SCHORpp THo~s ]. ~tt~s - I~ ~ O~ Ill G~oaGt B. Fn~a CA~ C. R~s~ ~ag A. DENLINGER *B~no C~TlflED C~L T~AL Steven HoWell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland PA 17070 Dear Steve: Candiello v.'Candiello Our File No'. 9752.1 I had an opportunity to discuss your recent letter with Mr. Candiello. He does not feel it is appropriate to pay her attorney's fees and will not do so. The situation regarding our motion to preclude oral argument was far different from the fees occasioned by Susan · losing her appeal. We will provide a copy of Vincent's 2000 tax return; however, we would first want a commitment that Susan will do the same. We would expect that Susan's return would include income from her various bUSinesses, including rents, as well as her expenses. Also, we would want a clear explanation as to why she resigned from her employment. If you would confirm an agreement to a mutual exchange of this information, I will make Vincent's return available forthwith. Please let me know. Very truly yours, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO TJW/tde cc: Vincent Candiello, Esquire Thomas J. Williams INFORMATION EXHiBiT "2" · ADVICE · ADVOCACYm Page 1 of 1 Results Part of Gov. #lark Schwe~ket~s Fdctfon-free ~.-Governrnent Initiative Pennsylvania' Department of State Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs License Verification I SUSAN KAY CANDIE!.1.0 Search Results [Records I to I of 1] To obtain the public information on a particular licensee, click on the license number of your choice. Name Profession License Type/Secondary License Type License Number Nursing Registered Nurse RN314701L Return to Licensee search http://licensepa, state.pa.us/pircsults.asp?sid=307534591 &search-i~ae.&record=0 EXHIBIT "3" 04/28/2002 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts averred in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to DATED: August 19, 2002 VINCENT CANDIELLO A:\101759.doc SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Response and New Matter has been served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid, on this 19th day of August, 2002. Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 THOMAS J. ~TILLIAMS A:\101759.doc Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland 1, CU~T$ R. LONG , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein VI~ CANDIgT,LO Plaintiff, and Defendant __, as th~ same remains of record before the said Court at No. of qq-?2q t'l~vi 1 Term, A.D. 19__. In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this ?~ day of Prothonotary 1, GEORGE E HO_~'I'F_~R President Judge of the 9TH Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that CUI~IS R. LGblG , by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County. was, at the time of so doing, and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of ~RIAX. ND in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania~ duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of md that the said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made j udicatu.~l~re~a nu rna I Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ! County of Cumberland I ss: 1. CURTIS R. LONG ~ Prothonotary bf the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable GEIORGE E. HOFFER by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this ~ 92rrl day of ,I[II,Y A.D. I~ Prothonotary Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of C Lk.~ll~ ~ I~ ~L~[]~..~ in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania toNo. ~"~.~ C't~ ICt93 Term. 19 is contained the following: COPY OF DOCKET ENTRY ~ 7 7.5' r~ OL 2o0.~ V$ SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAiNTIFF VS. ViNCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION TO INCREASE ALIMONY AND ASSESS RETROACTIVE ARREARS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PETITION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. TO: Defendant Vincent Candiello, Esquire c/o Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1. Plaintiff Susan K. Candiello, Esquire is an adult individual residing at 393 Alison Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant Vincent Candiello, Esquire is an adult individual residing at 14 Draper Circle, Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 17543. 3. The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement on August 12, 1994 which provided in ¶8 for alimony payments to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,100.00 per month for ninety six (96) consecutive months through August 2002. 4. The Marital Settlement Agreement set forth in ¶8 (d): Modification. Alimony as provided for in this Agreement shall be modifiable in accordance with the provisions of the Divorce Code except that under no circumstances shall the period of alimony extend for more than eight (8) years or ninety six (96) months. Any modification shall be determined in accordance with the uniform support guidelines. [Emphasis added]. 5. After Vincent Candiello filed a Petition to Terminate Alimony and Susan Candiello filed a Petition to Modify Alimony, a hearing was held in April 1999 and an Order dated September 1, 1999 was issued which increased Vincent Candiello's alimony payments, The Court used his income in 1998 and 1999 to perform the calculations. 6. After an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which resulted in a remand, a new Order dated April 2, 2002 was issued by the Court using Vincent Candiello's income from 1999. Susan Candiello repeatedly requested this Honorable Court to examine the 1999 and 2000 federal income tax returns before issuing the new order. See Susan Candiello's "Motion for Fact Finding Hearing and Document Exchange" filed on September 24, 2001 following the remand order. The April 2, 2002 Order is now on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 7. On May 28, 2002 a child support conference was held at which time it was revealed that Vincent Candiello's income had increased from $171,687.94 in 1999 to $205,891.00 in 2001 as shown by his 2001 federal income tax return attached hereto as Exhibit 8. This information was never disclosed in 1999, 2000 or 2001 to Susan Candiello or the Court when considering the remand issues. 9. Defendant Vincent Candiello failed to comply with 23 Pa. C.S.A. §4353 which requires: An individual who is a party to a support proceeding shall notify the Domestic Relations section in writing or by personal appearance within seven days of any material change in circumstances relevant to the level of support ... including but not limited to: (1) change of employment. 2 10. Defendant Vincent Candiello failed to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.17 (b) which requires: The order shall notify the obligee and obligor that each is under a continuing obligation to inform the domestic relations section and all other parties in writing within seven days of any material change in circumstances relevant to the level of support or the administration of the support order including but not limited to, loss or change of income or employment ... The order shall also notify the parties that if a party willfully fails to inform the domestic relations section of the required information, the court may adjudge the party to be in contempt of court pursuant to Rules 1910.21-1 through 1910.21-7 and may order the party to be punished by one or more of the following: jail, f'me or probation. 11. Defendant Vincent Candiello's failure to report this large income increase from 1999 to 2001 was willful and calculated to deprive Plaintiff and his children of necessary support and alimony. 12. Defendant Vincent Candiello should be compelled to repay Plaintifl~s legal fees incurred in uncovering his conduct pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §4351 which states: If an obligee prevails in a proceeding ... to obtain a support order, the court may assess against the obligor filing fees, reasonable attorney fees and necessary travel and other reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the obligee and the obligee's witnesses. Attorney fees may be taxed as costs and shall be ordered to be paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order, in the attorney's own name. 13. In addition, the parties Marital Settlement Agreement specifically provided that it could be enforced by the Court and that any party breaching its terms would be responsible for "all costs, expenses and legal fees actually incurred in the enforcement of the rights of the non-breachingparty. ' In this case, Defendant Vincent Candiello owed a duty to share his salary increases during the pendency of the appeal and when the court was considering the remand issues in April 2002. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to utilize Defendant Vincent Candiello's actual income in 2000, 2001 and 2002 in accordance with the Uniform Support Guidelines to determine the appropriate alimony he should have paid to Plaintiff Susan Candiello from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2002. Respectfully submitted, //~619 Bridge Street J New Cumberland, PA 17070 -/ (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 Telecopier Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: July 31, 2002 4 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts averred in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATED:c~,~/~t)©c~-- 1040 Label IRS label. p r,~sidentiar Ele~Uon C~mpaign Filing Status ExempUons Income Attach Forms W-2 and W-2G not attach any payment ALSO, Form t O~-V. Adjusted Gross Income U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 2001 For the ).ear Jan I · Dec 31, 5:~01, or other tax )ear beginning , ~OI, e~ding Vincent Candiel lo Roseann C Candiel, to 14 Draper Circle Lititz PA 17543 ~, Note: Check~ng 'Yes' will not change your tax or reOuce your refund. Do you, or your spouse ~f hling a jointreturn, want $3 to go to Wis fund? . ~' 1 -- S~ngle 2 X Married hhng joint return (even if only one had income) c Dependents: (2) Dependent's (3) Dependent's social security relationsmp number to you 527-70-5303 180-48-7858 ~ Important) ,~- You Spouse F .o FX-l f No 213-15-7965 Daughter 213-15-9817 Daughter 211-74-4365 Daughter (4) /,, d Total number of exemptions claimed ............. 7 Wages, salaries, tips, etc, Attach Form(s) W.2 7 q Tax-exempt interest. Do not include on line 8a I 8bi i 9 O~dmary dw~Oer/Os, A~ach Schedule B ~f required ! 10 Taxable re~nds, creole, or O~Se~ Of state and local income taxes (see ms~uchons) ~ lO 1Z B~ine~ ~ncome or (Io~). A~a~ Sche~le C or C-~ 13 ~pital ~in 0r (loss). A,~h ~ule D if ~uir~. ff not r~uir~, c~ ~e .... ~ ~ 13 14 O~er gains or 0osses). A~ach Form 4797 ..................... 14 1Sa Total I~ dis~lbutio~ 1Sa J b Taxable amount (see insVs) 15b 16a TO a pensio~ & annu~lies 16a J b T~able amount (see ins~s) 17 Rental real estate, royalties, pa~erships, S corporation, ~us~, etc. AEach S~e~ule [ 17 18 Farm ~ncome or (Io~). A~ach Schedule F 19 Unemplo~ent compensation ~a S~als~uriJybenefils J ~aJ ~ b Taxable amount (see,nsVs) ~b 21 23 24 ~ 27. 28 la Atmm0nypald bR~iplenl'sSSN ~ 210-40-1399 ~ ]9,000 S~act hne ~ from hne ~. This is y~ ~j~ ~s J~o~e Ad, a~ Pa~moA R~im Ad Notia, ~ ink--ions. FD, A0,,, ,Z,,0~, 530 Other income 21 I~ deduction (see ms~uctions) 23 S~dent loan interest deduction (see ~ns~uctmons) 24 Archer ~A deducbon A~a~ Form ~ ......... ~ Moving expenses. A~ach Form 3~3 ............ ~6 ~e half of self.empb~ent tax. A~a¢ Schedule SE ~ Self-employed hea~ ~urance deducbon (see ins~ucbons) 28 Self-employed SEP, SI~LE, and qualified plans ~ Penal~ on early w~drawal of sawngs ~ 270, (107 9 2,017 272, 324 19.027 253,297 Form 1040 <~©C) (11 First name Last name Catherine C Candietto Noette M Candietlo Katelyn R Candietto 3 -- Married hhng separate return. Enter spouse's SSN above & full name here 4 __ Head of household (wltlq quali~ng person). (See ~nsb'uction5.) If We quahfl/~n(:j person ~s a chdd but r~ot your dependent, enter Wis child's name here ~ 5 r-] Qualifying w~dow(er) wit~ dependent child (.year spouse died "- ). (See Ga ~"~J Yoursell. If your parent (or someone else) can claim you as a dependent on Form 1[~40 Tax and Credits Star~t I)~luction Single ~6,6~ ~ [7,~0 ~3,~0 Other Taxes Payments Refund O~rect depos,t? Amount You Owe Third Party Designee Sign Keep a Copy Paid Preparer's Use Only Vincent & Roseann C Candie],to 527-70-5303 34 Amount Eom line 33 (adjusted gross ir~'ome) ........................... ~4 2 Add ~e number of boxes ~e~ed above and enter ~e total here . .. _ or yOU were a dual-sta~s alien, see mns~uctmons and check here ~ It~edded.ctions(fromSc~uleA) or~ursta.darddeductioa(s~le~marg,n) , ~ I Su~act hne 3G ~om hne ~ .......... T~za~le In~e. Sub~r~t hne 38 from line 37 tf hne ~ ~s mere t~n line 37, ~ter -0- Ta~ (s~ m~tr~) ~k ~f any I~ is from a ~ Fo~m(~] ~14 b ~ :~ ~972 Add hnes ~ and 41 . Chdd t~ credit {see ins~UCtlOnS] 0t~rcr~tsfrom ; ~Form~ b ~Fofm ~ 56 Advance earned income creort pa~ents trom Form(s) ~ ~dlm~,~ Th~sls~urtotaltaz 59 Federal income tax w~held ~om Forms W 2 and 10~ 59 56 9 61 a Eam~ income c~it ¢1~ 61 a 62 Exce~ somal secun~ a~d RRTA tax w~neI~ (se~ ~ns~s) 62 6 7 4 b ~ Form 4136 65 66 A~d h~es 59, ~, 6la, and ~ ~roug~ 65 These are your to~l ~yme~ ' b Routing number ' c T~e: ~ Check~n9 ~ Saw~gs 69 ~ount of hne 67 ~u ~nt applied to your ~ ~timaed ta~ 71 Estimated tax pertain. Also ~nclude on hne 70 . De ~u wan o a ow anot~ ~rson to d~scuss th~ return w~th the IRS (s~ instructions)7 ~_53 5 4 Schedule A 0~ocm 1040) Itemized Deductions V)ncent & Roseann C Candiel-l.o Expenses 2 Enter amount from Form 1040, hne 34 I 2 I '- Attach to F~-'m 1040. See Instructions for Schedule A 0form 10~). Taxes You Paid You Paid Gifts to Chari~ Casualty and Th, eH Losses Olher Deductions (See Deductions Total 7 Personal properly taxes 7~ 9 Add Imnes 5 ~rough 8 ............................... ............................. (S~ mslrs ) 13 16 Other than by cash or check Ii any glf~ of $2~) or more, see ~nstrucuons You must ailaCh Form 8283 d over $500 16 17 Carryover from pr,or year 17 18 Add hnes 15 through 17 11,383 4,075. 49 20. ]4,204. 2001 O7 527' 4 -- 440= 19 Casualb/or thefl loss(es), Atlach Form 4684. (See mstruchons.) 20 Unrelmbursed employee expenses - ob t~avel, un,on dues, lob educabon, etc You must attach Form 2106 or 2 06EZ ~f required (See ¢~sb'uctlons.) 20 21 Tax preparabon fees 21 22 23 Add hnes 20 ~rougn 22 23 3 $ 24 EntelamounthomFo~mlO40, hne3,~ j 24 J 253,297. 25 Multiply line 24 above by 2% (02) 25 5 , 066 26 Subfract hne 25 from hne 23 [f hne 25 ~s more than line 23, enter -0 26 28 Is Form 1040, hne 34, over $132.950 (over $66,475 if MFS)? 28 BAA For Paperwork Reduction Acl Notice. ~ Form 1040 instrdciions. E~No. Your deduchon is riel hmfted. Add the amis in the far r;ght col for hnes 4 through 27 Also, enler th~s arnt on Form 1040, hne 36 [~[] Ye~. Your deduction may be bruited. See instrucbons for the amount ~o enter Itemized Deductions Limited per IRC Sec. 68 18 29C'~5 Schedule C-EZ 0~ o.rm 1040) Vincent Candiel lo IPart I Net Profit from Business ~ r~ 1~4~7~__ 2001 partnerships, joii~ v~u~, etc, m~t file F~ l~S ~ 10~. ~ Affach to Fo~ 1~ or 1~1. ~ S~ in~io~. ~A 1 General Information You I~ay Use Schedule C-EZ ~nstead of Schedule C Only if You: · H@oous,ness expenses ot And You: LECTURING 611000 Employer ID num~t J 68-0367707 ]4 Draper C~rc~e L~tlLZ, PA ]?543 [Part II I Figure Your Net Profit employee' box on ~al lorm was checked, see Statu~o~ Employee~ ,n the ,ns~uct,ons Ior J line 12. and also on Schedule SE, line 2. (Sta~tor~ employees do ~t reporl Ibis amount on Schedule SE, hne 2 Estates and b'usl~, enter or, Form 1041, line 3.) 3 [Par~ Ill f Informa~on on Your Vehicte. Complete ~is pad only if you are claiming car or tzucK expenses on hne 2 2C17 4 When d,O you place your veh,cle in serwce lot bus,ness purposes? (mon~, day, year) "04 / 30 / i 998 ,, [~.s,,,e~s .... _2: 16o ~ Comr~,,~ ...... 1_9,_0_0_0 ¢O~e, . ...... 1_9 ;840 For paperwork Redudion Ac'J Notice, s~ Form 1040 instructions. .533 Schedole SE (Form 1040) 2001 Vi ncent Candie'[ Io Section B -- Long Schedule SE [Part I 1 Self-Employment Tax S ocial Security Number of Per sor~ with ~,~tf.~.~ployrne~t Income II your only income subiect to self.empioyrqent tax is church employee income, skip braes 5a Income from services you pedormed as a m~nister or a member of a religious order is not church employee ~ncome Gee tryouare ~m~n~ster, member of arelig~ousorder orChristianSclencepractiboner and you hied Form ~61, but you nad or re, ore of other net earnmgs lr0m self. emplo~ent, check here and continue with Part ~ Hetfacmprofl, or (,o%)~ornSoheduleF, hne36, and farm pa~nerships, ScheduieK I ~'0rm '065)"ne ;58 Nolo. Sk~o b~S hne tfyo¢ use ~e form optional method. See instructions He( profit or goss) from %cheddle C, hne 3~: Schedule C-EZ, hne 3; Schedule K 1 (Form t065), hne ~Sa : (o~er ~a~ farming); and ScheduLe K I corm 1065.8), box 9 Ministers and members of rehg,0us OrOefg If hne 3 ~s more ~an zero, multLply hne 3 by 92.35% (9235). O~erw,se, enter 8mournl Iron Com~mne hnes ~ and ~ If less ~an ~0, do not file ~is schedule; you do nol owe self.employment i lax Exception. If less ~an ~0 and you had church employ~ income, emter 0 and cor~tmmt4e Mumtmpiy hne 5a by 9235% (.9235). If ~ess ~han $1~0, enter 0 Net ~mings from self~mployment. Add hnes ~ a~d 5D me 62% OO~On of ~e 7.65% retread retirement (tier ~) tax for To,al social securl~ wages and tips (total of boxes 3 and 7 on Form(s) W~) and re,Fear rebrement(Ber ~) compensation~ U~¢eported t~ps sublect to sooa~ Securi~ tax (from Form 4137, hne 9) Add Imes 8a and 8b Mulhply ~e smaller of hne 6 or hne 9 by 12.4% (.124) MultipLy line 6 by 23% (0~) 12 Setl-employmerrt t~ AdO hnes 10 and 11, Enter here and On Form 1040, line 53 (5) Enter the result here and on Form lO4O, line27 I 13 ~art II J Optional Methods to Figure Net Earnings (See insb'uctlons ) Farm Optional Metho~l. You may use th~s meBod only if: · '"our gross farm ¢~come(I) was not more than $2,400 or · Your net larm prohts(t~ were less than $1,733. l& Maximum ~noome for ObbOr~Ol methods 15 Enler Be smaller of: two-thirds (2/3) et gross farm ~ncome(I) (not less then zero) or $1,600 Also, Nonfarm Optional Nlethod. You may use th~s method only d: 17 Enter the smaller of: two-th~rds (2/3) of gross nonfarm Income(4) (r~ot less than zero) or ~he amount or] () From Schedule F, hne 11, and Schedule K.I (Form 1065), ,,ne f50 ¢D From Schedule F, tine 36, and Schedule K-t (Form 1065), ,~m 8332 Release of Claim to Exemption ~, o~m~ z~ for Child of Divorced or Separated Parents [~]i]l! Release of Claim to Exemption for Current Year for ~n~ax year 2~ / / ~ ~ ~ ~ Release of C~im to Exemption for Future Years (If completed, see Noncustodial parent agree not to claim an exempbon for Ior the ',ax year(s) General Instructions child's support ffany or lhe Iollow~ng apply · The custodial parenl agrees noI ~0 claim the child's exemption by signing this form or 2120, Muldple Support DeclaralJonl noncustoOial parent can claim the child as a provide a( least $600 (or the child's suppoa during the year, This rule does not apply it cannot claim the child as a dependent Specific Instructions · Complete Part II ir you agree to ~elease provided in Pan II may claim the exemption only ir ~he o~he~ Preparing Ihe Iorm ' . Copying, assembling, and PLEASE 0100115013 I DO NOT USE YOUR 2001 PA-40 LABEL Page 1 of 2 527-70-5303 CA 180-48-7858 EX 0 RS CANDIELLO VINCENT A 0 FS CANDIELLO ROSEANN C FY 0 XX 14 DRAPER CIRCLE SC 36450 LITITZ PA 17543 PN lA 296089~00 18 .00 1C 296089.0Q 2 291.00 3 9.00 4 2017 00 5 .00 6 -00 7 .00 8 .00 9 298406.00 10 .00 11 298406.00 12 8355.00 Lo.cai In{orrnation. Enter where you hved as of 12/31/01. Scr, co, D,stnc~ Manheim Township 5CmCO Code 36450 3 c,~n?? Lancaster R~idency Status. (Check the corre<:t box) R X Pennsylvania Resident NE Nonresident P Part-Year Resident TO Fiscal Year Filer, (check ~rlo ¢ [3o ~, Type Filer. (Check only one box) S Single D Date of death, deceased 2 3 5 Nel compensation. Subb'act hr~e lb iTom line la 1 c ~nte~eet ~ncome. Complete and submit PA Schedule A, d over $2.500 2 D,~,dend ~ncome Complete and submit PA Schedule B, if over $2,500 3 ~state Or trust ~ncome Complete arid enclose PA Schedule J 7 Total penrtsylvenia t~xable income. Add only the positive income amounts from lines lc. 2, 3. 4, 5 6 7, and8 Do not add any losses reported onhnes4, 5, or6 9 Contnbulions to your Medical Savings Account. See ,nst~uchons 10 Adjusted Pennsylvania taxable income. Subtlact line 10 from line 9 1 1 Pennsylvania tax liability. Multiply line 11 by 2,8% (0.028). Also enler on line 13, page 2 12 EC FC 7 8 9 lO ?_96 089 9} 0,? 296, O89 9,0 291 O) c, 2 91 ~ O 0 [ 298,406 298,406 8,35!,C1 0100215011 2001 PA~0 Page 2 of 2 CANDI ELLO 13 8355. 16 19 2L 24 27 8281 30 33 36 00 14 00 17 00 20A 00 22 00 25 00 28 00 31 00 34 00 VINCENT 8281 00 74 O0 00 00 00 O0 O0 O0 15 18 20B 23 26 29 32 35 527-70-5303 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 8,355.00 8,28].00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2oa O0 ~b O0 2~ . O0 ~ .00 23 . O0 24 . O0 z~ .00 ~ .00 z7 8,281 ,00 28 74 . O0 z9 .00 .00 . O0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 er peqaltJe5 of ~eriury, I (we) declare that I (we) have examined this return, including all accompanying schedules and statements, and to >esl o~my (our) belief t~"~ are true, correct, and complete. Nurse Educato, 2001 Earned Income Tax Return Lancaster County Tax Collection Bureau 299 Hess Blvd., Suite 2 Lancaster PA 1760 i-4097 (? 17) 569-4521 RETURN THIS FORM TO LCTCB [- Part A - Taxpayer Information VINCENT-ROSEANN C CANDIELLO, 0014 DRa~.PER LITITZ, PA 17543-9032 _J Part B - Employer Information hMPLOYER S NAME AND ADDRESS (Include alIW-2 folms) C LCTCB Acd, No: M 1-21065: 527-70-5303 Spmlsc'sSoo gc~ N. 180-48-7855 COLUMN TOTALS (%~ Part "C" Lines I and 8 lespc[u~ch, Part C - Tax Computation TOTAL ~,k.~EARNINGS (From par~ "B" above) TAXABLE kV-2 EARNINGS (Line I minus line 2) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME Busmess:~ ] 7 Falmmg: IhumClsh~p TAXABLE EARNED INCOME AND NET PROFITS (Add lines 3, 4, and 5) TAX LI&B[LITY ,%ofLine6(Multiply Line 6 by .0,) 7 TOTAL LOCAL INCOME TAX WITHHELD (From pan "B" ab{,vej TOFALBALANCE DUE , Payable ,o L,CTCB (Line? mmus line S) Less than $l (~) need REFUND DUE (Line 8 remus line 7) Part D 7 IME'PERIOD I I ,)~ I'0 / 1'O / 10 / / , Currcm Addr¢,,,; (if ditfercnt) Part E - Complete only if you moved during the tax year BUREAU COPY - Please do not staple or tape contents 3'11 o oo,7 . 7 t Earnings Statement MORGA~V, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Period Ending: 04/30/2002 Pay Date; 04/30/2002 Earninqs Deductions T~xable Marital Status: Married Exemptions/Allowances; Fed er e.;: 0 State; N/A Local 0 Social Security Numbe~ 527-70-5303 162~0.00 16,2~0.00 481.00 71,281.32 f~ tO ~'~oe~al Jncome Tax -;~,43~.G6 15,1~6.14 6~ 8ec~rt~ T~ -972.19 4,214.28 M~e T~ -227,37 ~85. ~0 PA ~et~ In¢o~ T~ -~.08 I ,927.32 H~ C In~ T~ -tB~,~ 712.82 Depenaent ~e G~n~hme~ - 3,6~, 18 ~ P~ T~ -120.25' 481.00 Mad Flex Spend -250.~' 1 ,~0.00 Medic~ Prem~m -242 ;00* 968,00 P~ Mutual Deal -137.S8 5S0.32 Pemen~ C~rge -2~. 70 Pre-T~ Pa~ -90.~~ Savings - Acct. - 5,567.23 Spo~e Ufe -6.~ UnJ~ Way -5.00 20.00 401(~ Contrib -1,147.13~ 4, ~88.52 Opt 10.00 VINCENT CANDIELLO 14 DRAPER CIRCLE LITITZ PA 17543 Excluded from federal taxable wages Your federal ta~xabte wage3 [~s per[od are $14.5~. 45 ~er Benefits an~ M~J~ Fremlum 968.00 4,588.52 SOC. SEC, NO, N~ME PAY END PAY D~T£ CHKNUM 527-70-5,303 Vincent Candiello 04/15/2002 04/15/200~ 22859 QRAD SCH IR HBQ SAL FAC P &39. 08 HOURS CURRENT YTD CURRENT YTD Sala~ 639,08 State W/H 17.89 8~ 45 Gposs Pag 639.08 3195. 4~ Medica~e W/H 9.27 46. 35 Li~e Ins P~em . O0 . O0 Net Pag 572.30 ~861 5~ FICA W/N 39.6~ 198.10 SA/NT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY . LORE'I~FO, PA. 15940-0600 l~ecl~o detach & retain DATE DESCRIPTION 02/28/2002 CANOIELLO/0227-25 Check Total Check No. $1,400.00 Check Date REFERENCE A~OUNT FNAy 1 , 400, 00 Page 1 208855 Mar 21, 2002 Check No. Check Date Page 1 208252 Jan 24, 2002 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT that Plaimiffs Petition shall be heard wit ,2002 it is hereby ORDERED (30) days of the decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the pending appeals. CERTIFIED COPIES TO: Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 BY THECOURT: ~~.JUDGE VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.93-229 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE TO: SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff, and her attorney, STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIlVlED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VINCENT CANDIELLO, Defendant. NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION TO INCREASE ALIMONY AND ASSESS RETROACTIVE ARREARS FROM SEPTEMBER 1.1999 Vincent Candiello, by and through counsel, responds to the paragraphs set forth in the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff' s Petition as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") on August 12, 1994. However, he denies Plaintiff's characterization of the portion of that Agreement specified in this paragraph of the Petition because the Agreement, as a writing, speaks for itself. Moreover, the Agreement is to be read as a whole and referring only to a portion thereof is argumentative which distorts and misrepresents its terms. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that the Agreement contains a paragraph 8 (d). However, he denies Plaintiff's recitation thereof as the document speaks for itself. Defendant also denies Plaintiff's emphasis ora particular portion ora paragraph of the Agreement as argumentative. Moreover, the Agreement is to be read as a whole and referring only to a portion thereof is argumentative which distorts and misrepresents its terms. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits there was a hearing held before the Honorable George Hoffer, President Judge for the Common Pleas Court for Cumberland County, in April 1999, after which he issued an Opinion and Order dated September 1, 1999. However, Defendant denies the balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph as argumentative and misleading. In fact, Plaintifffiled several modification petitions prior to the hearing, and Defendant filed several as well. Defendant filed one such petifion to remove the support obligation for his son, Robert Candiello, who reached the age of majority and who graduated from high school. He also filed a modification petition when his daughter, Catherine C. Candiello, left Plaintiff's household to live with him. Finally, he filed and then withdrew a modification petition regarding alimony, all of which preceded the April 1999 hearing. Plaintiff filed approximately six (6) modification petitions prior to April 1999. Responding further, the April 1999 hearing dealt with two modification petitions, both of which were filed by Plaintiff. Defendant also denies Plaintiff's characterization of what income the court used to calculate the September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order, which as a writing speaks for itself. Moreover, as Plaintiffknows, Defendant's income for over eight (8) years was presented at trial, including an adjustment to his income up to the date of the hearing. Finally, as the hearing was held in April, the court could not consider any income received after the hearing date in 1999. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that both parties appealed the September 1, 1999 Opinion and Order. On February 26, 2001, the Pennsylvania Superior Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff' s appeals, including a denial of retroactivity originally A:\101759.doc 2 sought by Plaintiff then. Judge Hoffer originally denied that request, in part, due to his considered conclusion that Plaintiff was not credible in her testimony that she reported increases in her income either to Defendant or to the Domestic Relations Office. On August 9, 2001, the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's appeals, remanding the matter back to Judge Hoffer for further proceedings. Defendant further admits that Judge Holler issued another Opinion and Order dated April 2, 2002, which, as a writing, speaks for itself. Consequently, Defendant d~nies Plaintiffs characterization upon what that decision was based. Defendant also admits that Plaintiff repeatedly requested income information during the temporal period that Judge Holler contemplated the remand directive. However, Defendant denies Plaintiff's requests were appropriate. Rather, the information demanded completely was unnecessary given the limited issues for remand and the fact that the evidence relevant to the remand was fully developed at the April 1999 heating without contradiction by Plaintiff. In his April 2, 2002 decision, Judge Hoffer correctly rejected Plaintiff's demands as unnecessary. Defendant also admits that both parties appealed the April 2, 2002 decision, which divests this court of jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Plaintiff here. 7. Admitted in pan; denied in pan. Defendant admits that, on May 28, 2002, the parties attended a child support conference. That support conference was the direct result of Plaintiff seeking a modification of child support in the latter pan of 2001 on the basis of her belief that Defendant experienced an increase in income. However, Plaintiffdid not simultaneously seek a modification of alimony. Defendant further admits that attached as Exhibit A to the Petition is a correct copy of the tax return he and his spouse filed for 2001. There, gross income is presented. Responding further, at that same support conference, Plaintiff A:\[0| 759,doc 3 also provided income information reflecting that her gross income substantially increased from the time of the April 1999 hearing. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff did not obtain the information reflected in Defendant's 2001 federal tax return as it was not prepared in prior years nor was it prepared by the time of the April 2, 2002 Opinion of this Court. Responding further, Defendant denies that the remand from the Pennsylvania Superior Court contemplated any consideration of income earned past the date of the April 1999 hearing. Moreover, Plaintiff also failed to disclose the almost 30% increase in income she experienced from the April 1999 hearing until the date of the May 2002 support conference. 9. Denied for the reasons set forth in tiffs Response and New Matter. 10. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. 11. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. 12. Denied for the reasons set forth in this Response and New Matter. 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that the parties entered into the Agreement. However, he denies Plaintiff"s characterization of the Agreement as it speaks for itself. Responding further, Defendant denies he owed Plaintiffthe duty she seeks to manufacture in this paragraph of the Petition. NEW MATTER 1. This Court is without jurisdiction to consider any matter on appeal, including whether Plaintiff is entitled to reach back into time to retroactively consider modification of alimony under the guise of a remand directive from the Pennsylvania Superior Court. A:\101759.doc 4 2. On June 12, 2001, Plaintiff, through her counsel, requested that Defendant share his income facts for calendar year 2000. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of a letter dated June 12, 2001, from Steven Howell, Esquire. 3. On June 21, 2001, Defendant, through his counsel, agreed to share his income information upon the express commitment from Plaintiff to do the same, including information of income from several businesses, rents, as well as expenses. Further, Defendant requested a clear understanding why Plaintiff left her former employment. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a letter dated June 21, 2001, from Thomas J. Williams, Esquire. 4. Neither Plaintiffnor her counsel ever replied to the June 21, 2001 letter. 5. Plaintiff failed and refused to make any commitment to share her income information. Thereby, Plaintiff waived any right or entitlement to information from Defendant for the calendar year 2000 by her deliberate and willful refusal to share her income information. 6. During the April 1999 hearing, Defendant introduced two charts reflecting the history of his income increases for each year from 1991 through 1998 from all sources. For the years 1997 and 1998, Defendant experienced average increases in excess of seven and half pement (7.5%) for his income from legal work. 7. The increase in gross income reflected in Defendant's 2001 tax return is not a material change from the type and amount of increases he experienced in the two years preceding 1999. 8. Therefore, Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that Defendant was receiving income increases for his law and educational work on an annual basis and the relative percentage of those increases. A:\101759.doc 5 9. Despite knowledge that Defendant received annual increases and the relative size thereof, Plaintiff deliberately chose not to seek any modification of alimony and cannot seek it now as Defendant's alimony obligation to Plaintiff ceased as a last payment for August 2002. 10. Plaintiff currently is a Registered Nurse in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of her license verification from the Pennsylvania Department of State Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. 11. Plaintiff also has earned a Master's Degree in nursing. 12. Plainliffroutinely advertises the fact of her nursing education achievements. 12. There has been and continues to be a nursing shortage in the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and specifically, the counties of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Lancaster. 13. Health-care providers in those counties routinely offer bonuses and increasing levels of pay to attract nurses to employment, particularly Master's prepared nurses, 14. Those same health-care providers offer no-cost refresher courses to nurses who have not practiced nursing recently to enable them to resume nursing careers. During such courses, full nursing wages are paid. 15. Plaintiff's earning capacity as a Master's prepared nurse is at least fifty (50) percent greater than the income she earned as an attorney in 1999, 2000, and 2001, as well as for 2002. 16. By failing and refusing to pursue a career in nursing, Plaintiffwillfully has deprived her minor children of the income she could earn. 17. Plaintiffhas failed to demonstrate any need for an increase in alimony. A:\101759.doe 6 18. This current petition seeks to enlarge the time period during which Plaintiff seeks alimony. Pursuant to the parties' Agreement, Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees in resisting this petition. 19. In 1995, Plaintiffclaimed that the Agreement required Defendant to disclose his income to her on an annual basis. 20. In 1995, Defendant denied there was any obligation to disclose his income to Plaintiff on the basis of the Agreement. 21. From 1995 until the date of this Petition, Plaintiffhas acted as if the Agreement between the parties imposed no disclosure obligation upon each other, as neither made such a disclosure from that date until the present on the basis of the Agreement. 22. Even in 1999, when Defendant sought discovery of PlaintifFs prior year income information, she resisted any attempt by Defendant to obtain such information. 23. Plaintiff's claim that the Agreement imposes a disclosure obligation seeks to amend the parties' Agreement without the formalities required by the Agreement. 24. The basis of the instant petition is frivolous. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Petition forthwith and award him attorney's fees in defending against it. .,~l,TRe~lly submitted, homage/Williams MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorney for Defendant Dated: August 19, 2002 Exhibit 1 Steven Howell A~torney At Law 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 717-770-1277 717-770-1278 Telecopier June 12, 2001 Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Candiello v. Candiello, No. 229 of 1993 (Cumberland County Divorce) Candiello v. Candielio, PA Cases Number 610000026 (No. 215 S 92; DR 19,828) Dear Tom: I am requesting that your client voluntarily provide his 2000 Federal Income Tax return with all attached schedules, forms, W-2s, and 1099s as filed. Please provide these documents within the next fifteen (15) days. If no documents are produced I shall seek the court's assistance. In addition, is your client willing to compensate Mrs. Candieilo for the legal fees incurred in responding to your dismissed Motion to Preclude Oral Argument which was summarily dismissed by the Superior Court by Order dated April 11, 20017 As you know the filing of this frivolous motion and the accompanying memorandum necessitated the research and filing by Mrs. Candiello of an Answer with New Matter on Mar~h 16, 2001. With his motion summarily dismissed by the Court and the complete lack of any statutory or case law supporting its initial filing, my client has directed me to recover the counsel fees expended in responding in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 2744 and 42 Pa. C.S.A. §2503 (6)(7)(9). SHPoth Susan K. Candiello, Esquire Very truly yours, 1,Esquire EXHIBIT "1" Exhibit 2 MARTSON DEARDORFF '~/ILLIAMS ~ OTTO MDW , O T~q ~ HmH ST~rr CARLISLE, peN~ISYLV^NI^ 1701 ~ TELEPHONE (717] 243-3341 FACSIMH. E (717] 245-1850 [NT~NET ~.m~.com June 21, 2001 Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland PA 17070 RE: Candiello v, Candiello Our File No. 9752.1 Dear Steve: I had an oppommity to discuss your recent letter with Mx. Candiello. He does not feel it is appropriate to pay her attorney's fees and will not do so. The situation regarding our motion to preclude oral argument was far different from the fees occasioned by Susan · losing her appeal. We will provide a copy of Vincent's 2000 tax return; however, we would first want a commitment that Susan will do the same. We would expect that Susan's return would include income from her various businesses, including rents, as well as her expenses. Also, we would want a clear explanation as to why she resigned from her employment. If you would confn-m an agreement to a mutual exchange of this information, I will make Vincent'$ return available forthwith. Please let me know. Ver~ truly yours, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO TJW/tde cc: Vincent Candiello, Esquire Thomas J. Williams INFORMATION EXHIBIT "2" ADVICE ' ADVOCACYTM Exhibit 3 Results Page 1 of l Part of Gov. Mark Schwefkers Friction-free e-Government Initiative PennsylVania` Department of State Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs License Verification Search Results [Records I to I of 1] To obtain the public information on a particular licensee, click on the license number of your choice. Name Profession License Type/Secondary License Type License Number SUSAN KAY CANDIELLO Nursing Registered Nurse RN314701L Return to Licensee search http://licensepa, state.pa.us/piresults.asp?sid=307534591 &search-trae&record=0 EXHIBIT "3" 04/28/2002 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts averred in the foregoing document are tree and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. VINCENT CANDIELLO SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, VINCENT CANDIELLO, Plaintiff, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93-229 CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response and New Matter has been served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid, on this 19th day of August, 2002. Steven Howell, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, PLAINTIFF VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 93 - 229 VINCENT CANDIELLO, DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER TO: Defendant Vincent Candiello, Esquire c/o Thomas $. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1. On August 8, 2002 Plaintiff filed a Petition to Increase Alimony and Assess Retroactive Arrears from September 1, 1999. 2. On August 16, 2002 the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J., issued an Order scheduling the Petition for a hearing within thirty (30) days of a decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Mr. Candiello's appeal and Mrs. Candiello's cross appeal. On August 19, 2002 the Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter to the Petition. 4. The court declined to issue a Rule to Show Cause or adopt any procedure set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 206.1, instead, the court has merely scheduled the matter to be heard within th'my (30) days of the Permsylvania Superior Court's decision. 5. The Rules do not require an Answer or Reply to Defendant's New Matter. Rule 206.1 et seq. discusses a "Petition" and "Answer". It does not discuss any "New Matter". 6. The court has not established a schedule of depositions in its Order, rather, it is clear the Court anticipates all issues raised in the "Petition" and "Answer" to be heard at a hearing within thirty (30) days of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision. 7. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028 (a)(2) them is no requirement for Plaintiffto file a Reply to Defendant's New Matter since the Court has opted for a hearing on all matters to be held within thirty (30) days of the Superior Court's decision. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to strike Defendant's New Matter or simply allow the case to proceed to a hearing as set forth in its Order of August 16, 2002. Respectfiflly submitted, New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 Telecopier Supreme Court I.D. 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the furegoing document was served upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: September 9, 2002 ]. A02031/03 VINCENT CANDIELLO, APPELLANT V. SUSAN K. CANDIELLO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 714 MDA 2002 No. 775 MDA 2002 ORDER OFCOURT The Court hereby DENIES the application filed February 19, 2003, requesting reargument or reconsideration of the decision dated February 6, 2003. DATE: PER CURIAM April 9, 2003 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD Att :Thief Clerk Superior Court of Pa. ~;ddle District 3. A02031/03 VINCENT CANDIELLO, SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Appellant : Appellee : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 714 MDA 2002 Appeal from the ORDER Entered April 2, 2002, in the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, CIVIL, at No. 93-229 Civil Action - Law. VINCENT CANDIELLO, SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Appellee : : : : : Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 775 MbA 2002 Appeal from the ORDER April 2, 2002, in the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, CIVIL, at No. 93-229· BEFORE: STEVENS, GRACI, and OLSZEWSKI, 33. F I L E O FF.8 o $ ZI)I)] MEMORANDUM: This is an appeal by Vincent Candiello, hereinafter husband, of the court order dated April 2, 2002, modifying child support. We remand to the trial court for further determinations· The facts of the case, as stated by this Court in a prior memorandum, are as follows: 3. A02031/03 Husband and Wife were married in 1971, and the couple had four children during the marriage. Two children, Robert and Catherine, are currently over the age of eighteen. All four children have resided with Husband and Wife at various times. On 3anuary 21, 1993, Husband filed a complaint in divorce, and the parties followed numerous support orders thereafter. On August 12, 1994, the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement, which provided for child support and alimony. The agreement indicated that modifications to the agreement were to be made pursuant to the support guidelines. On August 15, 1994, a final divorce decree was entered. In 3une of 1998, the parties returned to the Cumberland County Domestic Relations Office (hereinafter DRO) to settle a dispute over child support. Robert, the oldest child, was already emancipated and Wife had petitioned the [trial] court to remove Catherine from the support order because she had graduated from high school. At the time, Husband was paying $816.00 per month in child support. After the conference, the DRO entered a recommended order of $1241.00 monthly child support to be paid by Husband, effective 3anuary 1, 1999, after Catherine turned eighteen. The $816.00 per month payment was to continue until the new order took effect In 3anuary. Neither party appealed this order. On September 17, 1998, Wife petitioned the [trial] court for an increase in child support based solely upon Husband's failure to report increases in his regular salary and income that he earned from speaking engagements and lectures from 1996 to the present. Wife asked that the increase by [sic] retroactive to 1996. On December 10, 1998, DRO entered a revised child support order, increasing Husband's monthly payment to $1,316.00, retroactive to the filing date of September 17, 1998. The court also provided that Husband's child support obligation would increase to $1,774.00 per month on December 18. 1998, [which is] Catherine's eighteen birthday. Both parties appealed the order [to the trial court for a de novo hearing]. -2- J. A02031/03 On January 11, 1999, Wife petitioned the [trial court] to modify alimony paid by Husband. Husband had been paying $1,100.00 per month since August 12, 1994, pursuant to the marital settlement agreement. Wife's petition to modify alimony was consolidated with her petition to modify child support on January 12, 1999. A hearing on both petitions was held before [the trial court] on April 12, 1999. Following the hearing, the trial court modified child support and alimony based on an increased income to Husband. Specifically, the trial court concluded that Husband's regular salary increased and he earned income from various teaching/speaking engagements, thereby resulting in Husband's income increasing for support/alimony purposes. As such, the trial court ordered Husband to pay child support in the amount of $3,522.64 for the period of September 17, 1998, through December 18, 1998, $5,388.92 for the period of December 19, 1998, through March 31, 1999, and $2,115.00 per month effective April 1, 1999 until any subsequent order takes effect. The trial court ordered Husband to pay alimony in the amount of $4,559.74 for the period of January 11, 1999 through May 31, 1999, and $1,541.00 per month effective April 1, 1999 until any subsequent order takes effect. Husband's timely appeal followed, the trial court ordered Husband to file a statement pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), and Husband filed such a statement. The trial court subsequently filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Candiello v. Candiello, No. 1622 MDA 1999, unpublished memorandum, pp. 2-5 (Pa.$uper. filed 8/9/01). The Superior Court reversed and remanded on the issue of whether the trial court erred in not including husband's daughter Katelyn (from subsequent marriage) when calculating support. The trial court reviewed -3- J. A02031/03 this issue and ruled that husband's daughter Katelyn did not justify a deviation from the support guidelines. This instant appeal follows. Appellant raises the following two issues for our review. A. The trial court misapplied or overrode the law in refusing to deduct appellant's support obligation to Katelyn Candiello. B. The Pa.R.C.P. 1910-16.3 formula used to calculate spousal support or APL violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania if it only deducts from obligor's net monthly income the amount of obligor's child support obligation to the children of appellee and not obligor's child support obligation to Katelyn. Appellant's brief at 9, 12. Our standard of review is an abuse of discretion standard. "A support order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court failed to consider properly the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions for Support, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.1 et seq., or abused its discretion in applying these Rules." O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 607 A.2d 735 (Pa. :[992); (other cites omitted). In addressing appellant's first issue of whether the trial court erred in calculating the amount of child support, we look to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 (now rule 1910.16-7). Using this rule as our guide, we find that support for all children should be considered. Therefore, even though husband does not have a support order for his daughter Katelyn, and regardless of the fact J. A02031/03 that husband and Katelyn's mother are married and living together, husband is still providing support for her. This support should be subtracted from husband's monthly net income. Appellee argues that husband's daughter from current marriage should not change the amount of support because the rule states that a deviation from the guidelines is only justified when the total amount of support paid is fifty percent more than the net income. Although this is true, the issue here is whether the financial obligation of husband to youngest daughter should be deducted from his net income. We have determined that it should, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 19:[0.16(5) (now rule :~9:[0.:[6-7). We remand to the trial court to make this change in the support order.~ Appellant's second issue, whether the formula used in Pa.R.C.P. :[9:[0.:[6-3 is unconstitutional as applied, will not be addressed because we found that the trial court erred in its application of the rule by not sub- tracting from appellant's net income the amount of support due to his daughter Katelyn. z It should be noted that the trial court's method of determining child support was correct. Therefore, once the amount of support for Katelyn is deducted from husband's net income, the procedure followed will remain the same. -5- 3. A02031/03 Appellee's Cross Appeal Appellee argues on cross appeal that the trial court erred in not obtaining the actual 1999 Federal income tax return from husband before modifying the September 1, 1999, order regarding alimony? This Court stated in its memorandum filed on August 9, 2001, With regard to the trial court's calculation of Husband's 1999 taxes, we conclude that the trial court properly deducted the federal taxes to be paid by Husband. However, the trial court failed to include Husband's local and state taxes in its deduction. It is well settled that local and state taxes shall be deducted from gross income. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b)(1). As such, we remand for a proper determination of Husband's taxes for the years 1999 and 1998 and a proper deduction from gross income with regard thereto. Candiello, at 8. On remand, the trial court addressed this issue. The trial court took the undisputed amount of husband's pay increase for 1999 and deducted 36% for federal taxes, 2.8% for state taxes (the state tax rate in effect at that time), and 1% for local taxes. We find the court did not err by computing the taxes in this way. Therefore, appellee's argument fails. In conclusion, we remand this case to the trial court to determine the amount of support that needs to be deducted from appellant's net income due to his financial obligation to daughter Katelyn, and to adjust the support award accordingly. -6- -9- 'Albu!pJo33e pJe~e ~Joddn$ aq~ ~sn.[pe ol pue 'uAlele)t Ja~qbnep o~ uo!~eS!lqo e!2ueuu s!q o~ @np awo~u! ~au s,~uelladde woJj pa~3npap aq o:1 speau ~eq~ lJoddns jo ~unowe aql au!uJJa~,ap o~, ~no~ le!J~, aq~, o~, ase~ s!ql puecuaJ a~ 'uo!snpuoa uI 'sl!eJ :luauJnBJe s,aalladde 'aJojaJaq/ 'XeM s!q~ U! saxe:l aq~, §uFinduJOD Aq JJa ~ou p!p :pno3 aq~ pujj aM 'saxe~ le3Ol Joj %1[ pue '(gwj~ leq~ ~e ~ajja u! a~,eJ xe~, a~e~,s aq~,) saxe~, a~,e~,s Joj %9'~ 'saxe~ leJapaj Joj %9£ pa~3npap pue 6661: Joj )1oo:1 ~Jno3 le!J~, 9q.L 'anss! s!q:l pass@Jppe :lJno3 le!J~ aq~ 'pueuJgJ uo '8 ~ 'Olle!Pue~ 'TO0~ '6 ~,sn6n¥ uo PaI!J LunpuejouJauJ sl! u! pa]e~,s ~Jno:3 s!q.L t'Auow!le 6u!pJebaJ Jap Jo '666~ '~ Jaqwa~daS aq:l 6u!Aj!pow ~JoJaq pueqsnq woJ.~ uJn~aJ xe~ ~wo:)uj leJ~P~J 666I len~:)e ~q~ bu!u!e~qo ~ou u! paJJa ~Jno~ le!J~ aq~ ]eq~ legdde ssoJ3 uo sanbJe aalladdV leaddV sso~3 EO/T~OZOV '[ ~ Nc 229 Civil 1993 (B.F. 124 b ) Cand;-llo Vs C~ndiello ~· ~-~ Au~lst~ ' 8, 2002, Plai f's Petition to increase alin~ny i assess retroactive arrears ~' ~& Au~st 16, 2002, 0~der of Court, filed. A~D NO~, this 16th day of AUgUst, 2002, it is hereby OP~)ERED THAT Plaintiff's Petition cheil be heard within thirty (30) days of the decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the pending appeals. By THE COURT.- George E. Hoffer P.J. Copies Mailed. 8-19-02 5~'~Au~st 19, 2002, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Petition to Increase Alimony and Assess Retroactive Arrears from September 1, 1999, filed. 5~'S&~ Septe~aber 10, 2002, Plaintiff's Preliminary Objection to Defendant's New Matter, filed by ~J~. ~1 Steven Howell, Esq. for Plff ~%~aI~ 20, 2003, Or~°~ of Om]rt, fi~ed, M~ro~-~,q befox~ Stevens, Gx-aci and Olszewski, JJ The Court hereby DENIES the application filed Februaz7 19, 2003, requesting reargu- ment or reconsideration of the decision dated Febz~ary 6, 200,3,. Per Curiam-~u_p~.o ~o~,~