Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-979 supportMARY G. SPEAKER, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. :CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT :DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION-- ROBERT A. SPEAKER, :NO. 979 SUPPORT 1999 Defendant :DR 29, 164 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Before HOFFER, P.J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: This case arises out of the petition to modify child support and spousal support filed by Wife, Mary G. Speaker against Husband, Robert A. Speaker. Wife filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, Wife expresses the matters complained of on appeal as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred in the calculation of the defendant's net monthly income by failing to include the full amount of the annual stock bonus received by the defendant as evidenced by and included in his 1999 W-2 employer's report of gross income. 2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to include the full amount of the stock bonus at market value as of the date distributed to defendant of all of the United Parcel Service stock included in the defendant's W-2 reported income for 1999 by "amortizing" such bonus over a period of six years. 3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to make the effective date of the Order the date of the filing of the Complaint, i.e., November 9, 1999.4 Wife Claims an Error Calculatinq Husband's Net Monthly Incom~ With respect to Wife's claim of an error of the calculation of Husband's net monthly income, she states that the trial court failed to include the full amount of the annual stock bonus. It is well-settled law that tax definitions of income are not controlling with regard to defining income for purposes of child support. Darby v. Darby, 455 Pa.Super. 63, 686 A.2d 1346 (1996). We are guided by the principle that a support award "must be fair, non-confiscatory and attendant to the circumstances of the parties." Calabrese v. Calabrese, 452 Pa. Super. 497, 682 A.2d 393, 396 (Pa.Super 1996). Moreover, in determining the financial responsibilities of the parties, the court looks to the actual disposable income of the parties. Labar v. Labar, 557 Pa. 54, 731 A.2d 1252 (Pa.1999). In determining income, it "must reflect actual available financial resources and not the oft-time fictional financial picture" created by the application of the federal tax laws. Id. Here, Husband's W2 form reflects the stock bonus that he received in 1999. Although the stock bonus is not cash income that Husband received, it is a benefit that was given to him by his company. He does not have cash from this benefit to pay support and he is unable to sell the stock without losing substantial ~ Statement of Matters Complained Of, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), filed July 21, 2000. 2 money on the transaction. Additionally, he should not be forced to sell the stock.2 The purpose of a support order is "to secure such an allowance to wife and child as is reasonable, having in mind the husband's property and earning.capa.c, ity and the station in life of the parties." Commonwealth ex re Kallen v. Kallen, 200 Pa.Super. 507, 508-509, 190 A.2d 175, 176 (1963). We amortized the stock over a six (6) year period and included one-sixth of the total amount as yearly income every year for a six years. By not adding the entire stock bonus as income for one (1) year, we were acting in a reasonable and equitable manner. We acted within our discretion not to include the entire lump sum in one (1) year and spread out the payments over a six (6) year period. Wife Claims an Error in Amortizinq Husband's Bonu~ With respect to Wife's claim of an error in failing to include the full amount of the stock bonus at market value by amortizing the bonus over a six year period, this claim is essentially the same contention as the one above with the only difference being the wording. As stated above, it would not be equitable to include the stock bonus as income for one (1) year. To do so would prove to be an undue hardship on Husband. Additionally, the trial court has discretion to determine the most appropriate method of calculating support payments. We chose the six (6) year period for the reasons stated above as well as the fact that the parties' youngest child will be emancipated in six (6) years. 2 The trial court is able to update the order and continue to pro rate the stock on a yearly basis. Additionally, the court is amenable to deal with the situation as it occurs. Wife Claims an Error in the Effective Date of the Order Wife states that the trial court failed to make the effective date of the Order the date of the filing of the Complaint, i.e., November 9, 1999. Accord. ing to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1910.17(a) states that "an order of support shall be effective from the date of the filing of the complaint unless the order specifies otherwise" (emphasis added). Although there is a sound policy of favoring retroactivity in most cases, failure to make an award retroactive may be reversible error unless specific and appropriate justification for such a ruling is shown. Shovlin v. Shovlin, 318 Pa.Super. 516, 465 A.2d 673 (Pa. Super 1983). Here, acting on the advice of the Domestic Relations Office, we decid.ed to make the retroactivity date June 1, 2000. According to the figures given to us, it was plausible to have the support payments spread out evenly over six (6) years rather than recalculate it back to the original date of the complaint. Moreover, the evidence presented does not approach the clear and convincing standard needed to prove abuse of discretion. 4