Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-229 civilVINCENT CANDIELLO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 93-229 CIVIL ., SUSAN K. CANDIELL©, Defendant IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL DR 19,828 VINCENT CANDIELLO, : PA CASES 610000026 Defendant :IN SUPPORT ORDER HOFFER, P.J.: ~d AND NOW, this ay o I~1 2002, 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: $5,136.88 Effective as of December 1,2001: 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. 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, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 93-229 CIVIL , SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, Defendant IN DIVORCE SUSAN K. CANDIELLO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 215 S 92 - CIVIL DR 19,828 VINCENT CANDIELLO, : PA CASES 610000026 Defendant :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 t999 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.~ 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 $164,687.98 Less: Withholdings (federal and state tax) $47,690.56 Lecture Expenses $1,200.00 Health Insurance $1,320.00 Yearly Net Income $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 $9,539.79 Gross Monthly Net Increase $583.33 Withholdings (federal and state tax) $232.17 Monthly Net Increase $351.16 1999 Revised Monthly Net Income $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: $ 9,890.95 Wife's Monthly Net Income: $ 2,896.00 Combined Net Income: $12,786.95 Revised Basic Child Support (support guidelines) $ 2,684.00 Husband's Net Income Percentage 77% Wife's Net Income Percentage 23% Husband's Revised Share of Child Support $2,066.68/month Prior Child Support Order $2,115.00/month Difference $ 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: $10,944.00 From 10-1-99 through 12-1-01: $57,105.00 Total Paid $68,094.00 · Arrearage ($68,200.44 - $68,094.00): $ 116.44 4. Child Support Summary September 17 through December 18, 1998 $1,036.00 December 19, 1998 through March 31, 1999 ($849.00) April 1, 1999 through November 30, 2001 $116.44 Total Arrearage: $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: $9,890.95 Wife's Monthly Net Income: $2,896.00 Difference In Net Incomes: $6,995.00 Less Monthly Child Support: $1,576.00 Difference: $5,419.00 Monthly Alimony Owed ($5,419.00 x 30%) $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: $2,896.00 Difference In Net Incomes: $6,995.00 Less Monthly Child Support: $2,066.68 Difference: $4,928.32 ' Monthly Alimony Owed ($4,928.32 x 30%) Effective 4-1-99 $1,478.50 Monthly Alimony Paid: $1,541.00 Monthly Difference $62.50 Actually paid from ~4-1-99 through 9-31-99 $6,600.00 Actually paid from 10-1-99 through 11-30-99 $36,984.00 Total Actually paid from 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 $43,584.00 Revised Alimony for 4-1-99 through 11-30-99 $47,312.00 Arrearage: $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: $9,890.95 Wife's Monthly Net Income: $2,896.00 Combined Net Income: $12,787.00 Deduct Alimony From Husband $9,891.00 - $1,478.50 -- $8,412.50 Add Alimony to Wife 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 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