Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-1158 SUPPORTJEANNE M. KILL1NGER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 056000021 RONALD L. TRITT, NO. 1158 SUPPORT 1994 Defendant IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the support master held a hearing on June 10, 2002. Neither party was represented by counsel. The amount of the order was set following this exchange between the master and the plaintiff: THE MASTER: If it turns out that based upon the evidence that I've heard that the recommended order for support should actually be more than $589.00 a month, are you satisfied to collect $589.00 or do you want more than that? MS KILLINGER: I'm satisfied with that. Master's Hearing, p. 21. Among the twenty findings of fact made by the master was a finding to the effect that the plaintiff "voluntarily left employment at Carlisle Tire and Wheel where she earned $12.72 per hour for a forty-hour work week." The plaintiff is now employed at Dickinson College where she earns $7.35 per hour for a forty-hour work week. During the master's hearing, there was a discussion with the plaintiff concerning the issue of her earning capacity. Q. Now, the conference officer, when he set the interim order in this case, based that interim order on what's called an earning capacity as opposed to actual earnings. In other words, he set your NO. 1158 SUPPORT 1994 income as if you had still been working at Tire and Wheel. Do you understand that? A. Yes ! understand that. Q. And did you have any objection to that? N. No .... Master's Hearing, p. 6. Pending before the court are two exceptions of the plaintiff. First is an exception to the "determination" that her earning capacity should be based upon her earnings while employed at Carlisle Tire and Wheel Inc. instead of Dickinson College. Second, the defendant wishes to withdraw her agreement to accept $589.00 per month. The decision of the master with regard to the plaintiff' s earning capacity was not based on a determination made by him. The plaintiff agreed to the assessment of the higher earning capacity. In a letter brief submitted to the court, the plaintiff contends that her agreement to accept an amount certain in support, because it was lower than the guideline amount, constituted a "gift" to the defendant and that she now wishes to "revoke the gift" by filing exceptions to the master's recommendation. The requisites of a gift are well established; it involves the voluntary transfer of property from one person to another gratuitously and without consideration. Black's Law Dictionary (St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing Co., 1979) 619. Here, the plaintiff attempts to equate the giving of something with an agreement to accept less of something. We will not discuss this matter further but simply conclude with the observation that an agreement to accept a set amount of support is not a "gift." 2 NO. 1158 SUPPORT 1994 More importantly, the fact that a party may change his or her mind about stipulations and agreements is not the proper basis for an exception to the support master's report and recommendation. It is axiomatic that exceptions are filed as a result of perceived procedural errors made by a master or the lack of testimony or other evidence which supports a master's recommendation.1 See Blatz v. Blatz, 603 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 1992); also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12(f'). ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, following consideration thereof, the exceptions of the plaintiff to the report and recommendation of the support master are DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire For the Plaintiff Thomas Williams, Esquire For the Defendant Support Master DRO :rlm ~ It may well be that the plaintiff made her various agreements based on the defendant's promise that he would not engage in any further litigation with regard to the parties. The fact that he now has reneged may constitute a change in circumstances which would warrant bringing the matter once again before the master. 3 JEANNE M. KILL1NGER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 056000021 RONALD L. TRITT, NO. 1158 SUPPORT 1994 Defendant IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, following consideration thereof, the exceptions of the plaintiff to the report and recommendation of the support master are DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire For the Plaintiff Thomas J. Williams, Esquire For the Defendant Support Master DRO :rlm