The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-803 supportMARVETTA L. LANDER go LEONARD G. LANDER, JR. · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : : · 98-0803 SUPPORT : PACSES # 380100354 · DR# 27,945 IN RE- PI~AINTIFF'S APPEAL/MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SUPPORT BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT day of JANUARY, 2000, after a heating and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion it is ordered and directed that the Defendant pay the sum of $674.00 per month for the support of his child Rachel Marie Lander. The effective date of modification is April 1, 1999. The Domestic Relations Office is directed to compute the arrears due on the order. In all other respects our prior order of May 6, 1999, shall remain in full force and effect. cc' Domestic Relations Office By the Edward E. Guido, J. Stephen G. Held, Esquire Carol Lindsay, Esquire Marvetta L. Lander Leonard G. Lander, Jr. MARVETTA L. LANDER Vo LEONARD G. LANDER, .IR. i :,"~ THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : : : ' 98-0803 SUPPORT : · PACSES # 380100354 · · DR# 27,945 IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL/MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SUPPORT BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT On April 1, 1999, Plaintiff Marvetta L. Lander filed a petition for modification of an existing support order. A conference was held in the Domestic Relations Office on April 28, 1999. On May 6, 1999, we entered an order pursuant to the recommendation of the conference officer. The Plaintiff filed this timely appeal. A hearing de novo was held before this Court on December 23, 1999. This matter is now ready for disposition. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The parties are the natural parents of Rachel Marie Lander bom, November 27, 1989. 2) Plaintiff has a gross annual income of $23,258 from the following sources' Rite Aid $22,898~ Haircuts (after expenses) 360 3) Plaintiff's net annual income filing as head of household and claiming herself and one child as an exemption is $18,883.80. Her net monthly income is $1573.65 ~ This figure was computed by annualizing the $20,697 gross wages paid to Plaintiff for the first forty- seven (47) weeks of 1999. See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. - 98-6803 SUPPORT - PACSES # 380100354 4) Defendant works as a criminal investigator' for the Pennsylvania State Police and has a gross annual income of $57,227.2 5) Defendant's gross annuai t[txable income, after deducting $2860 for mandatory state employee retirement contributions, is $54,367. 6) Defendant's net annual income based upon a filing status of married filing separately and claiming only himself as an exemption is $40,714.643 His net monthly income is $3392.89. 7) Defendant's employer provides the child with medical insurance at no cost. 8) Plaintiff pays total annual child care of $3130. The average monthly child care is $260. Plaintiff is entitled to a tax credit of $50 per month. 9) Defendant has shared custody of the child and spends just over 40 % of the time with her.4 2 This figure was computed by annualizing the $53,926 gross wages paid to Defendant for the first forty- , nine (49) weeks of 1999. See Defendant's Exhibit 1. 3 We computed state and local tax on the gross annual income of $57,227. We used the gross annual taxable income figure of $54,367 to compute the federal withholding tax. 4 According to Defendant's Exhibit 4, the child spent 154 overnights with him during 1999. This was computed as follows' Visits Number of Visits Overnights Per Visit Total Overnights Per Visit Alternate Weekends 26 2 52 Wednesday Eve.- Thursday Morning - 26 1 26 Wednesday Eve.- Friday Morning- 26 2 52 Holidays 3 1 3 Vacation 21 1 21 TOTAL 154 98-0803 SUPPORT - PACSES # 380100354 10) As a result of the substantial amount of time that Defendant spends with the child, he is entitled to a reduction in support pursuant to Pa. Rt:ie of Civil Procedure 1910.16-4(c). 11) The guidelines would require Defendant to pay $674 per month for the support of the child. The guideline computations are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12) Neither party has presented any evidence which would justify a deviation from the guidelines. 13) The Plaintiff filed her petition to modify the existing order on April 1, 1999. 14) The effective date of any modification should be that date. 15) Defendant is paying Plaintiff $200 per month alimony pendente lite pursuant to an order entered in this Court at 98-5746 Civil Term. This order was entered pursuant to an agreement between the parties. DISCUSSION We feel that calculating the Defendant's income on an annual basis for 1999 presents a fair and accurate picture of his monthly income. We recognize that he has lost some of his overtime income. However, the portion of the overtime which has been discontinued was available to him through the middle part of August. During the course of the year he received raises which should make up for the relatively small amount of overtime that he will no longer be eligible to receive,s We are aware that Defendant is paying $200 per month to plaintiff as alimony pendente lite. It is clear that APL cannot be deducted from Defendant's income in determining the appropriate amount of child support. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1). It is equally clear from the roles that his child support obligation should be deducted s Accbrding to Defendant's Exhibit 4 the traffic related overtime represented only 4% of his 1999 income. 98-0803 SUPPORT - PACSES # 380100354 from his income before computing the APL order. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4(a)-part IV. Under those circumstances, it would not be fair to modify the Defendant's child support payments without adjusting his APL payments.at the same time. However, in applying the formula to the facts before us, we note that the APL order entered by agreement of the parties is less than the formula would call for, even with the increased child support. Therefore, we will not make any adjustments to the agreed upon APL order. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7TM day of JANUARY, 2000, after a hearing and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion it is ordered and directed that the Defendant pay the sum of $674.00 per month for the support of his child Rachel Made Lander. The effective date of modification is April 1, 1999. The Domestic Relations Office is directed to compute the arrears due on the order. In all other respects our prior order of May 6, 1999, shall remain in full force and effect. By the Court, Domestic Relations Office ./s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Stephen G. Held, Esquire For the Plaintiff Carol Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant Marvetta L. Lander Leonard G. Lander, Jr. f" .,b,:..:'L t' "' I~ ...... , ~ !~iiiii::iii:.ili!'f iii.!~!::i'~i~i~ii:ii~.~!~i~:iii-~i.i::i:~ :~ ~.:i .... - .... ~:i!~::i .... ~:.~ .... .~:. .... ~ .... ;...i~.~!~i~i~ :~ ............................ .. .... : ..... ~,. so~oo:~s4 :. ...... -.:: .:- .......................... :- ........ M- ' .... ...... - ..... : ....... : ......... :.::' I ' - ,- :' .': .... - .......... ::' ............... ........ ::-:! ....................................... ' ................ .:~. :-.:LEONARD -.' '~ i" !r-.~. _ .... . ............................. · ................................. .............................. · ......... '::.L-...,,._.. ~ c,~l-,:::~N ...... ~.:~:~-~:~A:c~[ve'..:: N:.~'~.~:~. ~:~.~.~ :/'~"~'~ ..... '~:~::~::~ 2110 ~ ...... .:.: ':::- ..... .::~;i.:~;~:!.~ ................... .-. ........ ':~iiii~!!~i.~i! .............. ' ...... · ..... ::.::iiWol/k:e:l! .... .... 2:: :::: -..::-::- · ,-,r', .... - ........... . .......................................... :.:::. ...... : ........................ .: .-,,,,,,,,,.,., ................. ::::.,:,:,,,:,,,,:,,,:,,,.:: .'Reduction tbr .-qr~ar~d:'Cust;0:dyi :~;~;~;~ ~::~ ............................ "~.-: ............ ' ..... Child C::are Adjustrneht':!ii;~:~ . ............... ......... '-InSurance. premi~:m .lust ..Other. Adjustm~r~t-s' ' Tot al'~M,-~ nthlY~Cifild MARVETTA L. LANDER Ve LEONARD G. LANDER, JR. · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · 98-0803 SUPPORT · PACSES # 380100354 · DR# 27,945 · IN RE' DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this ~~'~ ORDER OF COURT day of FEBRUARY, 2000, defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of our order of January 7, 2000, is DENIED. cc' Domestic Relations Office By the Edward E. Guido, J. Stephen G. Held, Esquire Carol Lindsay, Esquire Marvetta L. Lander Leonard G. Lander, Jr. :sld MARVETTA L. LANDER Vo LEONARD G. LANDER, JR. · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 98-0803 SUPPORT · PACSES # 380100354 · DR # 27,945 · IN RE' DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFO.RE OUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Defendant has filed a Motion for Reconsideration in connection with our order of support dated January 7, 2000. He alleges that we erred in failing to reduce his income by the amount of overtime that is no longer available to him. We are satisfied that the overtime issue was correCtly decided and adequately addressed in the opinion which accompanied our order of January 7, 2000. We are not inclined to change our decision on that issue. Defendant also claims that we erred in computing his income. Upon reexamining the exhibits presented at the heating, we agree.~ In order to calculate his support, we determined his gross annual income to be $57,227. We computed this figure by annualizing the $53,926 gross wages paid to defendant for the first forty-nine weeks of 1999. However, that figure included one week of wages earned in 1998 but paid in 1999. ~ Defendant has submitted additional exhibits which were attached to his motion. However, since those exhibits are not part of the record, we did not consider them. 98-0803 SUPPORT - PACSES # 380100354 The $53,926 figure actually represented 50 weeks of wages rather than 49. Therefore, his correct gross annual earnings should have been set at $56,083 rather than $57,227.2 Starting from the correct gross annual income of $56,083, defendant's net monthly income should have been computed as follows' $56,083 gross income (2,804) mandatory retirement (2,131) state & local taxes (10.341) federal taxes3 $40,807 net annual income +12 $ 3,400 NET MONTHLY INCOME Since defendant's revised net monthly income is actually $8.00 per month higher than the figure we previously used to calculate his support obligation, his request for reconsideration will be denied. 2 Defendant points out that his pay stub for December 23, 1999, showed year to date eamings of $53,926. Since that was the last pay he received in 1999, he argues that we should have found his annual income to be $53,926. However the pay period ended on December 10, 1999 and represented earnings for only 50 weeks. 3 This calculation is based upon a gross federal taxable income of $53,279 and assumes a filing stares of married filing separately with one exemption. It appears as though we erred in computing the federal withholding tax when setting the January 7, 2000 support order. Instead of computing it on the income after deducting the mandatory retirement contributions, as we intended to do, we actually computed it on the gross annual income, before retirement deductions. 98-0803 SUPPORT - PACSES # 380100354 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22N~. day of FEBRUARY, 2000, defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of our order of January 7, 2000, is DENIED. By the Court, /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Domestic Relations Office Marvetta L. Lander Plaintiff Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For the Defendant :sld