Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-980 Civil WALTER M. ECKMAN, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : NO. 980 CIVIL 1993 : VONNY E. ECKMAN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant : IN RE: TERMINATION OF ALIMONY BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER The question posed by this case is whether voluntary retirement qualifies as a substantial change in circumstances allowing the court to exercise its discretion to terminate alimony 1 payments based on 23 Pa.C.S. 3701(c). Mr. and Mrs. Eckman divorced in 1999. N.T., Hearing May 23, 2007, at pg. 4. The divorce master set alimony at $2,000.00 per month. From 1999 to 2001, alimony was reduced several times with the final reduction to $700.00 per month. N.T. at 5-6. Mr. Eckman met all alimony requirements until April 2006, at which point he stopped paying altogether. N.T. at 16-17. In July 2006, Mr. Eckman retired and began receiving social security payments of $1,534.00 per month. He continues to engage in part-time work. N.T. at 6- 7; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, Hearing May 23, 2007. Ms. Eckman also retired in 2006, receiving social security payments of $758.00 per month. N.T. at 29. She holds a post graduate degree in education and currently receives a stipend for work done in the educational community. N.T. at 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701 (a) General Rule—Where 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. . . (e) Modification and termination—An order entered pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the court upon changed circumstances or either party of a substantial and continuing nature whereupon the order may be modified, suspended, terminated or reinstituted or a new order made. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701 (2006). NO. 980 CIVIL 1993 26, 37. Both parties’ earning capacity was capped at $12,480.00 in 2006, based on the Social Security law. P.E. 2, 6/23/07. Meaning, if a party earned more than $12,480.00 apart from social security, their social security payment would then be reduced. N.T. at 15, 43; P.E. 2, 6/23/07. On February 14, 2007, this petition to terminate alimony and cancel arrears was filed. The law is now clear that retirement may be regarded as a changed circumstance for modification of alimony. McFadden v. McFadden, 563 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 1989). Moreover, it is clear that this changed circumstance is of a substantial and continuous nature necessitating modification. Mr. Eckman seeks to terminate the alimony altogether arguing that “enough is enough.” While we disagree that termination is required in this case, we will modify the amount of the alimony payment. Both Mr. and Ms. Eckman chose to retire at the age of sixty-two and they have begun receiving social security payments. Both parties were less than full retirement age. Their earning potential, beyond social security payments, is capped at $12,480.00. Mr. Eckman receives $1,534.00 a month in social security. Ms. Eckman earns $758.00 a month from social security. Mr. Eckman had been paying $700.00 per month in alimony. A continuation of this amount would not be equitable. Instead, we will reduce Mr. Eckman’s alimony payment to $300.00 per month concluding that such a modification is fair and equitable. ORDER th AND NOW, this 19 day of July, 2007, the alimony order in this case is modified to 2 NO. 980 CIVIL 1993 provide that the plaintiff will pay to the defendant alimony in the amount of $300.00 per month from and after July of 2006. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Samuel Andes, Esquire For the Plaintiff Sally Winder, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm 3 WALTER M. ECKMAN, III, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : NO. 980 CIVIL 1993 : VONNY E. ECKMAN, : IN DIVORCE Defendant : IN RE: TERMINATION OF ALIMONY BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER th AND NOW, this 19 day of July, 2007, the alimony order in this case is modified to provide that the plaintiff will pay to the defendant alimony in the amount of $300.00 per month from and after July of 2006. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Samuel Andes, Esquire For the Plaintiff Sally Winder, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm