Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-0022 civil/99-316 supportBRIE G. COOK go ANTHONY COOK · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ·NO. 2000-0022 CIVIL TERM BRIE G. COOK Vo ANTHONY COOK · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · · 316 SUPPORT 1999 · IN RE- PLAINTIFF'S CI~AIM FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE BEFORE GUIDO. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ND day of FEBRUARY, 2001, defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the sum of $879.60 per month for the support of plaintiff, effective July 1, 2000. Arrears, or credit, shall be determined by the Domestic Relations Office. Defendant is also ordered and directed to continue medical insurance coverage on plaintiff as provided by his employer. If there is a cost incurred by defendant for providing said coverage, plaintiff shall reimburse defendant for 33% of said cost. Any unreimbursed medical bills incurred by plaintiff shall be her sole responsibility. Plaintiff's claim for Alimony Pendente Lite is DENIED. Kathleen C. Daley, Esquire Samuel Andes, Esquire Domestic Relations By Edward E. Guido, J. BRIE G. COOK ge ANTHONY COOK ·IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ·CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : 'NO' 2000-0022 CIVIL TERM : : BRIE G. COOK Vo ANTHONY COOK · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : · 316 SUPPORT 1999 : : IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE BEFORE GUIDO, J. OP1NION AND ORDER OF COURT Currently before us are plaintiff's claims for spousal support and alimony pendente lite. Because of the lengthy delay between the filing of these matters and their final resolution, we feel it necessary to set forth the procedural history. Plaintiff's claim for spousal support dates back to June 23, 1999.~ Defendant denied liability for spousal support at the Domestic Relations conference on August 5, 1999. A hearing on the matter was scheduled before this Court on October 7, 1999. The hearing was postponed to give the parties the opportunity to litigate discovery issues. She originally filed a complaint for spousal support on April 22, 1999, which she voluntarily withdrew. 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 On January 10, 2000, plaintiff filed a claim for alimony pendente lite. A recommended APL order was entered on February 17, 2000. Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing de novo. The support and alimony pendente lite claims were consolidated for hearing purposes. A hearing was held before this Court on June 9, 2000. At the request of the parties, the hearing was adjourned until August 14, 2000, to give defendant the opportunity to present medical testimony. On August 14, 2000, the parties again agreed to reschedule the matter for a later date to give defendant the opportunity to present his medical evidence via videotape deposition. The videotape deposition was eventually conducted and filed with the Court. The parties submitted briefs and the matter was ready for disposition. At the~request of the parties, the record was reopened and a supplemental hearing was held before us on January 16, 2001. The matter is again ready for disposition. FINDINGS OF FACT The parties were married on September 2, 1978. They lived together until April 1, 1999, when defendant left the marital home. There are no children to this marriage. Plaintiff is fifty-four (54) years old. Defendant is fifty-three (53) years old. Plaintiff retired from her job with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1997.2 This change in employment status was a mutual decision arrived at after discussion between the parties. Plaintiff has been treated for a variety of medical problems over the years. These 2 Plaintiff had worked for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1974. She held numerous jobs over the years. At the time of her retirement she was director of personnel at the Youth Home at Loysville and was earning $43}000 per year. 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 problems include hepatitis C, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and chronic fatigue. Based upon her testimony, we are satisfied that this combination of problems limited her ability to work more than twenty hours per week through September 30, 1999. Thereafter, we are satisfied that her hepatitis C was in remission and that she could have been gainfully employed at a full time job.3 In September of 1998 plaintiff began undergoing a course of chemotherapy to treat her hepatitis C. Defendant testified that plaintiff began exhibiting erratic emotional behavior in January of 1999, which continued until (and caused) his leaving the marital residence in April of that year. Defendant attributes the erratic behavior to her chemotherapy treatments. We think the more logical explanation for plaintiff's behavior to be defendant's articulated desire for a separation, which, not coincidentally, occurred in January of 1999. He moved out of the bedroom in February of 1999. Later in February, he informed plaintiff that the marriage was over, which made her an emotional wreck. Her crying, sobbing, fits of rage, and erratic behavior, were caused directly by her inability to handle the end of their twenty (20) year marriage, and led to defendant leaving the marital home on April 1, 1999. On May 7, 1999, plaintiff's father died. She had been named as his beneficiary on an individual retirement account which had a date of death balance of $64,500. In early July of 1999, plaintiff received a lump sum distribution from the IRA which 3 We do not question the sincerity of plaintiffs' complaints, nor do we doubt that she is, from time to time, debilitated by her problems. However, based upon the testimony of defendant's medical expert, we are persuaded that she could have worked a full time job. Her medical conditions are virtually identical today as they were in September of 1999. She is now gainfully employed at a full time job, albeit with flexible hours. · 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 amounted to $55,500, after taxes. Plaintiff also receives a pension of $927 per month from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.4 We find that she had an earning capacity of $552.71 net per month until September 30, 1999, and $1105.43 net per month thereafter.5 Defendant is employed at Phico Insurance in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He earned $64,583 gross in 1999. He received a raise to $69,400 in 2000. He also received a $5,000 bonus in April of 2000. Based upon those figures, we have determined defendant's net monthly income to be $3720.43 per month in 1999 and $4231.16 thereafter.6 He also has health insurance with prescription benefits available to cover himself and plaintiff through his employer. However, the record is not clear whether he must pay for this coverage. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1.) Plaintiff is entitled to spousal support. (2.) Plaintiff's entitlement to spousal support precludes an award of APL. (3.) The IRA distribution to plaintiff from her deceased father must be considered as income for purposes of calculating spousal support under the guidelines. (4.) Plaintiff is entitled to spousal support in the amount of $879.60 per month effective, July 1, 2000. 4 There was no testimony as to the taxable portion of the retirement annuity. However, we find it to be minimal, since her entire 1999 tax liability apparently resulted from the IRA distribution. 5 This earning capacity is based upon her current job where she earns $22,500 per year. In light of her prior training, experience, and medical problems, we feel that this amount is fair to both parties. 6 We included 70% of his $5,000 bonus to determine his net inc~)me after 1999. 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 DISCUSSION Entitlement to Spousal Support. The first issue we must address is whether plaintiff is entitled to spousal support. Since defendant is the separating spouse, he can only be relieved of his duty to support his wife if he had grounds for divorce at the time of separation. Porter v. Karivalis, 718 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 1998). As the Porter Court stated' The mere fact of separation does not suspend the duty of spousal support. As we first noted in Samuels v. Hirz, 189 Pa. Super. 492, 151 A.2d 640 (1959), and which remains tree today on a mutual basis, [i]t is well established in this Commonwealth that a husband assumes the duty of reasonably supporting his wife when he marries, and his duty is a continuing one of which, in the absence of grounds for divorce, he cannot relieve himself by separation. The obligation is imposed by law as an incident of the marital status. Id. At 494, 151 A.2d at 641. /d. At 827. See also King v. King, 390 Pa. Super. 226, 568 A.2d 627 (1989).7 Defendant articulated concern for his safety, arising from plaintiff's erratic and emotional behavior, as the cause for his leaving the marital home. Even if we were to accept his testimony as credible, we are satisfied that he did not have grounds for divorce at the time of separation. We find as a fact that any erratic behavior exhibited by plaintiff was a direct result of defendant's provocation. Instead of providing the emotional support she needed during her chemotherapy, he told her that he wanted a separation and, later, that the marriage was over. Under these circumstances, although he may have felt 7 While the separating spouse needs to have grounds for divorce to negate the duty to pay support, he or she only needs "adequate legal cause for leaving" in order to be entitled to support. See Clendenning v. Clendenning, 392 Pa. Super. 33, 38-39, 572 A.2d 18, 21 (1990). 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 "injured", he certainly was not "innocent." See 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 3301 (a)(6). Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff is entitled to spousal support.8 IRA Distribution as Income In early July of 1999, plaintiff received $64,500 as the named beneficiary on her deceased father's IRA account. After taxes, she netted $55,500. We must consider this lump sum distribution as income for purposes of calculating the support due under the guidelines. Humphreys v. Deross, 737 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999).9 While it is clear that we must consider the IRA distribution to be income, it is far from clear how the distribution should affect the guideline calculations. The comment to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a)(8) provides as follows: The trial court has discretion to determine the most appropriate method for imputing lump-sum awards as income for purposes of establishing or modifying the party's support obligation. These awards may be annualized or they may be averaged over a shorter or longer period of time depending on the circumstances of the case. The unexpected receipt of the inheritance was a financial windfall to the plaintiff, although one that carried a great emotional price. The Humphreys decision allows the defendant to share in this windfall. We are prepared to annualize the receipt of the inheritance to calculate the support due. To average it over a shorter period would 8 Since an award for APL and spousal support cannot co-exist, we will dismiss plaintiff's petition for APL. See Pa. RCP 1910.16-1(c). 9 In a 5-4 decision, the majority in Humphreys held that an inheritance must be considered income for purposes of calculating support due under the guidelines. In a well reasoned opinion, Judge Eakin, speaking for the dissent, strongly argued that it should not. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted review (759 A.2d 371), we are bound by the decision of the Superior Court until such time as there is a ruling from the Supreme Court. 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 increase the windfall to plaintiff. To average it over a longer period would increase the windfall to defendant. We see no good reason to do either.~° Guideline Calculations. By annualizing the IRA distribution, plaintiff's net monthly income is increased by $4625 through July 1, 2000. Since this is greater than defendant's net monthly income, there is no support due during this period. Thereafter, the support calculations are as follows: $4231. -2032. $2199. x .4 $ 879.60 - defendant's net monthly income - plaintiff's net monthly income/earning capacity - support due Since we see no reason to deviate from the guidelines, we will enter an order for that amount. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ND day of FEBRUARY, defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the sum of $879.60 per month for the support of plaintiff, effective July 1, 2000. Arrears, or credit, shall be determined by the Domestic Relations Office. Defendant is also ordered and directed to continue medical insurance coverage on plaintiff as provided by his employer. If there is a cost incurred by defendant for 10 We agree with the observation made by President Judge McEwen in his concurring opinion in Humphreys that there is a "need for a formula, from the Legislature or the Supreme Court, to more fairly and uniformly adjust actual incomes to reflect unusual income receipts." 737 A.2d at 787. 2000-0022 CIVIL - 316 SUPPORT 1999 - PACSES 252100971 providing said coverage, plaintiff shall reimburse defendant for 33% of said cost. Any unreimbursed medical bills incurred by plaintiff shall be her sole responsibility. Plaintiff's claim for Alimony Pendente Lite is DENIED. By the Court, Kathleen C. Daley, Esquire 1029 Scenery Drive Harrisburg, Pa. 17109 For the Plaintiff Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12TM Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa. 17043 For the Defendant Domestic Relations Office 'sld /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J.