Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-6693 Civil AMY M. TAYLOR FAJARDO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : NO. 05-6693 CIVIL GERONCIO C. FAJARDO, : Defendant : PASCES NO. 924108032 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S INTERIM ORDER BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER Amy M. Taylor Fajardo (“Wife”) filed for divorce on December 22, 2005. Geroncio C. Fajardo (“Husband”) filed a petition for alimony pendente lite on February 7, 2006. On June 1, 2006, an interim order of court was entered, upon the Report and Recommendation of the Support Master, awarding alimony pendente lite (“APL”) to husband in the amount of $600 per month. The interim order was made final by an order of court on June 15, 2006. On November 15, 2006, husband filed a petition for modification alleging that wife had an increase in net monthly income from $8,978 to $10,869. A conference was held before Conference Officer Shadday and an order was entered on February 16, 2007, pursuant to which wife was to pay $1,600 per month in APL and $100 in arrears. Wife appealed the order, and a de novo hearing before Support Master Rundle was held. On May 2, 2007, an interim order of court was entered, upon the Report and Recommendation of Support Master, providing for payment by wife of APL to husband in the amount of $850 per month. Husband’s exceptions to this order are currently before the court. According to PA.R.C.P. 1910.12: (f) Within twenty days of the date of receipt or the date of mailing of the master's report and recommendation, whichever occurs first, NO. 05-6693 CIVIL any party may file exceptions to the report or any part thereof, to rulings on objections to evidence, to statements or findings of fact, to conclusions of law, or to any other matters occurring during the hearing. Each exception shall set forth a separate objection precisely and without discussion. Matters not covered by exceptions are deemed waived unless, prior to entry of the final decree, leave is granted to file exceptions raising those matters . . . . . . (h) . . . [t]he court shall hear argument on the exceptions and enter an appropriate final order . . . . The husband first complains of the significant disparity between the decisions of Conference Office Shadday and Support Master Rundle. Although Conference Officer Shadday and Support Master Rundle reached different conclusions as to the amount of APL husband should receive during the divorce proceedings, it is the decision of the support master which governs our review of the case. The hearing in front of the support master was a de novo hearing in which he received evidence and listened to argument. Our review pertains to the exceptions to the support master’s findings and a recalculation of the APL award is not necessary merely because there is a disparity between the conclusions of the conference officer and the support master. Upon review of a support master’s report, a trial court is to employ the same standard applicable to a review of a divorce master’s report. Goodman v. Goodman, 544 A.2d 1033, 1037 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988). “While such a report is to be given the fullest consideration, especially with regard to the credibility of witnesses,” the findings and conclusions are advisory rather than binding. Id. However, “[w]hile the lower court is not bound by the findings of the Master, his appraisal of the testimony is entitled to the fullest consideration, especially where his report represents a searching analysis.” Gillen v. Gillen, 169 A.2d 340, 342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1961). 2 NO. 05-6693 CIVIL Next, the defendant contends that the support master erred in failing to consider the husband’s car loan payment in determining his entitlement to APL. The support master, however, did consider husband’s car loan payment in his determination of APL. In fact, the master specifically noted that “Husband voluntarily refinanced his automobile loan shortening the time of the loan from 10 to 7 years and increasing the monthly payment from $487.00 to $602.00.” (Master’s Report ¶ 8.) Because the support master considered the car loan payment, a recalculation of the APL award on the ground that he failed to consider it would be inappropriate. Contrary to the defendant’s next exception, the support master did consider husband’s educational loan expenses. At the April 26, 2007 support master’s hearing, the master admitted the income and expense statement of husband into evidence, and gave husband the opportunity to comment on the exhibit. (N.T. 9, Support Master’s Hearing, April 26, 2007.) Although husband did not comment on the educational loan expenses, they were clearly labeled in the monthly expense statement as $312.54. (Master’s Report, Pet’r Exhibit 2.) Thus, they were for the master’s consideration. The petitioner also contends that the APL award is not fair and reasonable to the petitioner and that he is unable to meet his living expenses with his current income. We disagree. Husband earns a salary of $88,740.00. With the APL award of $850 per month, husband has an income of $98,940.00. The marriage between husband and wife was only for five years, and they did not have any children. The support master determined that many of the expenses on husband’s statement were inflated, and that husband had not demonstrated a need 3 NO. 05-6693 CIVIL for a larger award of APL. (Master’s Report, 2.) The contention that husband cannot meet his living expenses with his current income and the current award of APL is, simply, erroneous. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2007, the exceptions of the defendant to the report and interim order of the support master, dated May 2, 2007, are DENIED and same is made a final order of court. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Constance Brunt, Esquire For the Plaintiff Geroncio C, Fajardo, Pro Se Defendant Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :rlm 4 AMY M. TAYLOR FAJARDO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : NO. 05-6693 CIVIL GERONCIO C. FAJARDO, : Defendant : PASCES NO. 924108032 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S INTERIM ORDER BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER th AND NOW, this 17 day of October, 2007, the exceptions of the defendant to the report and interim order of the support master, dated May 2, 2007, are DENIED and same is made a final order of court. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Constance Brunt, Esquire For the Plaintiff Geroncio C, Fajardo, Pro Se Defendant Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :rlm