Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout341 S 2007 TERRY L. GONZALEZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : H.R. GASULL III, : PACSES: 317109141 Defendant : DOCKET NO. 341 SUPPORT 2007 ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 10 day of December, 2007, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master’s Findings of Fact and Recommendations are credible and should be awarded the fullest consideration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendations are dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court dated September 7, 2007, is entered as a Final Order of Court. By the Court, ___________________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. Kara W. Haggerty, Esquire Counsel for the Plaintiff 36 S. Hanover St. Carlisle PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 H.R. Gasull, III, Pro-Se TERRY L. GONZALEZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : H.R. GASULL, III, : PACSES: 317109141 Defendant : DOCKET NO. 341 SUPPORT 2007 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., December 10, 2007- 1 In this support case, Plaintiff, Terry L. Gonzalez, filed a Complaint for Support from Defendant, H.R. Gasull III, for support of the couple’s daughter, Cassandra. On June 18, 2007, President Judge Edgar B. Bayley entered an Interim Order of Court under which Defendant was required to provide $560.00 per month in support for Cassandra and $40.00 per month in 23 arrears. Defendant requested a de novo hearing and a hearing was held before the Support Master on August 29, 2007. Following the hearing, an Interim Order was entered based upon 4 the Master’s Report and Recommendations. Defendant has now filed exceptions to the Support 5 Master’s Report and Recommendations. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendations are dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Terry Gonzalez and Defendant Henry Robert Gasull, III, are the parents of 67 Christina Gasull (emancipated) and Cassandra Gasull, 16. The parties separated approximately 1 Pl. Complaint filed May 7, 2007. 2 Interim Order of Court, June 18, 2007. 3 Def. Request for De Novo Hearing, filed July 6, 2007. 4 Interim Order of Court, Sep. 7, 2007. 5 Defendant Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Sept. 26, 2007. 6 Notes of Testimony (Hereinafter “N.T. __”), Support Master Hearing held Aug. 29, 2007, at 3-4. 7 N.T. 4 2 8 13 years ago, and, until recently, both daughters lived solely with their father. Plaintiff has remarried since and currently lives with her husband, Juan Gonzalez, and her 10 year old son, 9 Juan Gonzalez. In February or March of 2006, at the Defendant’s urging, Cassandra went to 10 live with Plaintiff in order to spend some time with their mother. (Cristina now also lives with 11 her mother.) Plaintiff is a registered nurse and works at Holy Spirit Hospital at an hourly rate of $28.18. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff’s year-to-date gross pay was $42,223.61. Plaintiff 12 pays $191.07 bi-weekly for health insurance coverage on her family – including Christina and Cassandra. She files her federal income tax return jointly with her husband, who earns approximately $300.00 per week. Plaintiff plans on claiming all three of her children as 13 dependents this tax year. Defendant is employed as an Electronic Data Interchange Analyst by Rite Aid Corporation. He earns a salary of $52,000.00 per year and is paid on a bi-weekly basis. Defendant files as a single taxpayer for federal tax purposes. Defendant still maintains primary 14 custody of both children, though neither child currently resides in his home. 15 On September 7, 2007, an Interim Order of Court was issued implementing the Master’s Report and Recommendations as follows: A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for his child, Cassandra Gasull, born December 14, 1990, the sum of $540.00 per month. 8 N.T. 10 9 N.T. 4 10 N.T. 11 11 N.T. 4 12 See Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Sept. 7, 2007. The Master’s report states that Plaintiff pays $191.07 bi-weekly for health insurance coverage, while at the hearing, Plaintiff testified that she paid $178.19 bi- weekly. We will give the Master’s report the full consideration. 13 N.T. 4-8 14 N.T. 9-10 15 Interim Order of Court, filed June 21, 2006. 3 B. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $40.00 per month on arrearages. C. The Plaintiff shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of said child as is available through employment or other group coverage at a reasonable cost. D. The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in the amount of $250.00 annually for unreimbursed medical expenses incurred for said child. Unreimbursed medical expenses of the child that exceed $250.00 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of expenses to the other party no st later than March 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated was received. The unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows: 42% by Defendant and 58% by Plaintiff. E. The effective date of this order is May 7, 2007. On September 26, 2007, Defendant filed exceptions to the Master’s Report and 16 Recommendations, in which he essentially claimed: 1.) The Support Master erred in calculating Plaintiff’s earnings because the testimony presented at the hearing was invalid. 2.) The Support Master erred in entering a support award which did not fully consider all of the factors which in the present case would warrant a deviation from the standard guideline range. DISCUSSION I. Scope of Review The law as to the standard of review of a Support Master’s Report and Recommendation is well settled. Unless the testimony and evidence provide grounds upon which the Master's finding of credibility can be impeached, the court will give his conclusions the fullest consideration. Foca v. Foca, 97 Dauph. 302 Pa.Com.Pl. (1975); See also Goodman v. Goodman, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988). However, while the court will afford great deference to the Master’s Report and Recommendation, the court is not bound by them. Tagnani v. Tagnani, 654 A.2d 1136, 1138 (1995). The reviewing court has the duty to make a complete and independent 16 Defendant Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed September 26, 2007. 4 review of all the evidence, including an analysis of the weight and credibility to be accorded to the testimony of the witnesses. Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Rptr. 22, 226-27 (1984). II.Exceptions to the Master’s Report As the Master pointed out in his report, both parties have a duty to support their children in accordance with their relative incomes and ability to pay. Depp v. Holland, 636 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 1994). Defendant earns a net monthly income of $3,219.00, while Plaintiff has a net monthly income of $4,434.00 for support purposes. The Master found that, with a combined net monthly income of $7,653.00, the basic requirement for the support of one child is $1,202.00. When the required amount of support is divided proportionally between the two parties, the Defendant is responsible for $506.00 per month and following an upward adjustment for health 17 insurance coverage the Defendant is responsible for $540.00 per month. A. The Support Master Did Not Err in Calculating Plaintiff’s Earnings. Defendant contends that the Support Master erred in calculating Plaintiff’s earnings because Plaintiff has been less than candid in regards to her household earnings. More specifically, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and her husband filed false income tax returns last year. He further contends that, in light of these supposedly false income tax returns, the character of the Plaintiff is flawed and her testimony before the Master is questionable in veracity. We find this argument without merit. Defendant points to alleged inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s husband’s income and extrapolates the theory that Plaintiff has been less than truthful in filing her tax returns. Defendant has not, however, provided any evidence to confirm such a contention. Defendant does suggest that, “[a] possible means by which this court could verify the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s testimony before the court would be by requesting copies of several previous years’ federal tax returns. The current employer of the plaintiff’s husband could also be questioned 17 See Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Sept. 7, 2007, at 2. 5 concerning the payment of income and other taxes. It may also be possible to inquire of the plaintiff’s husband’s employer last year, which I believe is a pizza place in Harrisburg, possibly 18 Roberto’s.” Defendant essentially asks this Court to conduct an independent investigation into the past financial history of Plaintiff’s husband – who is not even a party to this support hearing. Such a task is not the role of the Court. Again, unless the testimony and evidence provide grounds upon which the Master's finding of credibility can be impeached, the court will give his conclusions the fullest consideration. Foca v. Foca, supra. We find no such grounds for impeachment based upon Defendant’s very vague assertions. In reviewing the bases for the Master’s decision, we find that he relied upon Plaintiff’s pay stub and tax return information in order to assess her income. Her husband’s income was included in the tax information since the couple filed jointly. We cannot, therefore, agree with Defendant that the Master was at all imprudent in his findings, nor that further review into the character of the witnesses is necessary to achieve a fair and just result. Accordingly we reject Defendant’s argument that the Master erred in calculating Plaintiff’s earnings. B.The Support Master Did Not Err in Entering a Support Award Within the Standard Guidelines Defendant next contends that the Master did not fully consider all of the factors which would warrant a deviation from the standard guideline range. The support guidelines set forth the amount of support which a spouse or parent should pay on the basis of both parties' net monthly incomes and the number of persons being supported. Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-1. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 provides instruction for potential deviation from the standard guidelines. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b) states: 18 Defendant Brief regarding Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation filed Oct. 12, 2007, at 2. 6 “In deciding whether to deviate from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall consider: unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations; other support obligations of the parties; other income in the household; ages of the children; assets of the parties; medical expenses not covered by insurance; standard of living of the parties and their children; in a spousal support or alimony pendente lite case, the period of time during which the parties lived together from the date of marriage to the date of final separation; and other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children.” Having considered the record of the August 29, 2007, hearing, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Master should have deviated from the standard guidelines. Defendant, in his brief accompanying his exceptions, states that, “Neither the original hearing before Domestic Relations, nor the hearing before the Support Master (sic) 19 brought to light or took into consideration relevant facts in the case.” He proceeds to list a cacophony of facts which he failed to bring into the record at either hearing – including the assertion that he maintains two homes in order to participate fully in the 20 lives of both of his children. While we find Defendant’s alleged efforts understandable, we will not consider evidence outside the record – especially when he had multiple opportunities to bring such evidence to light. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 548 A.2d 611, 613-14 (Pa. Super. 1988)(“[T]he trial court is limited to the evidence presented before the master. While the trial court is obliged to conduct a complete and independent review of the evidence when ruling on exceptions, its scope of review, like that of this court, is limited to the evidence received by the master”). Because we find that there is no evidence in the record to support a necessary deviation from the standard support guidelines, we reject Defendant’s argument that Master erred in entering a support award within the standard guideline range. 19 Defendant Brief regarding Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation filed Oct. 12, 2007, at 3. 20 Id. at 3-4. 7 CONCLUSION Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master’s Findings of Fact and Recommendations are credible and should be awarded the fullest consideration. Defendant’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendations will be dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court shall stand as is. Accordingly, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 10 day of December, 2007, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master’s Findings of Fact and Recommendations are credible and should be awarded the fullest consideration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendations are dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court dated September 7, 2007, is entered as a Final Order of Court. By the Court, ___________________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. Kara W. Haggerty, Esquire Counsel for the Plaintiff 36 S. Hanover St. Carlisle PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 H.R. Gasull, III, Pro-Se 8