HomeMy WebLinkAbout979 S 2001
MELISSA S. MATHNA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
TODD E. MATHNA, : PASCES NO. 827104028
Defendant : No. 979 SUPPORT 2001
IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS
TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OR COURT
OLER, J., December 14, 2007.
For disposition in this child support case are pro se exceptions filed by a
mother to a support master’s report. The report recommended, inter alia, (a) the
imposition of a basic monthly support obligation upon the father of $530.00 for
the parties’ two children, (b) imposition upon the father of responsibility for 67%
of annual unreimbursed medical expenses in excess of $250.00, (c) imposition of
responsibility for obtaining health insurance for the children upon the mother to
the extent of the availability of such insurance through her employment or through
1
some other form of group coverage at a reasonable cost, and (d) assignment of the
dependency exemptions related to the children for federal income tax purposes to
2
the father. The recommendations were incorporated into an Interim Order of
3
Court dated October 3, 2007.
The exceptions filed by the mother stated as follows:
1. I disagree with the decision that the Defendant gets to claim the
children on tax returns.
a. He never provides anything for the boys for school
activities, holidays or anything else.
1
As of the master’s hearing herein, “Gateway” provided medical insurance coverage for the
parties’ children. N.T. 11, Master’s Hearing, October 1, 2007 (hereinafter N.T. ___).
2
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed October 3, 2007.
3
Interim Order of Court, October 3, 2007.
2. When I start working it will probally be part time and I don’t know
4
how I will be able to get health insurance on the boys.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff’s exceptions to the support
master’s report will be dismissed, and the Interim Order of Court incorporating the
recommendations of the master will be entered as a final order of court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 21, 2002, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for child
support with respect to two children of the parties, Caleb L. Mathna (d.o.b. June
5
28, 1993) and Brandon Mathna (d.o.b. February 26, 1995). Most recently,
Plaintiff filed a Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order on June 19,
2007, asserting as a basis therefor that she had “found out he’s working and gets
6
money from racing.”
A hearing before the Cumberland County Support Master was held on this
7
petition on October 1, 2007. At the hearing both parties appeared pro se. The
evidence at the hearing supported the following findings of the master:
1. The Plaintiff is Melissa S. Mathna, who resides at 1707 English
8
Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant is Todd E. Mathna, who resides at 101 Regency
Woods North, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and whose mailing address is P.O.
9
Box 392, Shermansdale, Pennsylvania 17090.
3. The parties are the parents of two minor children, Caleb L. Mathna,
born June 28, 1003, and Brandon Mathna, born February 26, 1995, both of
10
whom reside with the Plaintiff.
4. By order dated February 1[4], 2006 the Defendant’s support
11
obligation for said child was set at $300.00 per month.
4
Plaintiff’s exceptions to support master’s report, filed October 5, 2007.
5
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Support, filed May 21, 2002.
6
Plaintiff’s Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed June 19, 2007.
7
Defendant has subsequently secured representation in the person of Paul J. Esposito, Esq.
8
N.T. 3.
9
N.T 13.
10
N.T. 3-4, 13.
11
Order of Court, February 14, 2006.
2
5. On June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a petition for modification of
12
said order.
13
6. The Plaintiff is currently not employed.
7. The Plaintiff was last employed by Rite Aid pharmacy as a
14
pharmacy technician in June, 2007.
8. The Plaintiff lost her employment due to absences from work
15
related to Brandon’s disability.
9. Brandon has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder, Reactive Attachment Disorder, Oppositional Defiance Disorder,
16
and Bipolar Disorder.
10. Brandon has episodes of violent conduct at times resulting in
17
injuries to others.
11. On a normal school day Brandon leaves for school at 8:10 a.m.
18
and returns at 3:30 p.m.
12. Brandon attends school at the Intermediate Unit servicing his
19
home school district.
13. The Plaintiff received numerous telephone calls while at work
from Brandon’s school often requiring her to leave work to remove
20
Brandon from school.
14. The Plaintiff is a certified nursing assistant and has worked as a
21
pharmacy technician.
15. The Plaintiff has made good faith efforts to obtain employment in
her field for the time Brandon is in school but has been unsuccessful in
22
finding work.
16. Brandon receives $627.00 per month in Supplemental Security
23
Income (SSI) because of his medical condition.
12
Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed June 19, 2007.
13
N.T. 8.
14
N.T. 8.
15
N.T. 8-9.
16
N.T. 4-5.
17
N.T. 5-9, 11-12.
18
N.T. 7-8.
19
N.T. 4.
20
N.T. 9.
21
N.T. 10.
22
N.T. 9-11.
23
N.T. 20.
3
17. The Plaintiff also has a 16 year old daughter residing in her
24
household.
18. The Defendant is employed as a laborer by Brandenburg Electric,
25
Inc.
26
19. The Defendant’s hourly rate of pay is $13.00.
20. The Defendant is married and resides with his wife and their two
27
year old child.
28
21. The Defendant’s wife earns approximately $18,000.00 annually.
22. The Defendant and his wife file a joint marital income tax
29
return.
The master’s rationale with respect to his recommendations was expressed,
in part, in the report as follows:
The Plaintiff has no actual earnings at the present time because she is
not gainfully employed. When the prior order was entered she was
employed as a certified nursing assistant in a nursing home. She lost that
employment and subsequent employment in a pharmacy because of
numerous absences from work when called by Brandon’s school. The
Plaintiff cannot realistically maintain employment because of the demands
associated with Brandon’s disability. Consequently no earning capacity is
imputed to her at the present time.
The Defendant earns $14.00 per hour as a construction laborer. With
gross monthly income of $2,253.00 and filing a joint marital income tax
return with his three children, including Caleb and Brandon, claimed as
dependency exemptions, he has net monthly income for support purposes
of $1,987.00. The support obligation for two children based on income of
$1,987.00 is $700.00 per month. However, the Defendant also has a child
to his wife for whom he has a support obligation. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
1910.16-7 the Defendant receives a downward adjustment in is obligation
in his obligation in the present case to $589.00 per month.
The Plaintiff receives $627.00 per month as SSI benefits for Brandon.
Although a child’s SSI may not be considered in calculating the
presumptive amount of child support under the guidelines, the trier of fact
may in its discretion consider such benefits [as] the basis for deviating
from the guidelines if application of the guidelines would render an unjust
24
N.T. 9, 12.
25
N.T. 14.
26
N.T. 15-16.
27
N.T. 13-14.
28
N.T. 21.
29
N.T. 16; Support Master’s Report, filed October 3, 2007, at 1-2.
4
result. . . . In this case, a downward deviation to $530.00 per month is
30
recommended.
With respect to the assignment of dependency exemptions to the father, the
master’s recommendation was explained in the report as follows:
The dependency exemption for [a] child may be awarded to the non-
custodial parent when doing so is in the child’s best interest. Piso v. Piso,
761 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2000). In this case the Plaintiff gets no
monetary advantage from the dependency exemption for her sons because
she has no earned income. Rewarding the exemptions to the Defendant
31
gives him a higher net income with which to support the children.
DISCUSSION
On a review of a support master’s report, a trial court is to employ the same
standard as is applicable to a review of a divorce master’s report. Goodman v.
Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (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.; see McCurdy v. McCurdy, No. 02-0097 Support (slip op.)
(Cumberland Co. 2002) (Hess, J.). Thus, on exceptions to a master’s report, “[i]t
is the sole province and responsibility of the [trial] court to set an award of
support, however much it may choose to utilize a master’s report.” Goodman v.
Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507-08, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988).
It is, of course, the rule that current support obligations are to be
determined upon the basis of existing conditions as opposed to contingencies that
may or may not occur in the future. See Commonwealth v. Wilmsen, 112 Pa.
Super. 119, 170 A. 418 (1934).
In the present case, two factors militate against the entry of an order
granting Plaintiff’s exceptions to the support master’s report. First, the master’s
assignment of dependency exemptions to Defendant was warranted as
economically beneficial to the children and harmless to Plaintiff under the
30
Support Master’s Report, filed October 3, 2007, at 2-3 (footnotes and citations omitted).
31
Support Master’s Report, filed October 3, 2007, at 3 n.1.
5
circumstances existing as of the Master’s hearing. Second, the question of
whether a future employer of Plaintiff would offer medical insurance coverage for
the children at a cost which she can reasonably afford was sufficiently divorced
from circumstances existing as of the Master’s hearing as to preclude its
consideration on exceptions to the resultant report.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
th
AND NOW, this 14 day of December, 2007, upon consideration of
Plaintiff’s exceptions to the support master’s report, and for the reasons stated in
the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the Interim Order of
Court dated October 3, 2007, is entered as a final order.
BY THE COURT,
s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Cumberland County
Support Master
Melissa S. Mathna
1707 English Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Plaintiff, pro Se
Paul J. Esposito, Esq.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Attorney for Defendant
6
7
MELISSA S. MATHNA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
TODD E. MATHNA, : PASCES NO. 827104028
Defendant : No. 979 SUPPORT 2001
IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS
TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OR COURT
th
AND NOW, this 14 day of December, 2007, upon consideration of
Plaintiff’s exceptions to the support master’s report, and for the reasons stated in
the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the Interim Order of
Court dated October 3, 2007, is entered as a final order.
BY THE COURT,
_________________
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Cumberland County
Support Master
Melissa S. Mathna
1707 English Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Plaintiff, pro Se
Paul J. Esposito, Esq.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Attorney for Defendant