HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0060 SupportSUSAN K. FRITCHMAN-:
PICKFORD,
Plaintiff
Vo
SCOTT D. PICKFORD,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
PACSES CASE NO. 946100023
NO. 98-60 SUPPORT
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
BEFORE OLER, J.
p/. ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ t~ay of January, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's
petition for modification of the spousal and child support order of court dated
March 26, 1999, based upon an increase in the salary of Defendant, and of
Defendant's appeal from the recommended order of court dated April 3, 2000,
following a hearing held on June 30, 2000, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. From August 4, 1999, to November 1, 1999,
Defendant's basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed
at $1111.14 per month, with the percentages of income being
35% (Plaintiff) and 65% (Defendant), said figure including a
credit to Defendant for health insurance payments of
$197.70.69 The order is allocated as follows: $926.90 child and
$184.24 spouse.
2. From November 1, 1999, to January 12, 2000,
Defendant's basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed
at $1680.38 per month, with the percentages of income being
35% (Plaintiff) and 65% (Defendant), said figure including a
The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
A.
credit to Plaintiff for health insurance payment of $371.54.?°
The order is allocated as follows: $1496.14 child and $184.24
spouse.
3. From JanuaD' 12, 2000, to May 1, 2000, Defendant's
basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $1361.31
per month, with the percentages of income being 40%
(Plaintiff) and 60% (Defendant), said figure including a credit
to Plaintiff for health insurance payments of $350.59.TM The
order is allocated as follows: $1324.33 child and $36.98
spouse. To the extent that Defendant eventually receives a
bonus attributable to this period of employment, Plaintiff may
file a petition for modification based upon its receipt at that
time.
4. From May 1, 2000, until May 16, 2000, Defendant's
basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $0.00.
5. From May 16, 2000, until June 16, 2000, Defendant's
basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $607.97
per month, with the percentages of income being 65%
(Plaintiff) and 35% (Defendant), said figure including a credit
to Plaintiff for health insurance payments of $209.08.72 The
order is allocated as follows: $607.97 child and $0.00 spouse -
No spousal support is warranted.
6. From June 16, 2000, to June 30, 2000, Defendant's basic
spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $1269.70 per
month, with the percentages of income being 40% (Plaintiff)
and 60% (Defendant), said figure including a credit to Plaintiff
70 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
B.
?~ The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
C.
72 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
D.
for health insurance payments of $342.34.73 The order is
allocated as follows: $1269.70 child and $0.00 spouse -No
spousal support is warranted.
7. Commencing June 30, 2000, Defendant's basic spousal
and child support obligation is fixed at $1015.31 per month,
with the percentages of income being 40% (Plaintiff) and 60%
(Defendant)? The order is allocated as follows: $927.36 child
and $87.95 spouse.
8. The Domestic Relations Office is directed to recalculate
arrearages or credits in accordance with this order.
9. The generic and other terms of the order of court dated
April 3, 2000, not expressly or implicitly modified by this
order shall remain in fi. ill force and effect.
BY THE COURT,
·
~Wesle; q,~?r., J. 'Ii
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq.
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiff
James A. Miller, Esq.
Suite 100
513 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Defendant
73 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
E.
74 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
F.
SUSAN K. FRITCHMAN-:
PICKFORD,
Plaintiff
Vo
SCOTT D. PICKFORD,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
PACSES CASE ?.:O. c~:t~100023.., ,v
NO. 98-60 SUPPORT
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, J., January ~5 , 2001.
In this contentious spousal and child support case Plaintiff Susan K.
Fritchman-Pickford filed a petition for modification on August 4, 1999, based
upon an increase in the salary of Defendant Scott D. Pickford.l Following a
Domestic Relations Office conference,2 a recommended order was entered on
April 3, 2000. From this order, Defendant appealed to this court3 and a de novo
hearing on Plaintiff's petition for modification was held on June 30, 2000.
~ Plaintiff's Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed August 4, 1999.
The petition for modification was apparently filed on August 4, 1999, but not clocked in
until October 1, 1999. See Notes of Testimony 11, 36, Hearing, June 30, 2000 (hereinafter N.T.
__). Counsel have stipulated that the effective date of the order to be entered herein should be
August 4, 1999. N.T. 11.
Although the petition for modification indicated that the existing order had been entered
on April 23, 1998, the most recent order in the case was issued March 26, 1999, and was, at the
time the petition for modification was filed on August 4, 1999, the subject of a pending appeal by
Plaintiff in the Superior Court. The March 26, 1999, order was affirmed by the Superior Court on
April 7, 2000. Fritchman-Pickford v. Pickford, 694 MDA 1999 (Pa. Super. April 7, 2000)
(memorandum opinion).
2 See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.11.
3 Defendant's Appeal of Court Order, filed April 14, 2000.
The issues presented for resolution by the court were Defendant's
income/earning capacity since the filing of the petition for modification on August
4, 1999, and liability for certain health insurance premiums.4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff is Susan K. Fritchman-Pickford, 43; she resides at 525 Haldeman
Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? Defendant is
Scott D. Pickford, 41; he resides at 829 Darby Lane, Lancaster, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.6
The parties were married on September 2, 1992.7 Two children were born
of the marriage: William Scott Pickford (d.o.b. May 3, 1993) and Mackenzie Reed
Pickford (d.o.b. December 18, 1995).8 The parties separated On January 23, 1998.9
A divorce action is pending,l°
The children reside primarily with Plaintiff, their mother,ii Defendant has
partial or temporary custody of them each Tuesday, on alternating Thursdays, and
on alternating weekends.12
An order for spousal and child support in favor of Plaintiff was initially
entered on April 23, 1998.~3 Other orders have followed. On March 26, 1999, an
order was entered, following a hearing by the court, premised upon a monthly net
income/earning capacity of Plaintiff of $2,400.00 and a monthly net
income/earning capacity of Defendant of $3,770.00.
4 N.T. 5, 53-54.
5N.T. 7.
6 N.T. 7, 63.
?N.T. 8.
SN.T. 7.
°N.T. 8.
t°Id.
ti N.T. 55.
ti N.T. 21, 27.
13 Order of Court, April 23, 1998.
2
Plaintiff filed an appeal from the March 26, 1999, order to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court. On August 4, 1999, while the appeal was pending, she filed the
petition for modification subjudice, based upon an increase in Defendant's salary.
The March 26, 1999, order was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court.14
Plaintiff is an attorney who has chosen to stay home to be with the
children,is According to her counsel, she is "starting ... a book business.''t6 Her
monthly net income/earning capacity has been stipulated by the parties for present
purposes to be $2,400.00.17
Defendant is a construction manager18 or project manager.~9 From July of
1989 until April of 1994 he was employed by the Department of General Services
of San Luis Obispo County in California at an annual gross salary of $48,000.00.20
The parties then moved to Pennsylvania.2~
From May of 1994 until May of 1997 he was employed by a company
called CCI at an annual gross salary of $55,000.00.22 From May of 1997 until
April of 1998,23 he was employed by a company called Wohlsen at an annual
gross salary ranging from $58,000.00 to $62,000.00.24 From April of 1998, until
~4 Fritchman-Pickford v. Pickford, 694 MLD 1999 (Pa. Super. April 7, 2000) (memorandum
opinion).
~5 PlaintiWs employment history and decision to stay home with the children have been discussed
in an opinion of this court dated April 27, 1999.
16 N.T. 51.
~T ld'
la N.T. 7.
19 N.T. 26.
2o N.T. 42-43.
2~ N.T. 42.
22 N.T. 42-43.
23 See N.T. 9-10, 43.
24 N.T. 42, 45.
3
August 1, 1999,25 he was employed by a company called Norwood at an annual
gross salary ranging from $65,000.00 to $67,000.00.26
From August 1, 1999,27 until January 11, 2000,28 he was employed by a
company called York Hunter29 at afl annual gross salary of $80,000.00.30 From
January 12, 2000,31 until May 1, 2000,32 he was employed by a company called
IMC at an annual gross salary of $67,000.00.33 His employment at IMC provided
for a bonus under certain circumstances,34 but it is speculative at this point
whether a bonus will actually be received by Defendant.35
From May 1, 2000, until approximately May 16, 2000, Defendant had no
income? From May 16, 2000, until June 16, 2000,37 he received unemployment
compensation at the weekly gross rate of $408.00,38 or monthly gross rate of
$1,768.00. Since June 16, 2000,39 he has been employed by a company called
O'Brien Kreitzberg at an annual gross salary of $62,500.00.4°
25 N.T. 9-10, 12, 45.
26 N.T. 45.
27 N.T. 12.
2s N.T. 11-12.
29 N.T. 45.
3° N.T. 11-13.
3~ N.T. 16, 19, 22.
32 N.T. 23.
33 N.T. 24, 45.
34 N.T. 24, 28-29, 37.
35 N.T. 37.
36 N.T. 83-85.
3, N.T. 86.
3s Id. See Defendant's Exhibit 1.
39 N.T. 31, 84.
40 N.T. 31, 46.
4
41
For 1998, Defendant filed a married-filing-separately federal tax return.
For 1999, Defendant filed a federal tax return as a single individual.42
Defendant's employment change on January 11, 2000, from a job which
paid an $80,000.00 annual Moss salary to one which paid a $67,000.00 annual
gross salary was the product of several factors--the employer's loss of a project
on xvhich Defendant was working,43 a termination letter to Defendant from the
employer,44 and Defendant's refusal to accept a transfer to Atlantic City which
was incompatible with the exercise of his custodial rights (Plaintiff having been
unwilling to provide an alternative custodial arrangement).45
The change in Defendant's employment status in May of 2000, whereby
employment with a gross annual salary of $67,000.00 was lost, a short period of
unemployment ensued, and employment with a gross annual salary of $62,500.00
was obtained, resulted from the initial employer's breach of an understanding with
Defendant; the understanding was that Defendant's employment would not
interfere with the exercise of his custodial rights with respect to the parties'
children.46 In neither of these situations where Defendant experienced a reduction
of salary should Defendant, in the court's view, be regarded as having voluntarily
assumed a lower paying job or been fired for cause, for purposes of support laxv.
The level of income which he was able to achieve after each event was consistent
with his general pattern of earning over many years.
4~ N.T. 39.
42 Id. At the hearing, one of the counsel indicated that recent federal legislation may permit such
a status where the taxpayer has been separated for a period of at least six months. N.T. 39.
43 N.T. 15, 17.
44 N.T. 13.
45 N.T. 16, 20-21.
46 N.T. 27.
5
A considerable portion of the de novo hearing on Plaintiff's petition for
modification was devoted to the issue of liability for maintenance of COBRA47
health insurance coverage for Plaintiff and the children from November of 1999
until June of 2000.4a The cost of this coverage xvas $4,553.90.49
The COBRA coverage was generated by Defendant's employment at
Norwood5° (from April of 1998 until August of 1999). Upon leaving Norwood
and commencing employment at York Hunter (August of 1999), Defendant
continued the Notwvood coverage in effect, through COBRA.5t
In November of 1999, Defendant proposed that the COBRA coverage be
permitted to expire and that Plaintiff and the children be covered under a policy
offered by York Hunter.52 Plaintiff regarded the York Hunter coverage as
considerably less desirable, from the standpoint of her and the children, than the
COBRA coverage,53 and the court found her testimony on this point credible.
Plaintiff and the children xvere never in fact insured through the policy offered by
York Hunter,54 Plaintiff commenced paying the premiums for the COBRA
coverage herself in November without contribution from Defendant,5s and
Defendant lost his York Hunter employment txvo months later?
47 See Consolidated Omnibns Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, 26 U.S.C. § 162(k), Pub. L. No.
99-272, Title X, 100 Stat. 82 (1986).
48 N.T. 59.
40 Id.
50 N.T. 55.
5~ N.T. 56.
52 Plaintiff's Exhibit 8.
5.~ N.T. 57.
54 N.T. 56.
55 N.T. 58.
56 Id.
6
The parties had apparently anticipated that a portion of the premiums for
the COBRA coverage would be paid by Defendant? The situation as to insurance
coverage as of the date of the hearing in June of 2000 was not, in the court's view,
clear from the evidence presented?
DISCUSSION
Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, "It]he amount of support
to be awarded is based in large part upon the parties' monthly net income,''59 to
which the support guidelines are applied.6° As a general rule, where one's earning
capacity exceeds his actual income, the earning capacity figure is to be utilized for
the computation.6~ Thus, the rules provide that
[w]here a party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, there
generally will be no effect on the support obligation. A party
will ordinarily not be relieved of a support obligation by
voluntarily quitting work or by being fired for cause.62
With respect to health insurance premiums, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1910.16-6(b)(1)provides as follows:
A party's payment of a premium to provide health
insurance coverage on behalf of the other party or the children
shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their net
incomes, including the portion of the premium attributable to
the party who is paying it. If the obligor is paying the
premium, then obligee's share is deducted from the obligor's
basic support obligation. If the obligee is paying the premium,
then obligor's share is added to his or her basic support
57 N.T. 57. An attachment to Defendant's post-hearing brief, purporting to be a copy of a custody
agreement modification between the parties and pertaining in part to payment of the COBRA
premiums, has not been considered by the court. See Qttigley v. Miller, 49 Cumberland L.J. 107
(2000) (attachments to briefs not part of record).
58 See, e.g., N.T. 65-66. PlaintiWs obvious lack of confidence in Defendant's ability to assure
consistent medical coverage through his employment is understandable, in that recently the
duration of his employment with a given employer has not been very extended.
59 Pa. R.C.P. 1910.I6-2.
60 Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1(b).
6~ See, e.g., Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4) (income potential).
62 Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(1).
7
obligation. Employer-paid premiums are not subject to
allocation.
In the present case, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the legal
principles recited above, the court has concluded that Defendant's earning
capacity since the filing of PlaintifFs petition for modification on August 4, 1999,
has been equivalent to his actual income for purposes of application of the support
law, notwithstanding that his income has been higher at some times than others,
and that PlaintifFs insistence upon maintenance of health insurance through
COBRA was reasonable, notwithstanding that Defendant wished to abandon the
protection provided by COBRA for less desirable coverage provided through his
(short-lived) employment at York Hunter.
For these reasons, the following order will be entered:
~'t'[' ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of January, 2001, upon consideration of PlaintifFs
petition for modification of the spousal and child support order of court dated
March 26, 1999, based upon an increase in the salary of Defendant, and of
Defendant's appeal from the recommended order of court dated April 3, 2000,
following a hearing held on June 30, 2000, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. From August 4, 1999, to November 1, 1999,
Defendant's basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed
at $1111.14 per month, with the percentages of income being
35% (Plaintiff) and 65% (Defendant), said fiture including a
credit to Defendant for health insurance payments of
$197.70.63 The order is allocated as follows: $926.90 child and
$184.24 spouse.
63 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
A.
2. From November 1, 1999, to January 12, 2000,
Defendant's basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed
at $1680.38 per month, xvith the percentages of income being
35% (Plaintiff) and 65% (Defendant), said figure including a
credit to Plaintiff for health insurance payment of $371.54.64
The order is allocated as follows: $1496.14 child and $184.24
spouse.
3. From January 12, 2000, to May 1, 2000, Defendant's
basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $1361.31
per month, with the percentages of income being 40%
(Plaintiff) and 60% (Defendant), said figure including a credit
to Plaintiff for health insurance payments of $350.59.65 The
order is allocated as follows: $1324.33 child and $36.99
spouse. To the extent that Defendant eventually receives a
bonus attributable to this period of employment, Plaintiff may
file a petition for modification based upon its receipt at that
time.
4. From May 1, 2000, until May 16, 2000, Defendant's
basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $0.00.
5. From May 16, 2000, until June 16, 2000, Defendant's
basic spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $607.97
per month, with the percentages of income being 65%
(Plaintiff) and 35% (Defendant), said figure including a credit
to Plaintiff for health insurance payments of $209.08.66 The
64 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
B.
65 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
C.
66 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
D.
9
order is allocated as follows: $607.97 child and $0.00 spouse -
No spousal support is warranted.
6. From June 16, 2000, to June 30, 2000, Defendant's basic
spousal and child support obligation is fixed at $1269.70 per
month, with the percentages of income being 40% (Plaintiff)
and 60% (Defendant), said figure including a credit to Plaintiff
for health insurance payments of $342.34.67 The order is
allocated as follows: $1269.70 child and $0.00 spouse. No
spousal support is warranted.
7. Commencing.June 30, 2000, Defendant's basic spousal
and child support obligation is fixed at $1015.31 per month,
with the percentages of income being 40% (Plaintiff) and 60%
(Defendant).6s The order is allocated as follows: $927.36 child
and $87.95 spouse.
8. The Domestic Relations Office is directed to recalculate
arrearages or credits in accordance with this order.
9. The generic and other terms of the order of court dated
April 3, 2000, not expressly or implicitly modified by this
order shall remain in full force and effect.
BY THE COURT,
1, ...-, .,¥,'/
.,'/' ~/', t
67 The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
E.
6s The calculation under the support guidelines resulting in this obligation is attached as Exhibit
F.
10
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esq.
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiff
James A. Miller, Esq.
Suite 100
513 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Defendant
11
8/4/99.- 10/31/00' ~* , , ~ ~ " '~ ~--~'~..!,:~: ~:: ~. :X
F e :FeldOptions Help Navigati°nMenu:::PACSESHOIp:;~; ';:; ~ '
,c: I J OlDE Guideline Calculation CALVANMH 01/03/01 14::31
SUSAN K. FRITCHMANPI V. SCOTT D. PICKFORD
,..-,SE ID: 1046180023 I
SEONO: ~0207 I Sel:
Additional Family: []
Include: Child Care: E~
Number of Children Residing With
Monthly Net Income
Combined Monthly Net Income
Monthly Support
Defendant / Plaintiff Income Ratio
Each Parent's Guideline Obligation
Reduction for Shared Custody
Child Care Adjustment
Insurance Premium Adjustment
Other Adjustments
Medical Adjustments
Total Obligation with Adjustments
Split Custody Counterclaim
Total Monthly Child Support
Active: Worker: 21105 Date: 01/03/01
,nsurancePrern: ~ Additiona, Needs:~ Medical: r~
.... Defendant ........ Plaintiff----
I 510. 61 I . 00.001
6910.26
i rm.oo i
65.27%
1124.60
o.oo
o.oo
-197.70
o.oo
o.oo
926.90
0.00 I
926,90
:~4. '~:~ %
598.40
File Field Options ;~elp ~avtgatlon Menu EACSEo Help ;
Func: ~' I GSS! Spousal Suppod ReSul~ CALVANMH 01/03~1 14:31
1946100023 I F~TCHMANPICKFO~, S V. PICKFO~, SCOTT D.
CASE
ID:
SEQ NO:~0207 ~' Sel: N Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: 0~/03/01
Monthly Net Income:
Other Support Obligations:
Current Support Obligation:
Adjusted Net Income:
Income Available for Spousal Support:
Percent for Support:
Monthly Spousal Support:
De~ndant Plaintiff
4510.26 2400.00
0.00 0.00
1496.14
3014.12
614.12
3O
184.24
EXHIBIT
11/1/99 - 1/11/00'
F e Fled Opt ons: Help NaVgation Menu PACSES Help :
,c: t[' IGIDE
. ,SE ID: 1946100023 I
SEQ NO: I02o2 I S el: N
Additional Family: El
Include: Child Care: El
Number of Children Residing With
Monthly Net Income
Combined Monthly Net Income
Monthly Suppo~
Defendant / Plaintiff Income Ratio
Each Parent's Guideline Obligation
Reduction for Shared Custody
Insurance Premium Adjustment
Other Adjustments
Medical Adjustments
Total Obligation with Adjustrnents
Split Custody Counterclaim
Total Monthly Child Support
Guideline Calculation
SUSAN K. FRITCHMANPI V.
Active: N Worker: 21105
InsurancePrern: ~ Additional Needs: ~
.... Defendant ....
~-0'-] ,,
i 'mo.~'l
i
11:24.68
0.00
0.00
371.54
0.00
0.00
1496.14
o.ool
1496.14
CALVANMH 01/03/01
SCOTT D. PICKFORD
Date: 01/03/01
Medical: EJ
.... Plaintiff----
I 24oo.oo I
1723. O0 [
14:14
34.33 %
598.40
Eile Field DptiOns ,~elp ~avigation Menu P~CSES Help
FUnc: [ ] ~S[ Spousal Suppod ReSul~ CALVANMH 01~3~1 14:14
CASE ID: ~946100023 [ F~TCHMANPICKFO~, S V. PICKFO~, SCOTT D.
SEQ NO: ~8282 [ Sel: N Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: 81/03/01
Monthly Net Income:
Other Support Obligations:
Current Support Obligation:
Adjusted Net Income:
Income Available for Spousal Support:
Percent for Support:
Monthly Spousal Support:
De~ndant Plaintiff
4510.26 2400.00
0.00 0.00
t496.14
3014.12
614.12
30
184.24
ADO' CHANL~E
EXHIBIT
12~00 - 4~30~00
File Field Options Help Navigation Menu P_ACSES Help
- J GIDE Guideline Calculation CALVANMH 01Y03 01
,SE ID: 1946100023 I SUSAN K. FRITCHMANPI V. SCOTT D. PICKFORD
SEQ NO: 10203 J Sel: Active: Worker: 21105 Date: 01~03/01
Ad ditional Family": F~
Include: Child Care: r-~ Insurance Prern: Additional Needs: Medical: r--I
.... Defendant ........ Plaintiff----
Numoer of Children Residing With r-~
Ntonthly Net Income I 3847.58 I I 2400. oo i
Combined Monthly Net Income 624'7.58
lVlonthly Support I 1§8z. oo I
Defendant / Plaintiff Income Ratio 61, §9 %
Each Parent's Guideline Obligation
Reduction for Shared Custody o. oo
Child Care Adjustment o. oo
!ns,.,rance Premium Adjustment
Other Adjustments o. oo
Medical Adjustments o.
Total Obligation with Adjustments ls24.
Split Custody Counterclaim o. oo
Total Monthly Child Suppod
I
1324,33
14:15
60'7.26
~ile Field ~ptions ~elp ~avigation Menu P~CSES Help
Func: ~ I GSS! Spousal Suppod Resul~ CALVANMH 01~3~1 14:15
CASE ID: ~946~00023 I F~TCHMANPICEFO~, S V. PICEFO~, SCOTT D.
SEQ NO: t0203 ~ Sel: N Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: 01~3~01
Monthly Net Income:
Other Support Obligations:
Current Support Obligation:
Adjusted Net 'ncome:
Income Available for Spousal Support:
Percent for Support:
Monthly Spousal Support:
De~ndant Plaintiff
3847.58 2400.00
0.00 0.00
1324.33
2523.25
123.25
30
36.98
EXHIBIT
5/16/00 - 6/15/00
'F e Field Options Help :NaVigation Menu, PAOSES HelP'
-..,c: I .'.'1 61DE Guideline Calculation CAt. VANMH 01 3 1
SE ID: [g46100023 J SUSAN K. FRITCHMANPI V. SCOTT D. PICKFORD
SEQ NO: 10204 I Sol: Active: Worker: 21105 Date: 01,~03¢01
Additional Farnily: BI ~ ~
Include: Child Care: ~ Insurance Prom: Additional Needs:
Number of Children Residing With
Monthly Net Income
Combined Monthly Net Income
Monthly Support
Defendant / Plaintiff Income Ratio
Each Parent's Guideline Obligation
Reduction for Shared Custody
Child Care Adjustment
Insurance Premium Adjustment
Other Adjustments
Medical Adjustments
Total Obligation with Adjustments
Split Custody Counterclaim
Total Monthly Child Supped
Medical: r'-]
.... Plaintiff----
1086.00 I
%
.... De~ndant ....
t ....
i
36.73 63.27%
398.89 687.1~
O.00
0.00
209.08
0.O0
0.00
f o.o01
60?.97
14:17
Func: II lOSS!
Spousal Support Results
CALVANMH 01~3/01 14:17
CASE ID: §46100023I
SEQ NO: 0204 Scl: N
FPJTCHMANPICKFORD, S V. PICKFORD, SCOTT D.
Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: Ol~B3JOl
Monthly Net Income:
Other Support Obligations:
Current Support Obligation:
Adjusted Net Income:
Income Available for Spousal Support:
Percent for Support:
Monthly Spousal Support:
De~ndant Plaintiff
1393.49 2400.00
0.00 0.00
607.97
785.52
-1614.48
30
0.00
EXHIBIT D
6/16/00 - 6'30/00
File :Field OPtionS;Help Navigation Menu: PACSESHelp
- -,c: I ] GIDE Guideline Calculation CALVANMH 01~3~I)1 14:28
S~SEEQ ID: 1946100023 I SUSANK. FRITCHMANPI V. SCOTTD. PICKFORD
NO: 10205 ] Sel: N Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: 01~3~01
Additional Family: F-]
Include: Child Care: E] Insurance Prem: Additional Needs: Medicah
.... Defendant-: ...... Plaintiff----
Number of Children Residing With ~-~ .....
IVlonthly Net Income
Combined Monthly Net Income 6020.
Monthly Support 1 15,42. oo ]
Defendant / Plaintiff Income Ratio 60.1,4 % 39.86 %
Each Parent's Guideline Obligation 927.36 614.64
Reduction for Shared Custody o. co
Child Care Adjustment o.
Insurance Prerniurr~ Adjustment 3,42.3,4
Other Adjustments o. co
Medical Adjustrnents o.
Total Obligation with Adjustrnents 1269. ?0
Split Custody Counterclaim
Total Monthly Child Support 1269,70
File Field Options Help Navigation Menu PAOSES Help :
FUnC: [I ] COOl SpoUsal SuPpod Resulm CALVANMH 01m3¢nl 14:28
CASE ID: ~g46100023 i F~TCHMANPlCKFO~, S V. PICKFO~, SCOTT D.
SEQ NO: ~0205 ~ Sel: N Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: 01¢93¢01
Monthly Net Income:
Other Support Obligations:
Current Support Obligation:
Adjusted Net Income:
Income Available for Spousal Support:
Percent for Support:
IVlonthly Spousal Support:
De~ndant PLaintiff
3620.52 2400.00
0.00 0.00
1269.70
2350.82
-49.18
30
0.00
E.H,
EXHIBIT
7/I/00 - CURRENT
File Field Options Help NaVigation Menu P._ACSES Help
¢ ,,c: 1 ,',t GIBE
SE ID: 1948100023 I
SEQ biO: 10206 I Sel:
Additional Family: E~
Include: Child Care: []
Number of Children Residing With
Monthly Net Income
Combined Monthly Net Income
Monthly Support
Defendant / Plaintiff Income Ratio
Each Parent's Guideline Obligation
Reduction for Shared Custody
Child Care Adjustment
Insurance Premium Adjustment
Other Adjustments
Medical Adjustments
Total Obligation with Adjustments
Split Custody Counterclaim
Total Monthly Child Support
Guideline Calculation
SUSAN K. FRITCHMANPI
Active:
Insurance Prern:
Worker: 21105
~ Additional Needs: ~
.... Defendant ....
i 362o.5: I
CALVANMH 01/03,~01
SCOTT D. PICKFORO
Date: 01¢03101
Medicah BI
.... Plaintiff----
6020.52
i ~5,~.oo I
927.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
92?.36
927.$6
t4:29
39.8~ %
614.64
Eile Field Options _Help k. lavigation Menu _PACSES Help
FunC: ir 1 G$SI SPoUsal Support Results CALVANMH 01.¢03~01 14:29
CASE ID: 1946100023 I FRITCHMANPICKFORD, S V. PICKFORD, SCOTT D.
SEQ NO: 10206 I gel: N Active: N Worker: 21105 Date: 01.~3~1
Monthly Net Income:
Other Support Obligations:
Current Support Obligation:
Adjusted Net Income:
Income Available for Spousal Support:
Percent for Support:
rvlonthly Spousal Supped:
De~ndant Plaintiff
3620.52 2400.00
0.00 0.00
927.36
2693.16
293.16
30
87.95
EXHIBIT F