Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout45 S 2000 MARIA L. MARTINEZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : JOHNNY J. MARTINEZ, SR., : PACSES NO. 400101913 Defendant : DOCKET NO. 45 SUPPORT 2000 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW , this 3rd day of March, 2008, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master’s Findings of Fact and Recommendation 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 Recommendation are dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court dated December 6, 2007, is entered as a Final Order of Court. By the Court, ___________________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. MARIA L. MARTINEZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : JOHNNY J. MARTINEZ, SR., : PACSES NO. 400101913 Defendant : DOCKET NO. 45 SUPPORT 2000 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., March 3, 2008- In this support case, Plaintiff, Maria L. Martinez, has filed a Complaint seeking support from her husband, Defendant Johnny J. Martinez, Sr. A support hearing was held before the Support Master, after which an Interim Order was entered based upon the Master’s Report and 1 Recommendation. Defendant has now filed exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and 2 Recommendation. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant’s exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendation are dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Plaintiff, Maria L. Martinez, and Defendant, Johnny J. Martinez, Sr., are the parents of six minor children: Johnny J. Martinez II, born May 22, 1997, Kayla M. Martinez, born December 18, 1998, Aryanna L. Martinez, born April 21, 2000, Julianne I. Martinez, born July 10, 2001, Jacob J. Martinez, born December 3, 2005, and Jordyn R. Martinez, born October 9, 3 2007. The parties separated in July 2007, but remain legally married. The children all reside 1 Interim Order of Court, Dec. 7, 2007. 2 Defendant Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Dec. 26, 2007. 3 Notes of Testimony (Hereinafter “N.T. __”), Support Master Hearing held Dec. 6, 2007, at 4-5. 2 4 with their mother. On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint for support of the 5 parties’ children. Plaintiff was last employed in May 2007, in a temporary position as an accounting 6 assistant, but currently remains at home to care for her two non-school age children – the 7 youngest of which suffers from pulmonary hypertension. Defendant is employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a corrections officer at the State Corrections Institute in Camp Hill. He earns an hourly wage of $17.04 and a gross bi- weekly wage of $1363.20. He pays bi-weekly union dues of $16.36 and has a mandatory 8 retirement deduction of $75.72. 9 On December 6, 2008, an Interim Order of Court was issued implementing the Master’s 10 Report and Recommendation as follows: A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for his children, Johnny J. Martinez II, born May 22, 1997, Kayla M. Martinez, born December 18, 1998, Aryanna L. Martinez, born April 21, 2000, Julianne I. Martinez, born July 10, 2001, Jacob J. Martinez, born December 3, 2005, and Jordyn R. Martinez, born October 9, 2007, the sum of $1,257.00 per month. B. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $30.00 per month on arrearages. C. The Defendant shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of said children as is provided through his 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 each child. Unreimbursed medical expenses of the children that exceed $250.00 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of 4 N.T. 5 5 Pl. Complaint filed Sept. 21, 2007. 6 N.T. 5-6 7 N.T. 6 8 See Def. Ex. 1. 9 Interim Order of Court, filed Dec. 6, 2007. 10 See Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Dec. 6, 2007. 3 unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of expenses to the st other party no 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: 100% by Defendant and 0% by Plaintiff. E. Commencing with tax year 2007 the Defendant shall be entitled to claim said children as dependency exemptions for federal income tax purposes, and the Plaintiff shall execute and deliver in a timely fashion any and all documentation required by the Internal Revenue Code to effectuate said exemptions. F. The effective date of this order is September 21, 2007. On December 26, 2007, Defendant filed exceptions to the Master’s Report and 11 Recommendation, in which he essentially claimed: 1.) The Support Master erred in the calculations of Defendant’s biweekly/monthly gross calculations – claiming that the Support Master mistakenly found that Defendant earned $2954.00 per month, when in fact his gross amount calculates to $2726.00. 2.) The Support Master erred in calculating Defendant’s monthly net income – claiming that the Support Master mistakenly calculated Defendant’s monthly net pay to be $2376.00, when in fact his monthly net pay calculates to $2044.00. 3.) The Support Master erred in finding that Defendant claimed 7 dependency exemptions when in fact he is only claiming 4 exemptions/allowances. DISCUSSION I. Scope of Review As we have stated many times before, the law as to the standard of review of a Support Master’s Report and Recommendation is well settled. Unless the transcript reveals a ground upon which the master's finding of credibility may be impeached, a court will give the master’s conclusions upon that factor, based upon his observation of appearance and demeanor, 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 11 Defendant Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Dec. 26, 2007. 4 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 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 A. Appropriate Application of the Nurturing Parent Doctrine 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). Generally, in determining a parent's ability to provide support, the focus lays on earning capacity rather than on the parent's actual earnings. However, in appropriate cases, the earning capacity of a parent who elects to stay home with a young child need not be considered when calculating support. This “nurturing parent doctrine” excuses the parent from , contributing support. Reinert v. Reinert926 A.2d 539, 542-43 (Pa. Super. 2007). In deciding if the doctrine applies, a trial court must consider ‘the age and maturity of the child, the availability of others who might assist the child, the availability of others who might assist the parent, the adequacy of financial resources at home, and finally, the parent's desire to stay home and nurture the child.’ Id. at 543, citing Kelly v. Kelly, 633 A.2d 218, 219 (Pa. Super. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Master appropriately assigned no earning capacity to Plaintiff for support calculations in this case. Plaintiff remains at home to care for her two youngest children – ages 2 and 4 months – the youngest of which suffers from a medical condition. Considering the young age of the children, the special health needs of the youngest, and the fact that the record 5 indicates no means of alternative child care, we find that this case warrants an application of the nurturing parent doctrine. B. The Support Master Did Not Err in Calculating Defendant’s Earnings. 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. Defendant’s first and second exceptions pertain to the Master’s calculations of Defendant’s monthly gross and net income. In reviewing the pertinent materials, it is clear that the Master did not err in calculating Defendant’s monthly gross and net earnings. The Master found that Defendant has a gross monthly income of $2954.00. Defendant, working 40 hours per week, receives a bi-weekly pay check of $1363.20. Consequently, he earns a gross annual income of $35,443.20 and a gross monthly income of $2953.60 – exactly 12 what the Master found to be his gross monthly income. Defendant, however, contends that his monthly gross income is simply twice his bi-weekly income of $1,363.20, and should thereby be calculated as $2,726.40. However, this is not the correct manner of calculation. Two payments every month would only account for 24 payments, when a year contains 52 weeks – or 26 bi- weekly payments. While it may appear that the Defendant is paid twice a month, he is truly paid every two weeks. Therefore, the Master did not err in his calculations of Defendant’s gross or net monthly income and Defendant’s exception to the report is thereby denied. C.The Master Did Not Err in Attributing Seven Exemptions to Defendant. Defendant next contends that the Master erred in attributing 7 dependency exemptions to Defendant’s support calculation when Defendant has previously only claimed 4 dependency exemptions. We find this argument to be without merit. The law dictates that, as justice and 12 See Ex. A attached to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. 6 fairness require, a court may award the federal child dependency tax exemption to the non- custodial parent. The tax consequences resulting from an award of the child dependency exemption must be considered in calculating each party’s income available for support. May v. May,837 A.2d 566, 569 (Pa. Super. 2003). Plaintiff does not work and allowing her to claim the children as dependents would be inefficient to both parties. Accordingly, the Master correctly found that Defendant is eligible to claim his six children as dependency exemptions beginning tax year 2007. The support hearing took place on December 6, 2007. As such, the dependency claims are properly included in the 2007 tax year and are timely attributed, considering that tax season is upon us. Whether or not he chooses to claim all of his children as dependents is irrelevant for purposes of support calculation – the key question is eligibility. Defendant’s exception is therefore denied. CONCLUSION Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master did not err in calculating Defendant’s monthly income nor did the Master err by including all 7 possible exemptions in Defendant’s support calculations. Accordingly, the following order will be entered: 7 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW , this 3rd day of March, 2008, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master’s Findings of Fact and Recommendation 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 Recommendation are dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court dated December 6, 2007, is entered as a Final Order of Court. By the Court, ___________________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr. J. Maria L. Martinez, Pro Se Johnny J. Martinez, Sr., Pro Se 8