The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-1142 SupportCONNIE L. LIMRIC, Plaintiff Vo ROBERT V. LIMRIC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION NO. 97-1142 SUPPORT DR 27,186 IN RE: CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2000, upon consideration of Plaintiff's appeal from the order of court dated May 4, 1999, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the appeal is sustained to the extent that the order is amended to reflect the following: 1. From March 31, 1999, through May 4, 1999, Defendant's support obligation is set at $950.82 for two children and at $488.75 for his spouse per month, for a total of $1439.57, plus $43.45 per month on arrears, with respective percentages being 81% and 19%; 2. From May 5, 1999, through June 20, 1999, Defendant's support obligation is set at $972.75 for two children and at $514.55 for his spouse per month, for a total of $1487.30, plus $43.45 per month on arrears, with respective percentages being 81% and 19%; and 3. From June 21, 1999, Defendant's support obligation is set at $675.39 for one child and at $603.75 for his spouse per month, for a total of $1279.14, plus $43.45 on arrears, with respective percentages being 81% and 19%. Nora F. Blair, Esq. 5440 Jonestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, , f - .., , .,/I j~;Wesley O~e, Jr., J. ' ¥ Kristin R. Reinhold, Esq. 5922 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant CONNIE L. LIMRIC, Plaintiff Vo ROBERT V. LIMRIC, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- SUPPORT DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION NO. 97-1142 SUPPORT DR 27,186 IN RE: CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., February 1, 2000. In this support case, Plaintiff has appealed from an order of court dated May 4, 1999, providing for child and spousal support in the amount of $1,178.01 per month until June 20, 1999, and $967.02 per month thereafter. The order was precipitated by petitions by both parties to modify a support order issued on February 18, 1998, providing for child and spousal support in the amount of $1,430.03.~ Defendant does not contest his obligation to pay spousal support and child support.2 At issue is the proper amount of the obligation. A hearing was held on Plaintiff's appeal from the May 4, 1999, order on November 5, 1999, and December 10, 1999. STATEMENT OF FACTS Parties and children. Plaintiff is Connie Lee Limric; she resides at 23 East Beale Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.3 Defendant is Robert V. Limric; he resides at 4 East North Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.4 1 The order of court dated February sustained by this court on May 1, 1998. 2 N.T. 34, Hearing, December 10, 1999 (hereinafter N.T. __ 3 N.T. 25, Hearing, November 5, 1999 (hereinafter N.T. 18, 1998, had been appealed by Plaintiff and [December 10, 1999]). [November 5, 1999]). The parties are marrieds and are the parents of two children: Tanya Danielle Limric (d.o.b. June 20, 1981) and Jesse Ryan Limric (d.o.b. August 28, 1982).6 As of June 20, 1999, Tanya Danielle Limric reached the age of majority. Net incomes/earning capacities of parties. Plaintiff suffered a head injury in a 1993 car accident7 and receives social security disability incomefi Her net monthly income/earning capacity at all times pertinent hereto has been $791.00.9 Defendant is a shift foreman for a company that makes plastic injection molds,l° He works between 50 and 55 hours a week.~ His gross monthly income prior to May 5, 1999, was $4,273.94 and thereafter has been $4,420.67.~2 This translates into a net monthly income/earning capacity prior to May 5, 1999, of $3370.98, and thereafter of $3478.90. It is anticipated that the parties' will continue to file joint tax returns.13 4 N.T. 9-10 (November 5, 1999). 5 N.T. 10 (November 5, 1999). 6 See Order of Court, May 4, 1999.' 7 N.T. 27, 34 (November 5, 1999); N.T. 32 (December 10, 1999). 8 N.T. 27 (November 5, 1999). 9 N.T. 6 (December 10, 1999). The court was not persuaded that the evidence would support a finding that Plaintiff's earning capacity was in excess of her income. n0 N.T. 21 (November 5, 1999); N.T. 20, (December 10, 1999). ~t N.T. 21-22 (November 5, 1999). ~2 N.T. 12-13 (base salary) (November 5, 1999); N.T. 23, Defendant's Exhibit 7 (bonuses) (December 10, 1999). The court was not persuaded that the evidence would support a finding that Defendant earned additional income from a second employer. ~3 See N.T. 13-15 (November 5, 1999); N.T. 6 (December 10, 1999). 2 Mortgage payment on marital residence. Plaintiff lives in a home titled in the names of herself, her mother and her stepfather.14 Prior to the parties' separation, this home served as the marital residence, and was half owned by Plaintiff and Defendant and half owned by Plaintiff's mother and stepfather? Following the parties' separation, Defendant effected the removal of his name as an owner of record of the marital residence.~6 However, he remains a debtor on a note secured by a mortgage upon the premises,i? Plaintiff has been making the mortgage payments of $1,015.68 per month.18 Living with Plaintiff in the home are the parties' son, the parties' (now adult) daughter, the boyfriend of the parties' daughter, Plaintiff's mother, and, three days a week, Plaintiff's male companion.~9 Apparently, Plaintiff does not seek contribution from any of the other adults in the home toward payment of the mortgage.2° Court-ordered payment on joint debt. Plaintiff previously appealed the February 18, 1999, support order on the ground that she had agreed to the order with the understanding that Defendant would be making payments on a certain joint loan.2~ On May 1, 1998, following a hearing on the appeal, the court, finding that the support order was consistent with the guidelines, denied the appeal, "without prejudice to Plaintiff's 14 N.T. 36 (November 5, 1999). ~5 N.T. 20, 36-37 (November 5, 1999); ~6 N.T. 20 (November 5, 1999). The conveyance, however, was apparently not intended by the parties to affect the status of their interest in the home as marital property. N.T. 26 (November 5, 1999). 17 N.T. 15 (November 5, 1999). ~8 N.T. 15, 31 (November 5, 1999). 19 N.T. 30 (November 5, 1999); N.T. 8-9 (December 10, 1999). 20 N.T. 7-10 (December 10, 1999). 2~ See Letter from Plaintiff's counsel to Domestic Relations Office, March 19, 1998. 3 right in the divorce action pending between the parties to seek special relief for payment" of the joint loan in question? The original amount of the loan does not appear in the record. However, its present balance is $53,197.00.23 The debt was, and is, secured by proceeds of Plaintiff's recovery for her injuries in the aforesaid 1993 automobile accident.24 Of the loan, Plaintiff used $32,000.00 to pay joint marital debts;25 Defendant used $17,000.00 to buy a truck for himselfe6 and $10,000.00 to help his mother in connection with a divorce.27 In accordance with the reservation of Plaintiff's rights in the May 1, 1998, order denying her appeal, Plaintiff sought special relief in the divorce action with respect to payments on the loan? An order was entered by the Honorable Edward E. Guido granting such relief to the extent that Defendant was required to make payments of $600.00 per month on the loan? In addition, each party has undertaken to pay a portion of other marital debts that were incurred.3° 22 Order of Court, May 1, 1998. 23 N.T. 24 (December 10, 1999). 24 N.T. 31 (November 5, 1999). 25 N.T. 3 8 (November 5, 1999). 26 N.T. 30 (December 10, 1999). 27 N.T. 32 (November 5, 1999); N.T. 31 (December 10, 1999). 28 N.T. 5-6, 33 (November 5, 1999); N.T. 24 (December 10, 1999). 29 N.T. 24-25 (December 10, 1999). 30 N.T. 26, 27-28 (December 10, 1999). 4 Petitions for modification. On March 31, 1999, Plaintiff filed a petition for modification of the support order of February 18, 1999. The basis cited for the modification was "change in income.''31 On April 21, 1999, Defendant filed a petition for modification of the support order of February 18, 1999. The basis cited for the modification was "pay not getting bonuses of$100.00 a month like you plan[n]ed." Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that Defendant's support obligation should include a contribution to the mortgage payments on the former marital residence, because of the size of the payments in relation to Plaintiff's income.32 Defendant argues, inter alia, that a deviation from the guidelines in his favor should be ordered because of the court- ordered $600.00 per month payment on the joint loan.33 DISCUSSION With respect to mortgage payments on the marital residence, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-6(e) provides as follows: The guidelines assume that the spouse occupying the marital residence will be solely responsible for the mortgage payment, real estate taxes, and homeowners' insurance. Similarly, the court will assume that the party occupying the marital residence will be paying the items listed unless the recommendation specifically provides otherwise. If the obligee is living in the marital residence and the mortgage payment exceeds 25% of the obligee's net income (including amounts of spousal support, APL and child support), the 31 The "change in income" referred to is not entirely clear. Plaintiff at some point was under the erroneous impression that social security payments being received by her would be reduced in June of 1999. See N.T. 5-6 (December 10, 1999). In addition, Defendant received a $30.00 per week raise effective May 5, 1999. See N.T. 21-23 (December 10, 1999). Neither of these circumstances had occurred as of the date Plaintiff filed her petition to modify, however. 32 Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 3. 33 Defendant's Post Trial Memorandum, at 4. court may direct the obligor to assume up to 50% of the excess amount as part of the total support award. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "mortgage" includes first and subsequent mortgages, home equity loans and any other obligations incurred during the marriage which are secured by the marital residence.34 With respect to deviations from the guidelines, Pennsylvania Rule Procedure 1910.16-5 provides as follows: of Civil (a) If the amount of support deviates from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall specify, in writing, the guideline amount of support, and the reasons for, and findings of fact justifying, the amount of the deviation. (b) In deciding whether to deviate from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall consider: (1) unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations; (2) other support obligations of the parties; (3) other income in the household; (4) ages of the children; (5) assets of the parties; (6) medical expenses not covered by insurance; (7) standard of living of the parties and their children; (8) 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 (9) other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children. The use of the word "may" in Rule 1910.16-6(e), respecting a support court's authority to require an obligor to contribute to mortgage payments on the marital residence occupied by the obligee, suggests that such a determination is within the sound discretion of the court. See generally Lee v. Carney, 435 Pa. Super. 405, 645 A.2d 1363 (1994); Waros v. Borough of Vandergrift, 161 Pa. Commw. 538, 637 A.2d 731 (1994). 34 Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(e) (emphasis added). 6 Deviations from the guidelines under Rule 1910.16-5 have traditionally been regarded as a matter of discretion with the support court. See, e.g., Landis v. Landis, 456 Pa. Super. 727, 691 A.2d 939 (1997). In the present case, where Plaintiff is permitting three other adults to live full-time, and one to live part-time, in the marital residence, without seeking from any of them a contribution toward mortgage payments, where Defendant has conveyed over his record title to the property, and where Defendant is making payments pursuant to a court order on a certain joint debt of the parties, the court is not persuaded that Defendant's support obligation should include assistance with respect to Plaintiff's mortgage payments. Similarly, the payment by Defendant of $600.00 per month on a joint debt which was incurred to a large extent for his benefit does not seem to the court to represent a sufficiently unusual fixed obligation, under the circumstances, to warrant a deviation from the guidelines in his favor. For these reasons, the following order of court will be entered:35 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2000, upon consideration of Plaintiff's appeal from the order of court dated May 4, 1999, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the appeal is sustained to the extent that the order is amended to reflect the following: 1. From March 31, 1999, through May 4, 1999, Defendant's support obligation is set at $950.82 for two children and at $488.75 for his spouse per month, for a total of $1439.57, plus $43.45 per month on arrears, with respective percentages being 81% and 19%; 2. From May 5, 1999, through June 20, 1999, Defendant's support obligation is set at $972.75 for two children and at $514.55 for his 35 The calculation of support, in accordance with the guidelines and based upon the court's statement of facts, is attached to this opinion as an appendix. 7 spouse per month, for a total of $1487.30, plus $43.45 per month on arrears, with respective percentages being 81% and 19%; and 3. From June 21, 1999, Defendant's support obligation is set at $675.39 for one child and at $603.75 for his spouse per month, for a total of $1279.14, plus $43.45 on arrears, with respective percentages being 81% and 19%. BY THE COURT, Nora F. Blair, Esq. 5440 Jonestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Plaintiff Kristin R. Reinhold, Esq. 5922 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. ~71100017 Uidelide~. Func:.:.:.i I:GIN× :::..?:Member:IncOme:and ExPenses:: '" KREITZ$$ MEMBE:R:ID:: i. i: 1495 `1'100028 I ' :ROBERi'~CTOR LIMBC :::.? :::::~: ~'.'.~::::??~:::~ ..: IM:.:: N:0~:ber::ef E:Xe~Pt[on~:~ ~ ' Tax: Yea:r: ::..~ Total Income:: ': 4~73~:94 :: ::.~'-TOtal EXpense: · :-9o~.96.:. :.::.::~ N:et:lncome: .- 337o.98 CODE ':'Des~ipti6h ' ::: '::::" :Arn~dnt' ..... ~TYP::~ ::~'"'~':;':~?::'::':~ ' M°nt:hi¥::~low ~ $TATE:TAX":~:: ::ii' ...... LOCAL:TAX . .... : .:: .. :: : .! :FEDERAL TAX .::: . SALARY 42.74 : ::::L'~ 326~96'.:: ~i13, 59 42?3.94: 326.96 4:13.59 ,-1273.94 ~" '] I GIN× Member Income :and Expenses KREITZSS :01/2§/00::09:44 MEMB~R iD! 149:51100028 ::: ::~::::~ '::-:':::::::.~ ::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::: :::: :: ~: IM I NU::~b~ ~ E~e~i~: ~: ':::::~;:~::~: ~' :~ :::::::::?: ?::: :: ::?: ::::~ ~::~' ~'~t:e~ :.::l 2~8o1'::::?::: :.:'E~c~i ~b~ Rate: I t. OOl -:-Fic~ Ba[~: ::.~::~.::::::::1 ?.~51 Total tnc°me'~..:: :~ 442o:~67::;::'; :' TotalExpenSe: 9~i.:~1 : Netlnco~e ::: :'3478;90 C~E ~ STAT~ TAX ~ LOCAL:TAX: : ~ F~cA TAXES ~:::~ ..:..:. ~.~:. ::~.i : ~ ..... .. . ...... ~:.:~ :.:. :.:~... S_;~ee3::C:eMMA~p~:C¢~EEZEB ?:':: i i :::: · : ~ : :' : :: : :i :.: ::... : ·. L:: :' : :' : ' · ' ::.: :i::: ~ii::: : .:.L i: :~::~:' ::'~ili:i ..::':-:: : :::::" ...' : :: :. : ::.i. : ::: .::: : :: :::. .. · ..: : : .. · .:.. - . :::::::::: . :~ :.' .:.~...:~ ~:.: '.:'.: ?.:::. ---;Defendant ........ Plaintiff--- Numbel~ ef:chil'dren: Residing With ' ':iF--~ : F~ Mr~nthly Net Income [ ' ' ~478. ~o ] I'" 7~t. oo :O0~mbined Mont:h!¥.Ne:t::tneome :: ..... l'Vlonth ~ Support :;~;; ::~!-: ':i;: ::'~:.. .. :::i::: :~ :; ':;:]~::: :;:: i [ o29:oo. J . ... 8'1.4.'~ %" :. lO .:::53 Defendant / P ai!~t ff ncome:Ratic) .... ~i :;:'::' ::':: ..... . ..: : .: .. :+' ~ .~: '"~ ~:' "'-.':::~:n:~ :.~: :~ ...... - 675.'39 153 ~EaCh Parent s :Gu!de:!~:e::Obhgatlo .: .... ::~:: :.:.~ .: .... Reducfio:n for Shared Custod? .... . . o'. oo Chi d Car~'Adj:ustme:~t' ':'~ :; ::. :;:' :: :. : ...: .: o;:oo insurance::Premium::Adjustment -~: :~' :':~o:::0o i :::~:: '" Other Adjustments.. :::~ :.:.'. ::...o.:Oo'::::: ; ;:i::::.:": ' uStme'ntS : . - o. O0 .TOtal :Obliigatioin With~Adiust:menih' ;:~::::';: :: ~:~:::i:;'~:~...~: ::::. ~ ~: :::~:::: :~.~ ....::~75;:39: -::: ::'-.:Medical;~Adi ' ' S-hr Oust:od', Countercfa m. ..... : ..... .:: .. .... :[ o.oo [ !TOtal MOnthly Ch: d Support ::::..::: .:~: ...::-::::..: ....... ~'7§.'a9 -- .... : .' : .... Cur~ent:::Support. 'Obligation: : ::: .::' , . : lrico'm:e:Available for :Spousal-:Support: !~ ~.:.::::::::::... - . ...... :.... .. .: :: :.::. .::: .: :::. .~ ~ ~ ~ ........ . ...... : ~' . :. . ....... :.: Income and ExPenses Member KREITZS$ 0 lr2§~00 .~ 10:07 FEDERAL TAX: SALARY :: :: 4,4.21 L 338.18 . T .. 4`35.60 :: :::.:F 123. '/8 44': 21