The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1016 S 1998 ANGELICA MARTINEZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – SUPPORT : NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 CLIFF L. HOUSER, : PASCES NO. 732100537 Defendant : EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this support case, Plaintiff, Angelica Martinez, filed a Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order on September 9, 2007. On January 3, 2008, the Honorable Edward E. Guido entered an Interim Order of Court under which Defendant, Cliff L. Houser, was required to pay $487.00 per month in support for Aiyana L. Martinez-Houser and $31.00 per month in arrearages. Defendant has now filed exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff, Angelica Martinez, and Defendant, Cliff L. Houser, are the parents of Aiyana L. Martinez-Houser, a minor child born November 21, 1998. Aiyana lives with her mother in Philadelphia where she attends a private parochial school. Plaintiff is married and resides with her husband and two children. N.T. 3-4. She is employed by Philadelphia Youth Network with a gross bi-weekly salary of $2,182.76. N.T. 4. Plaintiff provides health insurance coverage on Aiyana through her employment at no additional monetary cost. N.T. 5. She files her federal income tax return jointly with her husband claiming two children as dependency exemptions. N.T. 5. Plaintiff maintains primary custody of Aiyana. NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 Defendant is employed by Adams County as a correctional officer. N.T. 9. He earned gross wages in 2007 of $45,434.79. N.T. 10. Defendant has a mandatory, bi-weekly retirement deduction of $95.34 and bi-weekly union dues of $21.24. N.T. 10. Defendant pays $75.00 bi- weekly for health insurance coverage on himself, his wife, and his four children. N.T. 11. Defendant files a joint marital income tax return, claiming three children as dependency exemptions. N.T. 15. On January 3, 2008, an Interim Order of Court was issued upon consideration of the Master’s Report and Recommendation. The order was as follows: A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for his daughter, Aiyana L. Martinez-Houser, born November 21, 1998, the sum of $487.00 per month. B. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $31.00 per month on arrearages. C. Both parties 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 each 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 st 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: 45% by Defendant and 55% by Plaintiff. 2 NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 E. The effective date of this order is September 9, 2007. Interim Order of Court, January 3, 2008. On January 23, 2008, Defendant filed exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendations, essentially claiming: 1. The Support Master erred in calculating Defendant’s earnings by considering Defendant’s overtime pay when computing his gross monthly income. 2. Defendant requests an explanation of arrearages based on two increases in his support obligation over a three-month period. 3. The Support Master erred in considering his daughter’s attendance at a private parochial school in the support obligation when Defendant has not given permission for her attendance at the private school. The standard of review of a Support Master’s Report and Recommendation is well settled. The court will give the Master’s recommendations the fullest consideration unless testimony and evidence is produced which provide grounds upon which the Master’s finding of credibility can be impeached. Foca v. Foca, 97 Dauph. 302 Pa. Com. Pl. (1975). 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 review of all evidence, including an analysis of the weight and credibility to be accorded to the testimony of the witnesses. Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Reptr. 22, 226-27 (1984). 3 NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 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). In applying the Pennsylvania Support Guidelines, the Master found that Defendant had a net monthly income of $3,086.00, while Plaintiff had a net monthly income of $3,843.00 for support purposes. See Master’s Report. The Master concluded that, with a combined net monthly income of $6,929.00, the basic requirement for the support of one child is $1,127.00 per month. See Master’s Report. When the basic required amount of support is divided proportionally between the two parties, Defendant is responsible for $502.00. Id. Defendant received a downward adjustment to $487.00 for providing health insurance coverage for Aiyana. Id. Defendant first argues that the Support Master erred in calculating his earnings by including overtime pay. Defendant states that, at the time of the Court’s Order, his hourly rate was $17.70 per hour, without any guarantee of overtime. Therefore, the hourly figure should have been used to calculate his earnings without any consideration of the overtime wages. We note, initially, that the defendant did not make this an issue at the Master’s Hearing. Nowhere did he offer testimony concerning his hourly rate nor did he attempt to quantify the amount of his overtime. Instead, the defendant offered a year-end pay stub from which the Master derived his earnings for the year 2007. It is, in any event, axiomatic that overtime pay is income. The mere fact that there may be no guarantee that overtime may not be earned in the future does not mean that it can be ignored in determining how much the defendant has traditionally earned in the past. In Fichthorn v. Fichthorn, 368 Pa. Super. 305, 308, 533 A.2d 1388, 1389 (Pa. Super. 1987), the court stated that bonuses were properly considered in computing support orders even though 4 NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 there was no guarantee that they would be received in the future. The court reasoned that the husband was free to petition for a modification of the support order in the event future income is reduced. Id. at 308-09. The reasoning in Fichthorn is analogous to the case sub judice; neither the bonuses in that case nor the overtime hours in this case were guaranteed. Nonetheless, they are both includable in income with the proviso that the defendant may seek a modification of the order in the event that his overtime pay ceases or is diminished. In his second exception, the Defendant requests an explanation concerning the amount of his arrearages. This matter was not raised before the Master. While the Master did propose that $31.00 per month be paid on account of the arrearages, he did not calculate a total due. In any event, the Defendant’s request for an explanation of his arrearages can easily be accommodated by a request directed to the Domestic Relations Office. Finally, Defendant’s exception concerning his daughter’s attendance at a private parochial school is without merit. The Support Master’s Report clearly states that “Aiyana has attended private parochial school since kindergarten, but this expense has never been considered in the support obligation.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, Defendant’s concerns about Plaintiff finding “a more expensive school” in an effort to “receive more money” are unfounded. The Master’s Report did not increase Defendant’s support obligation to cover the costs of the private parochial school. In fact, the report specifically states that the expense of private school has never been considered in the calculations for Defendant’s support obligation. 5 NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 ORDER AND NOW, this day of March, 2008, the Exceptions of the Defendant to the Report of the Support Master are DISMISSED and the order of January 3, 2008, is herewith made a final order of court. BY THE COURT, _______________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Angelica Martinez Cliff L. Houser DRO :rlm 6 ANGELICA MARTINEZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – SUPPORT : NO. 1016 SUPPORT 1998 CLIFF L. HOUSER, : PASCES NO. 732100537 Defendant : EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of March, 2008, the Exceptions of the Defendant to the Report of the Support Master are DISMISSED and the order of January 3, 2008, is herewith made a final order of court. BY THE COURT, _______________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Angelica Martinez Cliff L. Houser DRO