Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-624 SupportCOLLEEN SEELEY- BURNHAM, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION DAVID M. BURNHAM, : PACSES NO. 796103682 Defendant NO. 01-624 SUPPORT IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., November 15, 2002. In this child support case, Defendant father has filed exceptions to a report of the support master recommending an order for the support of his two daughters in the amount of $622.00 per month. The exceptions are expressed as follows: 1. Defendant's income incorrectly calculated. Defendant has two (2)jobs, Dick's Sporting Goods and Fed-Ex Ground. In making his determination of net income, the Support Master only utilized Defendant's total taxes on the Tax Detail Report based upon his gross income from Dick's Sporting Goods. As your Honorable Court will note, Defendant's monthly taxable income on the Tax Detail Report is listed as being $1,980.00, resulting in $402.46 of total taxes. On the Support Guideline Worksheet, however, Defendant's total gross monthly income is listed at $2,657.08, but the Support Master plugged in the same figure of just $402.46 as being his Monthly Deductions. Defendant's actual net income is approximately $2,047.48, not $2,254.62. 2. The Support Master failed to setoff for Defendant's spousal support/APL claim. After taking the decrease for health insurance and the increase for childcare, Defendant should be ordered to pay $155.49 monthly, not $622.00.~ ~ Defendant's Exceptions to Recommendation of Support Master, paragraph E(1)-(2), filed August 22, 2002. A transcript of the master's hearing was filed on October 11, 2002. Briefs have now been submitted on behalf of the parties. STATEMENT OF FACTS On a review of a support master's report, a trial court is to employ the same standard as is applicable to 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 (Ct. Com. Pls. Cumberland Sept. 13, 2002) (Hess, J.). Subject to this standard, the facts as of the master's hearing on August 8, 2002, at which the parties appeared pro se, may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff is Colleen Marie Seeley (Seeley-Burnham), 39, who resides at 4831 Charles Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.2 Defendant is David Martin Burnham, 40, who resides at 4832 Charles Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.3 The parties are married.4 Two children have been bom of the marriage: Theresa L.U. Burnham (d.o.b. August 23, 1992) and Jacqueline M. Burnham (d.o.b. June 7, 1996).5 The parties separated in the summer of 2001.6 An action in divorce is pending.7 Plaintiff mother is the primary physical custodian of the children.8 She filed a complaint for child support for the children on July 30, 2001.9 By : N.T. 2-3, Support Master's Hearing, August 5, 2002 (hereinafter N.T. ~ N.T. 24-25. 4N.T. 3. 5 N.T. 2-3. 6N.T. 3. 2 agreement of the parties, an order was entered on August 23, 2002, whereby Defendant father's basic monthly child support obligation was set at $310.00.1° The parties' net incomes subsequently changed significantly.~ On May 13, 2002, Plaintiff mother filed a petition for modification of the child support order.~2 Plaintiff mother is an account manager with Phillips Office Products, Inc. ~3 Her gross monthly income is approximately $4,963.67.TM Her child care expenses average $275.00 per month.~5 Her tax filing status is head of household, with three exemptions. 16 Defendant father is a full-time salesperson with Dick's Sporting Goods,~7 and a part-time employee with FedEx Ground Packaging System, Inc.~8 In his full-time occupation his gross monthly income is approximately $1,980.00, and in his part-time occupation it is $677.08, for a total of $2,657.08.~9 According to his testimony, he maintains medical and dental insurance covering himself and the 7 N.T. 3; see Burnham v. Burnham, No. 01-4502 Civil Term (Ct. Com. Pis. Cumberland Septebmer 24, 2002). 8 N.T. 9-10. 9 Plaintiff's Complaint for Support, filed July 30, 2001. l0 Order of Court, August 23,2001. ~ The order of court dated August 23, 2001, recited net monthly incomes of the Plaintiff mother and Defendant father of $3,325.35 and $1,423.36 respectively. Order of Court, August 23, 2001. Both have increased since that time, as indicated hereafter in the text. ~2 Plaintiff' s Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed May 13, 2002. ~3 N.T. 3-4; Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. ~4 See N.T. 4-5; Plaintiff's Exhibit 1; Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed August 12, 2002, paragraph 10. The finding of the master that Plaintiff mother's gross monthly income was $4,963.67 has not been contested in the exceptions. ~5 See N.T. 7-8, 11-15, 17-20, 22-24; Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed August 12, 2002, paragraphs 11-13. The finding of the master that day care expenses of Plaintiff mother averaged $275.00 per month has not been contested in the exceptions. 16 N.T. 6-7. ~7 N.T. 25-26; Defendant's Exhibit 1. ~8 N.T. 25, 29-30; Defendant's Exhibit 2. ~9 N.T. 25-30; Defendant's Exhibits 1-2. 3 two children through his part-time employer, at a cost to him of $10.00 per week.2° His claimed tax filing status is single, and one exemption can appropriately be assigned to him.2~ At the master's hearing, neither party introduced evidence of extraordinary expenses.22 Defendant father represented to the master that he had filed a claim for alimony pendente lite, and requested that his entitlement in that regard operate as an offset with respect to his child support obligation.23 The master, having ascertained that no adjudication had occurred with respect to such a claim,24 declined to consider a hypothetical APL award to the father at the child support hearing.25 In fact, no claim for alimony pendente lite had been filed on behalf of Defendant father as of the master's hearing.26 Utilizing the gross incomes of the parties, and the other facts recited above and supported in the record, the support master filed a master's report on August 12, 2002. The report recommended entry of an order establishing Defendant father's basic child support obligation at $622.00 per month.27 An examination of the tax detail report accompanying the recommendation indicates that Defendant father's net monthly income was slightly inflated in the report through an inadvertence in the calculation. The inadvertence consisted of a computation of his FiCA and federal, state and local tax deductions on the basis of his full-time employment earnings only, rather than on the basis of the total of his 20 N.T. 30; see Defendant's Exhibit 2. :l N.T. 30-31. ::See, e,g,, N.T. 34-35. 23 N.T. 31. 24 N.T. 31. 25 N.T. 31-32. 26 A claim for alimony pendente lite, inter alia, was filed on behalf of Defendant father in the parties' divorce action on August 9, 2002. See Burnham v. Burnham, No. 01-4502 Civil Term (Ct. Com. Pls. Cumberland September 24, 2002). The support master's hearing was held on August 5, 2002. 27 Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed August 12, 2002. 4 full-time and part-time employment earnings.28 These deductions from his total monthly gross income of $2,657.08 should have been $581.55 rather than $402.46, leaving a correct net monthly income figure of $2,075.53 rather than $2,254.62.29 DISCUSSION Deductions for purposes of calculation of net income. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2(c), deductions to be taken from a party's gross income for purposes of a calculation of net income in support cases include "federal, state, and local income taxes" and "F.I.C.A. payments." Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1)(A)-(B). Typically, a computer program is utilized by the Domestic Relations Office to derive the proper tax and F.I.C.A. figures based upon a party's gross income, filing status and exemptions taken. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 49 Cumberland L.J. 219, 224 n.32 (2000). In the present case, as noted above, a minor adjustment to the calculation of Defendant father's net income is necessary to effectuate properly the underlying findings of the master, for purposes of a computation of Defendant father's child support obligation in accordance with the support guidelines. This adjustment, reflected in the Appendix to this opinion, results in a basic child support obligation on the part of Defendant father of $574.00 per month. Failure of master to of J~'et Defendant father's child support obligation with Plaintiff mother's putative alimony pendente lite obligation. Although it may be true that, where a custodial parent is obligated to pay spousal support to the noncustodial parent, and the noncustodial parent is obligated to pay child support to the custodial parent, the obligations are to be offset against each other, see Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c), it is also true that a master's report is to be reviewed on the basis of the factual record before the master--not upon a hypothetical record of the future. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 378 Pa. Super. 280, 284, 548 A.2d 28 See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, Detail Report). 29 See Appendix. filed August 12, 2002, exhibit A (Tax 5 611, 613-14 (1988). In the present case, where the record before the master did not include evidence of a favorable adjudication of a claim of Defendant father for alimony pendente lite (and where in fact no such claim had been filed by Defendant father as of the hearing), Defendant father's exception to the master's failure to offset Defendant father's child support obligation with a putative alimony pendente lite award can not be sustained. Based upon the foregoing, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's exceptions to the report of the support master, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, (a) Defendant's basic monthly child support obligation is determined to be $574.00, (b) his percentage of unreimbursed medical expenses is accordingly determined to be 35%, and (c) his exceptions are otherwise denied. BY THE COURT, Samuel L. Andes, Esq. 525 N. Twelfth Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorney for Plaintiff Clyde W. Vedder, Esq. 32 N. Duke Street York, PA 17401 Attorney for Defendant s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 6 7 COLLEEN SEELEY- BURNHAM, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION DAVID M. BURNHAM, : PACSES NO. 796103682 Defendant NO. 01-624 SUPPORT IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's exceptions to the report of the support master, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, (a) Defendant's basic monthly child support obligation is determined to be $574.00, (b) his percentage of unreimbursed medical expenses is accordingly determined to be 35%, and (c) his exceptions are otherwise denied. BY THE COURT, Samuel L. Andes, Esq. 525 N. Twelfth Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorney for Plaintiff Clyde W. Vedder, Esq. 32 N. Duke Street York, PA 17401 Attorney for Defendant J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.