Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-153 SUPPORTMELISSA A. BRENEMAN, Plaintiff VS. THOMAS R. STEVENSON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 153 SUPPORT 2000 DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PASCES NO. 497102022 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER' S INTERIM ORDER MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the petition of the plaintiff for a modification of support. Her petition was based on an increase in the defendant's income. On June 14, 2002, the court signed an order recommended by the Domestic Relations Hearing Officer to the effect that there was no change in circumstances which warranted any modification of the order. An order of May 23, 2000, was affirmed. The matter was appealed to the support master. The support master increased the order of support in this case largely because the defendant had had a second job which substantially increased his income. This work was as a waiter at the Red Lobster Restaurant. The defendant took this second job because his current live-in girlfriend was not working and their rent was very high. He quit this second job when his girlfriend went back to work so that he could care for their child and devote time to his college studies. We realize that the obligor in a support case may not seek a reduction in support where he voluntarily reduces his income in order to pursue higher education. See Kersey v. Jefferson, 791 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 2002). In this case, the defendant has not sought to modify his support obligation as a result of reduced income but, rather, the plaintiff has sought to increase the order by virtue of the fact that the defendant temporarily held a second job which he took to meet extraordinary expenses. Clearly, the court should consider evidence of an income from a second 153 SUPPORT 2000 job in determining the earnings of the obligor for the purpose of computing a child support order. Moreover, the court must also consider the integrity of the defendant's motives in quitting a second job. See Akers v. Akers, 540 A.2d 269 (Pa. Super. 1988). By the same token, we know of no authority for the proposition that the defendant is required to obtain or maintain a second job where an earning capacity for full-time employment has already been imputed. Here, the master found no reason to disbelieve the defendant's testimony that he voluntarily quit his employment at Red Lobster so that he could care for an infant child and so his girlfriend could work. The master chose, nonetheless, to apply the provisions ofPa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(1), which provides that there generally will be no effect on a support obligation where a party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job. We are satisfied that that rule does not apply to this situation. In this case, the court order initially entered in this case was based upon Mr. Stevenson's full-time employment as a forklift operator. After the order was set, Mr. Stevenson moved to his current residence in Arizona where he has taken a lower paying job. He, however, has not petitioned for modification. We do not believe that this order should be modified by either Mr. Stevenson's voluntary job quit in Pennsylvania or his taking of a temporary second job in Arizona. Accordingly, we will enter the following order. ORDER AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2002, our order of August 27, 2002, is 2 153 SUPPORT 2000 VACATED and the order of June 14, 2002, dismissing the plaimiff' s petition to modify, is REINSTATED. BY THE COURT, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire For the Plaintiff Jay R. Braderman, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. 3 MELISSA A. BRENEMAN, Plaimiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. THOMAS R. STEVENSON, Defendant 153 SUPPORT 2000 DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PASCES NO. 497102022 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER' S INTERIM ORDER ORDER AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2002, our order of August 27, 2002, is VACATED and the order of June 14, 2002, dismissing the plaintiff' s petition to modify, is REINSTATED. BY THE COURT, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire For the Plaintiff Jay R. Braderman, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.