Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-671 SupportDONNA M. GOSS, Plaintiff HARRY P. CASONI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 329103738 NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 IN RE: SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION BEFORE HESS. J. OPINION AND ORDER This matter involves child support for twin children, Barret Goss and Caitlin Goss, age 11. Before the court is the question of whether the Support Master erred in his recommendation of the amount that the defendant be required to pay in child support. The essence of the defendant's exception(s) to the Master's report is that his child support obligation should be set at an amount that is inversely proportionate to the amount that the twins receive from his social security benefits. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the Master erred in recommending a support payment amount below that suggested in the guidelines, and that the Master abused his discretion and committed an error of law by failing to state a reason for holding payment of arrears in abeyance for an indefinite period of time. The defendant continues to misunderstand the manner in which his support payments are calculated. This, despite a rather straightforward explanation provided in the court's Memorandum and Order of June 12, 2002, the relevant portion of which is repeated below: To the $3,377.62 of combined monthly net income, the Support Master added the $666.00 that the two children receive each month ($333.00 each) from Defendant's social security benefits. That made the adjusted combined monthly net income $4,043.62. According to that figure, the child support obligation then came out to $1,143.00. NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 After that, the social security benefits in the amount of $666.00 were properly deducted. That left $477.00, which was properly Apportioned to both Plaintiff and Defendant, by the percentage of their monthly share of the net income. Defendant's (obligor' s) support obligation was properly calculated at $282.67. The amount of $282.67 was further reduced--to $200.00/month--to afford the defendant relief in the face of significant monthly medical expenses. Furthermore, the Master recommended an additional temporary reduction, of $50.00 per month, in support payments given the defendant's obligation to pay alimony pendente lite (APL). At the time that the court first considered this matter, the APL figure had not yet been determined; consequently, the court remanded the case to the Master to the ends of setting a support amount that took into account the APL figure. This, in turn, the Master accomplished. It is from this second recommendation of the Master that the respective parties have submitted the exceptions described above. The plaintiff contends that when the Master deviated downwards "one half of the presumptively correct guidelines amount," he failed to take into account the "ultimate goal of serving the best interests of the dependant children." The plaintiff cites Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192 (Pa. 1994) for the proposition that the Master, when providing an explanation for deviating from the support guidelines, must explicitly set forth reasons "giving particular attention to those factors which the [Supreme Court], in adopting the guidelines, has specifically deemed relevant." Id., at 1196. It is argued that the Master's discretion is "not inviolate" and that, accordingly, the Master's deviations should be rejected by this court. Particularly relevant in this respect is the Ball court's admonition that "[g]eneral references to the effect that 'all relevant factors have been considered' is [sic] wholly insufficient." In the instant matter, the NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 Master stated that "[c]onsidering all factors, to include the Defendant's APL obligation and medical expenses, a recommendation is made to establish the Defendant's child support obligation [at a figure below the support guidelines amount]." It is precisely because it cannot be said with certainty that the Master kept "firmly in mind the ultimate goal ... which will best serve the needs and interests" of the twins, Anzalone v. Anzalone, 673 A.2d 377, 381 (Pa. Super. 1996), rather than, as the plaintiff points out, the defendant's needs, that this argument is somewhat compelling. As the Anzalone court emphasized, "It]he guidelines create a rebuttable presumption that the amount of support determined from the guidelines is the correct amount of support to be awarded." Id., at 380. Notwithstanding, we will again remand this matter to the support officer. The defendant became divorced from his wife in December 2002. On December 16, 2002, the defendant filed a petition for a decrease in support payments on the basis of his obligation to make alimony payments to his now former spouse, and the effect that this obligation has on his ability to satisfy his concurrent obligation to make the child support payments. In the interests of judicial economy and, ultimately, a lasting resolution to this matter, we remand the case to the Master. By doing so, we afford the Master the opportunity to consider all factors~ in a--it is hoped-- final disposition of this matter. ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2003, this matter is again remanded to the Support Master who, in turn, may refer the matter to a conference officer in light of the changed ~ To include the impact of the defendant's position (i.e., no longer married) on the calculation of the support payments. See this court's Memorandum and Order of June 12, 2002, at 2, wherein we discuss the ramifications of the defendant's [at the time] pending divorce on the social security benefits that the twins receive. NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 circumstances of this case and the defendam's pending request for modification. BY THE COURT, Frederick Huganir, Esquire Special Counsel DRO Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master Harry P. Casoni P. O. Box1104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. DONNA M. GOSS, Plaintiff HARRY P. CASONI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 329103738 NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 IN RE: SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2003, this matter is again remanded to the Support Master who, in turn, may refer the matter to a conference officer in light of the changed circumstances of this case and the defendant's pending request for modification. BY THE COURT, Frederick Huganir, Esquire Special Counsel DRO Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master Harry P. Casoni P. O. Box1104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.