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
OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
This is an appeal from our order of December 16, 2002, vacating the master's
recommended order of August 27, 2002, and reinstating our order of June 14, 2002. The order
of June 14, 2002, concluded that there were no changes in circumstances of the parties which
warranted a modification of the then existing support order. In dealing with the order of August
27, 2002, we addressed the issues as framed in the defendant's exceptions thereto. Our
memorandum opinion was filed along with our order of December 16, 2002.
The plaintiff has since filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal. In this
statement she raises matters which we have not previously been invited to consider. Specifically,
plaintiff complains that we failed to make an adjustment in the order based upon the earning
potential of the defendant as a full-time forklift operator.
The practical import of our most recent order is to reinstate the support order dated May
23, 2000. This order, in turn, was based upon the defendant's employment as a forklift operator.
Plaintiff now observes that in May of 2000, she agreed to accept a support figure based on this
employment, and was willing to compromise the amount. The record of the master's hearing,
N.T. 14, does indeed reflect that she compromised though there is no reason stated in the record
as to why she was willing to accept an amount of support less than the guidelines. At any rate,
finding that the circumstances of the parties have not materially changed and that the defendant
should be assessed the same earning potential as he was in May of 2000, we declined to make
any modification in the amoum of support. The plaimiff now gives a reason for an increase in
the support order which, while it may be perfectly valid, was not previously advanced. By virtue
of the appeal, we have now lost jurisdiction of this case.
February ,2003
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Jay R. Braderman, Esquire
For the Defendant
DRO
:rlm