Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-834 SupportLINDA D. JUNGREN, Plaintiff Vo JOHN H. JUNGREN, III, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 639103896 NO. 01-834 SUPPORT IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., May 30, 2003. In this spousal support case, Defendant has filed exceptions to a report of the support master, dealing with a petition to modify filed by Defendant. In the report, the master recommended that the following terms of support be ordered: A. For the period of July 1, 2002 through August 31, 2002 the Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit for transmission to the Plaintiff as spousal support the sum of $184.00 per month. B. For the period of September 1, 2002 through January 5, 2003 the Defendant shall pay spousal support in the amount of $136.00 per month. C. Effective January 6, 2003 the Defendant shall pay spousal support in the amount of $128.00 per month. D. In the event this order results in a credit balance in the Defendant's support obligation, the Defendant shall be permitted to reduce his monthly support payment by $25.00 per month until said credit balance is eliminated. E. The Defendant shall continue to provide medical insurance coverage for his wife and child, Ayron J. Jungren, born September 27, 1991. F. Effective January 6, 2003 the Defendant shall pay 55% of the unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by his wife and child as that term is defined in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c). G. Except as modified herein the prior order of February 13, 2002 shall remain in full force and effect. These terms were incorporated in an interim order of court dated February 27, 2003.~ Exceptions were timely filed by Defendant on March 10, 2003.2 As expressed by Defendant in his brief in support of the exceptions, the grounds upon which relief is requested are as follows: A. The [support master] erred in failing to take into consideration Plaintiff's increase in income effective February 2002[;]3 B. The [support master] failed to consider the Plaintiff[' s] 2001 Tax Refund in the amount of $3,815.00 as part of her gross income[;]4 [and] C. The [support master] failed to take into consideration the increase in health care costs experienced by the Defendant effective December 2002.5 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's exceptions will be denied and the interim order of court dated February 27, 2003, will be entered as a permanent order. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, Linda D. Jungren, resides in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Permsylvania.6 Defendant, John H. Jungren, III, resides in Etters, York County, Permsylvania.? The parties have a common law marriage dating from 1991,s and are the parents of an eleven-year-old child.9 Interim Order of Court, Feb. 27, 2003. Defendant's Exceptions to the February 27, 2003 Interim Order of Court, filed March 10, 2003. Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Exceptions to the February 27, 2003 Interim Order of Court, at 3. Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Exceptions to the February 27, 2003 Interim Order of Court, at 4. Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Exceptions to the February 27, 2003 Interim Order of Court, at 4. N.T. 15, Support Master Hearing, February 13, 2003 (hereinafter N.T. ~. 7N.T. 2. 2 The parties separated in February of 2000,~° and a divorce is pending.~ Plaintiff wife has primary physical custody of the child.~2 Because of (a) derivative social security benefits being received by the child and (b) credit for a portion of health insurance premiums being paid by Defendant, Defendant is not under a child support obligation of direct periodic payments to Plaintiff. ~3 Plaintiff has been employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare as a clerk since November of 2000.TM Her net monthly income as of January 30, 2002, was $1,371.82.~5 Defendant's net monthly income as of January 30, 2002, from social security disability payments and a union pension, was $2,249.22.~6 Based upon these figures, and following a support master's hearing on that date at which Plaintiff's anticipation of a raise in February, 2002, was reported by her,l? a spousal support obligation on the part of Defendant in the amount of $263.00 per month, in accordance with the support guidelines,~8 was established. 19 8 N.T. 2; Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 1. 9 Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 1. l0 N.T. 37; Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 1. il N.T. 7. ~: Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 1. ~ See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(b)(2), 1910.16-6(b)(1). This matter is the subject of an excellent discussion by the support master in an earlier Support Master's Report and Recommendation in the case. See Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 2-3. 14 N.T. 25. ~s Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 3. 16 Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 3. ~7 N.T. 39; Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002), at 1. ~8 See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4(a), Part IV (Spousal Support or APL--with Dependent Children). 19 Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 13, 2002); Interim Order of Court, February 13, 2002. Because of the derivative benefits received by the child in connection with Defendant's disability for purposes of social security, Defendant's additional child support obligation under the order consisted only of a requirement that he continue to provide medical insurance for the child and that he pay a proportional share of the unreimbursed medical expenses of the child in excess of $250.00. Id. Defendant's spousal support obligation included identical terms. Id. Neither party appealed from this order as recommended by the support master. 3 On August 19, 2002, Defendant filed a petition to modify the order, which is the subject of this opinion, based upon an alleged reduction in his income and an alleged increase in Plaintiff's income.2° A hearing on this petition was held by the support master on February 13, 2002. The evidence at the hearing may be summarized as follows: In addition to the anticipated pay increase reported by Plaintiff at the earlier support master's hearing,2~ Plaintiff received a pay increase in June, 2002, which she did not report,22 as well as pay increases after Defendant's petition to modify was filed in September, 2002,23 and January, 2003.24 Specifically, Plaintiff's gross earned income increased to $1,922.38 per month by July 1, 2002, $2,128.75 per month by September 1, 2002, and $2,169.38 per month by January 6, 2003.25 Mandatory deductions from her gross earned income included 6.25% for retirement and 1.5% for union dues.26 Plaintiff's gross unearned income during this period was about $95.83 per month.27 Her tax filing status has been head of household, with two exemptions.28 She overpaid her 2001 federal taxes by $3,815.00.29 An application of a standard computer program for tax computation to Plaintiff's gross earned income, filing status, and exemption claims,3° application :0 Defendant's Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order (filed August 19, 2002). :l N.T. 23. :: N.T. 27, 40; Plaintiff's Ex. 1, Support Master's Hearing, February 13, 2003 (hereinafter Plaintiff's/Defendant's Ex. ~. :3 N.T. 23, 28, 40; Plaintiff's Ex. 1. :4 N.T. 23, 30, 43; Plaintiff's Ex. 1. :s PlaintifFs Ex. 1. 26 N.T. 29; Plaintiff's Ex. 1. 27 N.T. 20. 28 N.T. 44. 29 N.T. 21-22; Plaintiff's Ex. 5. 3o See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 49 Cumberland L.J. 219, 224 n.32 (2000) (use by Cumberland County of computer program to determine taxes applicable to party's income). 4 of Plaintiff's 15% tax bracket to her unearned income, and deduction of the mandatory retirement and union dues charges,3~ result in a calculation that Plaintiff's net monthly income for purposes of support was $1,665.00 as of July 1, 2003, $1,824.00 as of September 1, 2002, and $1,850.00 as of January 6, 2003.32 These figures are in accordance with the support master's recommendations.33 Defendant's net monthly income from social security, the union pension, and unearned income was determined by the support master to be $2,278.00,34 a figure not excepted to by either party.35 Through his union, Defendant maintained health insurance coverage on himself, Plaintiff and the child at a cost of $250.00 per month through November, 2002, and $350.00 per month thereafter.36 However, the premium for this insurance was not affected by the inclusion of 37 Plaintiff and the child in the coverage. An application of the 30% figure set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-4(a) to the amounts by which Defendant's net monthly income exceeded Plaintiff's net monthly income results in spousal support obligations of $184.00 for the period when Plaintiff's net monthly income was $1,665.00, $136.00 for the period when Plaintiff's net monthly income was $1,824.00, and $128.00 for the period when Plaintiff's net monthly income has been $1850.00. These are the support figures which were recommended by the support master, who also recommended that the order be made retroactive to July 1, 2002, predating Defendant's petition to modify. 3~ See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1)(B), (C). 32 Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 27, 2003), at 2-3, and exhibits thereto. 33 ]d. 34 Support Master's Report and Recommendation (February 27, 2003), at 3. 3s Defendant's tax filing status has been married filing separately. N.T. 7; Defendant's Ex. 2. 36 N.T. 7-8. Plaintiff's employer also provided health care coverage, for Plaintiff and the child. N.T. 30. 37N.T. 9, 11. 5 DISCUSSION Review of support masters' reports. In a support case, the trial court should give a report issued by a support master the "fullest consideration," particularly with respect to the credibility of witnesses, but the court still must conduct its own review of the evidence to determine whether the master's recommendations are proper. Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988); Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Rptr. 211,226-27 (1984). With respect to the issues raised by exceptions filed by a party to a master's report, "[i]t is the sole province and the responsibility of the [trial] court to set an award of support, however much it may choose to utilize a master's report." Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507-08, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988). Effkctive date of order. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.17(a), "[a]n order of support shall be effective from the date of the filing of the complaint unless the order specifies otherwise." With respect to petitions to modify, it is provided by statute by follows: If a petition for modification [is] filed, modification may be applied to the period beginning on the date that notice of such petition was given, either directly or through the appropriate agent, to the obligee or, where the obligee was the petitioner, to the obligor. However, modification may be applied to an earlier period if the petitioner was precluded from filing a petition for modification by reason of a significant physical or mental disability, misrepresentation of another party or other compelling reason and if the petitioner, when no longer precluded, promptly filed a petition. Act of October 30, 1985, P.L. 264, §1, as amended, 23 Pa. C.S. §4352(e). The permissive nature of the language of the statute, as well as case law,3a suggests that the matter of retroactivity is commended to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the present case, where Plaintiff had reported her anticipated raise prior to its occurrence and where Defendant waited approximately six See, e.g., Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d 221,223 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). 6 months before filing a petition to modify, the court finds itself in agreement with the support master's recommendation to relate the support modification back to Plaintiff' s unreported wage increase on July 1, 2002, but not to a date prior to that. Plaintiff's tax refund from 2001. As a general rule, income tax refunds are to be included in one's income for purposes of calculating support obligations. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a)(8). The rationale of this rule is obvious: We could not permit an individual to overpay his taxes all year, and then exclude the amount of his overpayment from calculation of that individual's income. To do so works an injustice .... Curtis v. Curtis, 326 Pa. Super. 40, 47, 473 A.2d 597, 601 (1984). However, consistent with this rationale, "[i]ncome tax refunds should not be included as income to the extent they were already factored into the party's actual tax obligation for purposes of arriving at his or her net income." Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a)(8), Note. As noted above,39 in Cumberland County a party's tax liability for purposes of computing net income in the context of support is determined by application of a standard computer tax program to gross income. This application has the effect of factoring into a party's tax obligation for purposes of arriving at his or her net income any tax refund arising out of excessive withholdings, by omitting from the calculation any deduction for income withheld. In the present case, which originated in 2001, Plaintiff's net income has consistently been determined utilizing a tax calculation process incorporating all money earned, whether withheld or not. Accordingly, (a) an excessive withholding scheme does not benefit Plaintiff in terms of a determination of her net income for support purposes, (b) the rationale for the general rule that a tax refund should be included in her income fails, (c) the exception to the general rule 39 See note 3 1 supra and accompanying text. 7 quoted above applies, and (d) the support master correctly did not add Plaintiff's tax refund of $3,815.00 from 2001 in the calculation of her net income. Increased health insurance premium paid by Defendant. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-6(b)(1), with respect to payment of premiums for health insurance coverage, it is provided as follows: A party's payment of a premium to provide health insurance coverage on behalf of the other party or the children shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their net incomes, including the portion of the premium attributable to the party who is paying it. If the obligor is paying the premium, then obligee's share is deducted from the obligor's basic support obligation .... Employer-paid premiums are not subject to allocation. Defendant received, and continues to receive without objection from Plaintiff, the benefit of his inclusion of Plaintiff and their child on his health insurance policy, in terms of a reduction to zero of his obligation to provide periodic child support payments to Plaintiff--notwithstanding that their coverage adds nothing to the cost to him of his insurance and is, as it applies to Plaintiff and the child, arguably as much in the nature of employer-paid insurance as obligor- paid insurance. It is not necessary, under these peculiar circumstances, to compound the anomaly by also reducing Defendant's spousal support obligation. To the extent that this conclusion represents a deviation from a strict application of Rule 1910.16-6(b), it appears to the court to be justified.4° For the foregoing reasons, it is believed that the support master's report and recommendations were correct, and the following order will be entered. 4o See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(9). 8 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2003, after careful consideration of Defendant's exceptions to the support master's report and recommendation, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the interim order of court dated February 27, 2003, is entered as a final order. BY THE COURT, Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Support Master J. Paul Helvy, Esq. 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff John B. Dougherty, Esq. 800 N. Second Street Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Attorney for Defendant J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 9 10 LINDA D. JUNGREN, Plaintiff Vo JOHN H. JUNGREN, iii, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 639103896 NO. 01-834 SUPPORT IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2003, after careful consideration of Defendant's exceptions to the support master's report and recommendation, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the interim order of court dated February 27, 2003, is entered as a final order. BY THE COURT, Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Support Master J. Paul Helvy, Esq. 2 i 8 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff John B. Dougherty, Esq. 800 N. Second Street Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Attorney for Defendant J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.