Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-671 Support (2)DONNA M. GOSS, Plaintiff VS. 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: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 BEFORE HESS. J. This is a support case in which the defendant has repeatedly filed exceptions to recommended orders of the support master. In the past, after the defendant filed his exceptions, it became apparent that between the time of the disposition of the case by the master and the proposed argument before the Court of Common Pleas, the circumstances of the case had changed. The change in circumstances occurred, in large part, because of developments in the divorce action between the defendant and his then current wife who is not the plaintiff in this case. Accordingly, this matter has been frequently remanded to the master. This case involves the support of two children, Barrett C. Goss and Caitlin D. Goss, twins, both born November 24, 1990. For approximately ten years, the defendant voluntarily contributed to the support of these children. When he stopped, this support action was filed in August of 2001. On August 13, 2002, an order was entered in the defendant's divorce action, docketed to 02-930 Civil Term, obligating the defendant to pay the sum of $659.00 per month as alimony pendente lite for the period of March 19, 2002 through August 31, 2002, and the sum of $541.00 per month as alimony pendente lite commencing September 1, 2002. On December 12, 2002, a decree in divorce was entered in that divorce action. As part of the decree, the defendant was ordered to pay the sum of $600.00 per month as alimony commencing with the month following 671 SUPPORT 2001 the entry of the divorce decree. On December 16, 2002, the defendant filed a petition for modification of his child support obligation. The plaintiff is self-employed and earned less than $5,000.00 in 2002. The defendant is more than sixty-eight years old and is retired from employment with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He receives an annual pension of approximately $14,900.00 from the Commonwealth which is subject to federal but not state or local income taxation. In addition, he receives approximately $1,080.00 per month in social security retirement benefits. He has medical expenses which exceed $300.00 per month. Ms. Goss, the plaintiff in this case, receives social security derivative benefits for the children in the amount of $507.00 per child. Our order of March 12, 2003 requires, inter alia, that the defendant pay support for Barrett and Caitlin in the total amount of $126.00 per month. Mr. Casoni filed exceptions to that order. On July 21, 2003, we denied his exceptions and made our order of March 12, 2003, a final order. He has since appealed. We believe that this matter was properly resolved by the master in his opinion and proposed interim order of March 12, 2003, and we incorporate same herein by reference. In his statement of matters complained of on appeal, the defendant questions the treatment of the alimony which he is required to pay to his former wife in arriving at the support amount in this case. He also questions the treatment of social security payments made on behalf of the children. In addition, he contends that the master erred in not reducing his support order below the guidelines because of his medical expenses. The defendant appears to agree with the master's application of the Rules of Civil Procedure to the question of the treatment of his alimony obligation. His complaint is that Rule 1910.16-2(c) is "unfair and discriminatory." That rule, providing for the determination of 2 671 SUPPORT 2001 monthly net income, does not permit, as a deduction from monthly gross income, alimony paid to anyone other than the plaintiff in this case. We do not agree with the defendant's description of the rules, but, even if we did, it is not the prerogative of this court to rewrite the rules simply because one of the parties complains about them. We agree with the conclusion of the master: Those items which are to be deducted from gross income to arrive at net income for child support purposes are set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1) and specifically limited to federal, state and local taxes, FICA payments and non-voluntary retirement payments, union dues and alimony paid to the other party. Therefore, the Defendant's payment of alimony pendente lite to his wife has no effect on his child support obligation to the Plaintiff in this case. The defendant also agrees that the master properly applied Rule 1910.16-2(b)(2) but claims that the rule is "unjust." Again, we note that the fact that an appealing party may take offense at a rule of court affords us no basis to depart from it. The rules regarding support guidelines provide that where a child, for whom support is sought, is receiving social security benefits as a result of a parent's age, "the benefits the child receives shall be added to the combined monthly net income of the obligor and obligee to calculate the income available for support." The presumptive amount of support is then reduced by the amount of the child's social security before apportioning the remaining support obligation between the parties. That is exactly what the master did in this case. Finally, the order of March 12, 2003, as affirmed on July 21, 2003, takes cognizance of the defendant's medical expenses but does not make a material downward deviation in the support amount because of them. The presumption is strong that the appropriate amount of support is the amount determined from the support guidelines. A downward deviation can be 3 671 SUPPORT 2001 supported only when the trier of fact determines and explains on the record that an award in the amount determined from the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. Elias v. Spencer, 673 A.2d 982, 985 (Pa. Super. 1996) citing Young v. Muthersbaugh, 609 A.2d 1381 (Pa. Super. 1992) (a trial court should deviate from the guidelines only when the obligor can establish unique financial needs). Here, the amount of support ordered for two children is a mere $126.00 per month. Considering all of the facts in this case, we can hardly conclude that this relatively small amount is either unjust or inappropriate. September 30, 2003 DRO Derek Clepper, Esquire Michael Rundle, Esquire Harry P. Casoni :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. 4