HomeMy WebLinkAbout356 S 2002KRISTINE L. HARRISON,
Plaintiff
Vo
KEITH A. HARRISON,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
PACSES NO. 890104462
NO. 02-356 SUPPORT
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION
TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Oler, J., October 31, 2003.
In this child/spousal support case, Plaintiff has filed an exception to the
report of the support master recommending a support payment by Defendant of
$441.11 per month, of which $210.37 was allocated to child support for the
parties' son and $230.74 was allocated to spousal support.~ Plaintiff's exception
may be summarized as follows:
The Support Master should not have treated [a certain] $163.60
[monthly insurance payment] as income [to Plaintiff] because the
amount does not represent financial resources that are actually
available for [Plaintiff]; i.e. she does not receive the $163.60 per
month and she has no expectation of receiving it for the foreseeable
future. Furthermore, it is inequitable to count this unreceived money
as income to [Plaintiff], thus lowering her spousal support, where
both parties enjoyed the benefit of the overpayment during the time
that they resided together during the marriage.2
After a careful review of the master's report and record, and consideration
of the arguments presented in the parties' briefs, the exception will be dismissed.
~ Interim Order of Ct., Jul 28, 2003, Ex. A (Support Master's Report and
Recommendation).
2 Pl.'s Exceptions to Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed Aug. 6, 2003.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, Kristine L. Harrison, resides in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.3 Defendant, Keith A. Harrison, resides in Dillsburg, York
County, Pennsylvania.4 The parties were married on June 22, 1985, and separated
in February of 2001.5 A divorce action is currently pending.6 The parties have one
minor child, Andrew M. Harrison, born September 1, 1987, who resides with
Plaintiff.7 Following the parties' separation, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking
both spousal and child support from Defendant.8 The parties have stipulated to a
child support obligation on the part of Defendant for the benefit of their son
Andrew, in the amount of $210.37 per month.9
Defendant resides with his girlfriend, Tina Watts, with whom he shares
living expenses, l0 He filed joint federal tax returns with Plaintiff in both 2001 and
3 N.T. 4, Support Master's Hr'g., Jul. 25, 2003 (hereinafter N.T. ~).
4 N.T. 16.
5 N.T. 5.
6 N.T. 28. According to Defendant, the divorce is pending a resolution by the divorce
master of issues related to the distribution of property. N.T. 28; see Harrison v. Harrison,
01-3221 Civil Term (Ct. Com. Pis. Cumberland).
?N.T. 5.
8 Compl., filed Apr. 24, 2002; Amended Compl., filed Apr. 29, 2003. It is noted that the
Plaintiff requested and was granted a dismissal of the original complaint. However, about
a year later she filed an amended complaint reviving the support action. See id; Order of
Ct., May 9, 2002.
9 N.T. 3. An initial order with the incorrect amount of $201.37 was entered on June 11,
2003, but an amended order was entered, in order to correct this typographical error,
stating the correct amount of $210.37. See Order of Ct., Jun. 11, 2003; Order of Ct., Jun.
17, 2003.
l0 N.T. 29.
2
2002. ~ The parties have stipulated that Defendant has a gross monthly income of
$2,382.50.~2
Plaintiff resides with her mother, her brother and the parties' son Andrew,
and shares living expenses with her mother.~3 Plaintiff has been disabled since
August 7, 1998,TM and receives $774.00 per month in social security disability
benefits.~5 In addition, Plaintiff receives $163.60 per month from a third-party
disability benefit paid by a private insurance company.~6 The amount of this
benefit is determined in part by how much the insured is receiving in social
security disability benefits.~7 However, Plaintiff initially failed to inform the
private insurance company that she was receiving disability payments from social
security,la In March or April of 2001, Plaintiff was put on notice that she had
received an overpayment on her insurance policy, because she was receiving both
government and private benefits, and would be required to return a portion of the
private benefits.~9 Plaintiff estimates the overpayment was $20,000.00.20 This
overpayment was received by Plaintiff during the time that the parties were
residing together and ended shortly after Defendant left the marital residence.2~
Plaintiff is currently owed a private disability payment of $163.60 per month;22
il N.T. 28.
12 N.T. 3.
13 N.T. 5, 10-11.
14 N.T. 6.
15 N.T. 7.
16 N.T. 7.
l? N.T. 9-10.
18 N.T. 10.
19 N.T. 7.
2° N.T. 8.
2~ See Notes 5,
22 N.T. 7.
18-19 and accompanying text.
3
however, Plaintiff is not sent this amount, because it is applied to the
overpayment.23
Based upon this information, the support master made the following
suggested findings and recommendations: Plaintiff had income from both social
security disability benefits and the payments by the private insurance company
that now serve to pay back the previously received overpayment.24 Specifically,
the support master recommended that monthly payments being applied to the
previous overpayment constituted income under the Domestic Relations Code, in
the form of "temporary and permanent disability benefits" and/or "income in
discharge of indebtedness.''25 The support master, therefore, added together the
social security disability payments of $774.00 and the private disability payments,
now being applied to the prior overpayment, of $163.60, both of these items being
non-taxable, to result in a net monthly income of $937.60.26 The support master,
calculating Defendant's net income utilizing a federal income tax filing status of
married filing separately,27 determined that Defendant had a monthly net income
of $1,917.11.2a The support master then subtracted from Defendant's net income
the $210.73 paid each month in child support and Plaintiff's net income of
$937.60, resulting in a figure of $768.78, and then multiplied that amount by 30%,
23 N.T. 7-8.
24 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 3.
25 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 3 citingAct of Oct. 30, 1985, P.L. 264 § 1,
as amended, 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 4302 (West 2003).
26 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 3.
27 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 3-4. It is noted that the parties currently
file jointly; however, the master found that it would be more beneficial financially for
Defendant to file as married filing separately and based a determination of his income on
this status. Id. citingPiso v. Piso, 761 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).
28 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 4. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 49
Cumberland L.J. 219, 224 n. 32 (2000) (noting Cumberland County's use of a computer
program to determine taxes applicable to a party's income).
4
yielding a spousal support obligation of $230.74 per month.29 The master did not
deviate from the guideline support obligation.3° When added to the stipulated child
support payment, this resulted in a support obligation on the part of Defendant of
$441.11 per month.3~
DISCUSSION
Statement of Law
Review of a Support Master's Report. On a review of a support master's
report, a trial court is to employ the same standard as is applicable to review of a
divorce master's report. Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 544 A.2d
1033, 1035 (1988). "While such a report is to be given the fullest consideration,
especially with regard to the credibility of witnesses," the findings and conclusions
are advisory rather than binding. Id; see McCurdy v. McCurdy, No. 02-0097
Support (Ct. Com. Pls. Cumberland Sept. 13, 2002) (Hess, J.).
Insurance Repayment As Income. It is noted that the issue of whether this
type of repayment is within the definition of income for purposes of support
appears to be one of first impression in Pennsylvania.32 However, Pennsylvania
law defining income and the manner in which other states have dealt with this
issue are instructive.
The Domestic Relations Code defines income, in relevant part, as "...
income from discharge of indebtedness; . [and] temporary and permanent
disability benefits; .... "Act of Oct. 30, 1985, P.L. 264, § 1, as amended, 23 Pa.
C.S.A. § 4302 (West 2003). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that, "in
order to be included in the statutory definition of income, a resource must
reasonably fit within one of the categories enumerated in Section 4302 [of the
29 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 4; see Pa. R.C.P. 1910-16-4(a) Part IV.
30 Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 4; see Pa. R.C.P. 1910-16-4(a) Part IV.
3~ Interim Order of Ct., Jul. 28, 2003, Ex. A at 4.
32 See Pl.'s Brief at 4.
5
Domestic Relations Code]." Humphreys v. Deross, 576 Pa. 614, 619, 790 A.2d
281,284 (2002).
it appears that the states of Hawaii and Delaware, in cases factually similar
to the present case, have found that payments being applied to a previous
overpayment should be included as income. The Delaware Family Court has
explained that the payments should be considered income because, although not
being received as tangible cash presently, the party receiving the repayment did
receive this income as an asset in the past. Ryle v. Riley, 1999 WL 509702, 2 (Del.
Fam. Ct. No. CN93-7i96, 1999) (unpublished opinion).33 The Hawaii
intermediate Court of Appeals, although not addressing the matter in detail, has
indicated that under certain factual situations this type of repayment may be
considered income for purposes of support. Child Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 990
P.2d i 158, i 168 (Haw. Ct. App. 1999).
Application of Law to Facts
in the present case, based upon the forgoing principles of law, the court
believes that Plaintiff's private insurance payments, which are currently being
applied to a prior overpayment, properly fit within the statutory definition of
income as "temporary and permanent disability benefits" and/or "income from
discharge of indebtedness," and thus should be included as income to Plaintiff.34
33 It is noted that, although this opinion is unpublished, the majority of the opinions from
the state of Delaware, especially those from the state's family court, are not published
and common practice in Delaware is to allow for the citation of these unpublished
opinions. See Del. S. Ct. R. 93(d); Del Fam. Ct. R. 107(c) (explaining how to cite
unpublished opinions to Delaware Courts); dohnson v. Cambell, 332 F.3d 199, 212 n.9
(3rd Cir. 2003) (noting that Delaware allows for the citation of unpublished opinions);
Aquaro v. Zoning BoardofAdjustment of City of Philadelphia, 673 A.2d 1055, 1061 n.
15 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996) (noting that, when citing opinions from other jurisdictions,
Pennsylvania Courts are to follow the rules of citation from the jurisdiction where the
opinion was issued).
34 Plaintiff also argues in her brief that it would be unfair to have the amount applied to
the overpayment count as income when Defendant had enjoyment of this overpayment
during the marriage. P1.'s Brief at 7-8. However, the court believes that the fairness of the
distribution of this debt is an issue properly dealt with by the divorce master and not in
6
Accordingly, in the court's view, the recommendation of the master on this issue
was correct. Therefore, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2003, upon consideration of
Plaintiff's exception to the report of the support master, and for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion, the exception is dismissed and the interim order of
court dated July 28, 2003, is entered as a final order.
BY THE COURT,
/s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Support Master
Robert E. Rains, Esq.
Lucy Johnson-Walsh, Esq.
Supervising Attorneys
Nicholas Aloia, Certified Legal Intern
Family Law Clinic
45 North Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17012
Counsel for Plaintiff
Timothy J. Colgan, Esq.
1 South Baltimore Street
Dillsburg, PA 17019
Counsel for Defendant
the context of this support mater. See Howe v. Howe, 516 S.E.2d 240, 247 (Va. Ct. App.
1999).
7
8
KRISTINE L. HARRISON,
Plaintiff
Vo
KEITH A. HARRISON,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
PACSES NO. 890104462
NO. 02-356 SUPPORT
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION
TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2003, upon consideration of
Plaintiff's exception to the report of the support master, and for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion, the exception is dismissed and the interim order of
court dated July 28, 2003, is entered as a final order.
BY THE COURT,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Support Master
Robert E. Rains, Esq.
Lucy Johnson-Walsh, Esq.
Supervising Attorneys
Nicholas Aloia, Certified Legal Intern
Family Law Clinic
45 North Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17012
Counsel for Plaintiff
Timothy J. Colgan, Esq.
1 South Baltimore Street
Dillsburg, PA 17019
Counsel for Defendant