HomeMy WebLinkAbout436 S 2002LINDA K. EBY
V.
LLOYD M. EBY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 436 SUPPORT 2002
PACSES NO. 292104525
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS
TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BEFORE GUIDO, J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Before us are the defendant's exceptions to the Support Master's Report and
Recommendations. After a thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties,
we are satisfied that the Support Master thoroughly and correctly addressed all of the
issues raised. We hereby adopt his opinion as it relates to those issues. However, we will
modify certain discretionary aspects of our prior order.
We note that the Master found the defendant's net monthly income to be $3942.
We also note that he found plaintiff had no earnings or earning capacity because of her
status as a stay at home mother caring for the parties' five children. Based upon these
circumstances, the Master correctly applied the guidelines to determine that defendant
had a child support obligation of $1571 per month and a spousal support obligation of
$711 per month, for a total obligation of $2282. ~
1 This amount increased by $39 per month effective August 1, 2002, to reflect a pay raise received by the
defendant.
NO. 436 SUPPORT 2002 - PACSES # 292104525
The Support Master recommended that the guideline support obligation be
increased by $609 per month pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(e). That rule provides in
relevant part as follows:
If the obligee is living in the marital residence and the mortgage payment
exceeds 25% of the obligee's net income (including amounts of spousal
support, APL and child support), the court may direct the obligor to
assume up to 50% of the excess amount as part of the total support award.
Having determined that the monthly mortgage payment was $1219 more than 25% of
plaintiff' s monthly income, the master recommended that 50% of that excess amount, or
$609, should be added to defendant's support obligation. After a thorough review of the
facts of this case, we are satisfied that the addition of $400 to defendant's support
obligation would be more appropriate.
The Master also found that the plaintiff incurs extraordinary expenses in
connection with the home schooling and transportation of the parties' five children. He
recommended a guideline deviation of $309 to compensate for those expenses. We are
satisfied that an adjustment of $250 per month would be more appropriate.
Finally, the Master recommended that defendant pay $200 per month on the
arrears. We will order the payment of $100 per month on arrears until December 31,
2003, to be increased to $200 per month thereafter.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of JANUARY, 2003, upon consideration of the
Support Master's Report and Recommendation, the transcript of testimony, and the briefs
of the parties, our interim order of court dated October 24, 2002, is VACATED and
replaced with the following final order:
NO. 436 SUPPORT 2002 - PACSES # 292104525
The Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit for
transmission to the Plaintiff as support for his children, Michael J. Eby, born
June 23, 1985; Matthew A. Eby, born December 2, 1987; Rachel E. Eby, born
May 2, 1990; Daniel M. Eby, born March 22, 1992; and David J. Eby, born
December 3, 1993, the sum of $1571 per month.
The Defendant shall pay to SCDU as spousal support the sum of $1361.00 per
month until August 1, 2002, and $1,400 per month thereafter.
The Defendant shall pay an additional sum of $100 per month on arrearages
through December 2003, and $200 per month thereafter until paid in full.
The effective date of this order is May 17, 2002.
The Defendant shall be given a credit on arrears in the amount of $6,300.00
for direct payments made to or for the benefit of the Plaintiff since the filing
date.
The Defendant shall be entitled to claim said children as dependency
exemptions for federal income tax purposes, and the Plaintiff shall execute
and deliver to the Defendant any written document(s) required by the Internal
Revenue Service to effectuate said exemptions.
Except as modified herein, the interim order of August 9, 2002, shall remain
in full force and effect.
By the Court,
/s/Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, J.
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
Harold S. Irwin, iii, Esquire
Michael Rundle, Esquire
Support Master
:sld