Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout664 S 2003FAYE A. SHEAFFER, Plaintiff · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION JEFFREY L. SHEAFFER, · PACSES NO. 879105665 Defendant · NO. 664 SUPPORT 2003 DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., March 17, 2004. For disposition in this child/spousal support case are exceptions filed by Defendant father/husband to a report of the Cumberland County Support Master. Although Defendant has set forth seventeen exceptions,~ he has distilled these in The exceptions of Defendant to the support master's report are as follows: 1. That portion of the Discussion Section of the Support Master's Report which states that the Plaintiff's counselor diagnosed the Plaintiff as suffering from adjustment disorder with depression and al~xiety is not supported by the evidence in the record. 2. That portion of the Discussion Section of the Support Master's Report regarding the Plaintiff~ s counselor's opinions as to the Plaintiff~ s ability to engage in employment outside of the home is not supported by the evidence in the record. 3. That portion of the Discussion Section of the Support Master's Report which states that the Plaintiff's family physician concurred with Plaintiff's counselor regarding her ability to work is not supported by the evidence in the record. 4. That portion of the Discussion Section of the Support Master's Report which states that Plaintiff does not have an earnings capacity is not supported by the evidence in the record. 5. That portion of the Discussion Section of the Support Master's Report which upwardly adjusted Defendant's montfdy support obligation pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(e), is erroneous as said calculations were based, in past, on Plaintiff being assigned a Zero and no/100 ($0.00) Dollars earning capacity. 6. Support Master's Findings of Fact No. 9 [;~Following the departure from the home of her husband, the Plaintiff sought medical help and counseling"] is not supported by the evidence in the record. 7. Support Master's Findings of Fact No. 10 [;~The Plaintiff was diagnosed by Wanda W. Mays, a licensed professional counselor, as suffering from adjustment disorder with depression and a~xiety"] is not supported by the evidence in the record. 8. Findings of Fact No. 12 [~The Plaintiff has been txeated monthly at the Dunham clinic since the sepasation'] is not supported by the evidence in the record. 9. Support Master's Findings of Fact No. 15 [~The Plaintiff has shown some improvement in her condition but continues to have difficulty focusing on tasks, continues to undergo episodes of crying, to be moody and frustxated, and to periodically have difficulty sleeping"] is not supported by the evidence in the record. 10. Support Master's Findings of Fact No. 16 [~The Plaintiff is temporasily unable to work outside the home as a result of her mental condition"] is not supported by the evidence in the record. 11. Support Master's Findings of Fact No. 20 [~Jason's conduct, in addition to the Defendant's departure, has had a detximental effect on the Plaintiff~ s mental condition"] as such is not supported by the evidence in the record. 12. Support Master's Recommendation A [~The Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit for transmission to the Plaintiff as support for his child, Tammy Faye Sheaffer, born July 17, 1990, the sum of $817.00 per month"] is erroneous as said recommendation is, in part, based upon a Zero and no/100 ($0.00) Dollass em~ning capacity being assigned to Plaintiff5 13. Support Master's Recommendation B [~The Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit for transmission to the Plaintiff as support for his wife the sum of $1,190.00 per month, which sum includes a mortgage adjustment of $188.00"] is erroneous as said recommendation is, in part, based upon a Zero and no/100 ($0.00) Dollars em~ning capacity being assigned to Plaintiff5 14. Support Master's Recommendation E [~The Defendant shall pay 100% of the unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by said child as that term is defined in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c), provided, however, that an annual limitation on said expenses shall be set at $2,000.00"] is erroneous as said recommendation is, in past, based upon a Zero and no/100 ($0.00) Dollass earning capacity being assigned to Plaintiff5 15. Pasagraph A of the Interim Order of Court [~The Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit for transmission to the Plaintiff as support for his child, Tammy Faye Sheaffer, born July 17, 1990, the sum of $817.00 per month"] is erroneous as it is, in past, based upon a Zero a~d no/100 ($0.00) Dollass earning capacity being assigned to Plaintiff5 16. Pasagraph B of the Interim Order of Court [~The Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit for transmission to the Plaintiff as support for his wife the sum of $1,190.00 per month, which sum includes a mortgage adjustment of $188.00"] is erroneous as it is, in past, based upon a Zero and no/100 ($0.00) Dollass em~ning capacity being assigned to Plaintiff5 17. Pasagraph E of the Interim Order of Court [~The Defendant shall pay 100% of the unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by said child as that term is defined in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c), provided, however, that a~ annual limitation on said expenses shall be set at $2,000.00)"] is erroneous as it is, in part, based upon a Zero and no/100 ($0.00) Dollars em~ning capacity being assigned to Plaintiff5 Defendant's exceptions to support master's report, at 1-3. 2 his brief in support of the exceptions into two general propositions, the second of which being dependent upon the validity of the first: A. Wife's psychological condition does not prevent her from working and she should be assigned an earnings capacity based upon her previous work history and earnings ability. B. Husband's child support obligation, spousal support obligation with a mortgage adjustment and responsibility for unreimbursed medical expenses should be recalculated in light of Wife's earning capacity.2 Briefs have been received from the parties in support of, and in opposition to, Defendant's exceptions. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court finds itself in agreement with the support master's conclusion that at the present time an earning capacity should not be attributed to Plaintiff due to her mental condition, and Defendant's exceptions to the master's report will be dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is Faye A. Sheaffer, 46; she resides at 6601 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.3 Defendant is Jeffrey L. Sheaffer, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 301, Port Royal, Juniata County, Pennsylvania.4 The parties were married on August 13, 1977.5 Three children were bom of the marriage: Jason, 25;6 Jeffrey, 19;7 and Tammy, 13.8 The parties separated on Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Exceptions, at 3, 7. N.T. 39, Support Master's Hearing, November 25, 2003 (hereinafter N.T. N.T. 64. Defendant's age does not appear of record. N.T. 39. N.T. 40. 7N.T. 41. N.T. 41-42. 3 July 20, 2003, when Defendant left the marital residence to live with a female friend.9 Defendant's monthly net income is $4,154.58.~° His income derives from his salary as a maintenance supervisor for Fry Communications, Inc., in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and from a military pension. ~ Plaintiff, who has a high school education,~2 is not employed.~3 She left her most recent employment as a salad bar preparer for a food service company, earning $9.27 per hour, on May 15, 2003, due to a conflict with her supervisor.TM Plaintiff's resignation occurred while the parties were living together and without objection on the part of Defendant, two months prior to Defendant's unexpected departure from the residence to live with another woman. The unanticipated dissolution of her marriage caused Plaintiff extreme anxiety and depression. 16 According to Dr. Wanda Mays, a licensed professional counselor and licensed psychiatric nurse,~7 who has treated Plaintiff in therapy on a weekly basis since shortly after Defendant's departure,~8 several stress factors contributed to Plaintiff' s condition: The stressors at that time and continued to be the imminent divorce between she and her husband of a number of years. That's the first one. The second 9 N.T. 39, 45, 59, 71. lo See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed December 1, 2003, at 4, Ex. "B" (hereinafter Support Master's Report and Recommendation at __). This recommended finding is not the subject of exceptions by either party. ~ See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed December 1, 2003; Plaintiff's Ex. 7. This recommended finding is not the subject of exceptions by either party. ~2 N.T. 42. ~3 See N.T. 43. 14 N.T. 43 ~5 N.T. 43-45. 16 N.T. 9, 45-46. ~7 N.T. 5-6. ~8 N.T. 8. 4 one is she feels a great deal of pressure to accomplish a number of tasks in a short amount of time. The third one is she has an older son who needs a great deal of help and causes a great deal of stress to her. The fourth one is her youngest daughter who also seems to be having some difficulty and is causing Faye some stress.19 All three of the parties' children live with Plaintiff.2° The oldest child, 25, is somewhat retarded mentally,2~ lies, and steals.~ He moves in and out of Plaintiff's residence,~3 is easily frustrated and moody, and frequently screams at Plaintiff and beats her.~4 Plaintiff was diagnosed by Dr. Mays as suffering from an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety.25 The symptoms of her anxiety were identified by Dr. Mays as follows: She has a number of symptoms of her anxiety. She can't concentrate. She has racing thoughts. She is very fearful and she has crying spells. She has a great deal of difficulty sleeping. She has some physical symptoms such as racing heart, dizziness, tight muscles, headaches, those kinds of things.26 Plaintiff's family practice physician placed her on increasing doses of Zoloft for "obvious depression symptoms,''27 which were observed on July 25, 2003, a few days after the announcement by Plaintiff's husband that he wanted a 19 N.T. 10. 2o N.T. 40-42. 2~ N.T. 40-41. 22 N.T. 46. 23 N.T. 40. 24 N.T. 47. 25 N.T. 15. 26 N.T. 10-11. 27N.T. 18, 21, 24-26. 5 divorce.2a In the course of monthly visits to the family practice,29 the increasing dosages of Zoloft for depression were augmented by Ativan for anxiety, in October, 2003.3° She also takes prescription medication in the form of Ambien for sleeping difficulties.3~ Unfortunately, the medication has not adequately relieved her symptoms,3: and her board-certified family medicine physician,33 Kimberlee P. Young, M.D., has recommended an examination by a psychiatrist34 for purposes of evaluating her medication,35 which Plaintiff is attempting to arrange.36 Although Plaintiff wants to resume work in the future,37 she does not currently feel capable of working.3a In addition, both Dr. Mays and Dr. Young believe that she is not psychologically well enough to be employed at the present time.39 The Cumberland County Support Master has made a recommended finding to this effect,4° attributing no earning capacity to Plaintiff at this time. In accordance with the support guidelines, the support master calculated Defendant's basic support obligation for one child to be $815.00 per month and 28 N.T. 21-25. 29 N.T. 21-26. 3o N.T. 24-26. 3~ N.T. 13. 32 N.T. 10, 16, 26. 33 N.T. 17-18. 34 N.T. 25-26. 35 N.T. 16. 36 N.T. 51. 37 N.T. 52. 38 N.T. 59-60. 39 N.T. 12, 28. 40 "The Plaintiff is temporarily unable to work outside the home as a result of her mental condition." Support Master's Report and Recommendation, Finding of Fact 16. "Under the circumstances of this case at present, no earning capacity will be imputed to the Plaintiff." Id. at 4. 6 his basic support obligation for his spouse to be $1001.87.41 With a mortgage adjustment in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of $188.43 per month,42 the total monthly support obligation of Defendant totaled $2,005.30.43 An interim support order to this effect was entered in conformity with the Support Master's Report and Recommendation by the Honorable Edward E. Guido of this court on December 1, 2003. Defendant's exceptions, based upon the allegedly erroneous attribution of no earning capacity to Plaintiff at this time, were filed on December 11, 2003. DISCUSSION On a review of a support master's report, a trial court is to employ the same standard of review as is applicable to a divorce master's report. See Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988). The report should be accorded the "fullest consideration," particularly with respect to the credibility of witnesses. Id However, the report is advisory only, and, when exceptions are filed, the court must conduct its own review of the evidence to determine whether the master's recommendations to which exceptions are taken are proper. Id; Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Rptr. 211,226-27 (1984). With respect to 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). In determining a party's ability to pay a support obligation, a court should focus upon the party's earning capacity, not his or her actual earnings. Mooney v. Doubt, 2001 Pa. Super. 12, para. 6, 766 A.2d 1271, 1273 (2001). Thus, a 4~ See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, Ex. "C". 42Id. "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." Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(e). 43 See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, Ex. "C". 7 voluntary termination of employment will not of itself result in a determination that the person lacks the means to pay support. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(1). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court finds itself in agreement with the support master's unwillingness to attribute at this time an earning capacity to the Plaintiff. In this regard, Defendant's contention that in seventeen particulars the master's report fails to comport with the record is simply not borne out by a fair examination of the evidence.44 For the foregoing reasons, and based upon the facts recited above, the following order of court will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's exceptions to the support master's report, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the terms of the Interim Order of Court dated December 1, 2003, are entered as a final order of court. BY THE COURT, Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Cumberland County Support Master Carol J. Lindsay, Esq. For the Plaintiff /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 44 This conclusion follows generally from the recitation of facts contained in this opinion. More particularly, support for the master's findings and other statements in the report, which are the subject of Defendant's exceptions recited in note 1 supra, appears in the record as follows: Exception 1 (N.T. 15); Exception 2 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 3 (N.T. 28); Exception 4 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 5 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 6 (N.T. 8, 21-25); Exception 7 (N.T. 15); Exception 8 (N.T. 21-26); Exception 9 (N.T. 10, 12-14, 26, 28, 37-38, 49-50); Exception 10 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 11 (N.T. 10, 40-42, 46-48); Exception 12 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 13 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 14 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 15 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); Exception 16 (N.T. 12, 28, 52); and Exception 17 (N.T. 12, 28, 52). 8 Orris C. Knepp, III, Esq. For the Defendant 9 10 FAYE A. SHEAFFER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION JEFFREY L. SHEAFFER,: PACSES NO. 879105665 Defendant : NO. 664 SUPPORT 2003 DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's exceptions to the support master's report, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the terms of the Interim Order of Court dated December 1, 2003, are entered as a final order of court. BY THE COURT, Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Cumberland County Support Master Carol J. Lindsay, Esq. For the Plaintiff Orris C. Knepp, lll, Esq. For the Defendant J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.