Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1095 S 2002 AMBER R P ARLA TI, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION GERALD R MORTON, Defendant PACSES NO. 038105095 NO. 1095 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 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 Interim Order of Court dated July 14, 2004, is entered as a permanent order. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Michael R Rundle, Esquire Support Master Amber R Parlati RR 2, Box 195 Loysville, P A 17047 Plaintiff, Pro Se Gerald R Morton 896 Cedars Road Lewisberry P A 17339 Defendant, Pro Se AMBER R. P ARLA TI, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION GERALD R. MORTON, Defendant PACSES NO. 038105095 NO. 1095 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., November 1,2004. The above-captioned case involves the financial support of a child 1 who was born on October 22, 2002? An order was issued on June 10, 2003, directing Defendant to pay child support in the amount of $788.00 per month.3 Defendant, acting pro se, filed a petition for modification on March 2, 2004.4 This petition was the subject of a support master's hearing on July 12, 2004. Following the hearing, the support master issued a report which recommended the following: A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for his child. . . the sum of $755.00 per month. B. The Defendant shall pay to the State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $22.00 per month on arrearages. C. The Defendant shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of said child as provided through his employer at a reasonable cost. 1 See Complaint for Support, filed December 9,2002. 2 See id. 3 Order of Court, June 10,2003. More exactly, the order directed Defendant to pay child support in the amount of$788.00 per month commencing January 15,2003, and in the amount of$502.00 per month prior thereto. Id. 4 Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed March 2, 2004. 1 D. The Defendant shall pay 68% of the umeimbursed medical expenses incurred by said child as that term is defined in Pa. RC.P. 191O.l6-6(c). E. The Defendant shall be entitled to claim said child as a dependency exemption for federal income tax purposes commencing with tax year 2004. The Plaintiff shall execute all documentation required by the internal revenue code to effectuate this exemption. F. The effective date of this order is March 2,2004.5 Defendant filed exceptions to the support master's report on June 23, 2004. These exceptions, which are the subject of this opinion, are as follows: 1) The Defendant has found errors in the Support Master[']s calculations. The Defendant has found his gross monthly income totaling $1927.47 monthly deductions totaling $444.86 thus leaving the net income as $1482.61 (adhering to the Rule 191O.l6-2c )[.] 2) The Plaintiff by her own admission to the hearing officer testified that she has not ever held full- time status at Harrisburg Area Community College. She testified in the hearing that she does not intend to start full-time status until the fall of 2004. She stated that she would be taking 15 hours per week. The Defendant disagrees with 40 hours of childcare at $125.00 per week when the plaintiff has not been holding employment and attending school only 15 hours per week. 3) The Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce Federal Tax Form 2441 (Child and Dependant Care Expenses) for the year 2003. The Defendant feels he has the right as the Father to know what Child Care Provider cares for his daughter and properly research the background of that Provider. 4) The Defendant pays $10.38 per week for health insurance coverage on himself and his daughter. 5 Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed July 14, 2004 (hereinafter Support Master's Report). 2 The Defendant disagrees with the Support Master's guidelines worksheet; he is only deducting $7.08.6 F or the reasons stated in this OpInIOn, Defendant's exceptions will be dismissed and an interim order of court which was entered in accordance with the support master's recommendations will now be entered as a permanent order. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Amber R. Parlati and Defendant Gerald R. Morton are the parents of Sophia Margaret Parlati, born October 22, 2002.7 Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for child support on December 9,2002.8 Ultimately, after a support master's hearing, an order was entered directing Defendant to pay child support in the amount of $502.00 per month through January 14, 200[3], and $788.00 per month thereafter.9 On March 2, 2004, Defendant filed a petition for modification based upon a decrease in income. 10 This petition was eventually the subject of a support master's hearing on July 12, 2004. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the facts pertinent to a determination of child support may be summarized as follows: With respect to Defendant's income/earning capacity, Defendant was employed as a truck driver prior to January 15, 2001, by Ward Trucking Company, where he earned approximately $16.43 per hour.ll He voluntarily left this employment on or about January 15, 2003.12 However, he succeeded in obtaining unemployment compensation benefits for much of 2003.13 6 Defendant's Exceptions to Support Master[']s Report, filed July 23,2004. 7 Notes of Testimony, Master's Hearing, July 12,2004, at 3 (hereinafter NT. ~. 8 Complaint for Support, filed December 9,2002. 9 Interim Order of Court, June 10,2003. 10 Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed March 2, 2004. 11 NT.6-8. 12 NT. 6. Defendant testified that he was currently unable to work as a truck driver because of a driving under the influence charge he received in June of 2001. NT. 6, 8. However, Defendant 3 Defendant eventually obtained employment at Arnold Logistics, which commenced around January 15,2004.14 As a forklift operator at Arnold Logistics, Defendant had earned approximately $11,974.00 as of the date of the support master's hearing. 15 Medical insurance premiums of $10.38 per week were being deducted from Defendant's pay, covering both Defendant and the parties' child. 16 The modification sought by Defendant herein was premised upon a "drastic" decrease in the amount of money he was now earning from what his income had been when he was employed at Ward Trucking. 17 With respect to Plaintiffs income/earning capacity, at the time of the modification hearing Plaintiff was an unemployed18 student at the Harrisburg Area Community College,19 emolled in a program leading to an associate's degree in nursing.20 Prior to attending HACC, Plaintiff, who did not complete high school,21 had worked as a waitress and a clerk at a department store.22 Before the 2004 spring semester, Plaintiff had been emolled on a part-time basis; however, as of the time of the filing of the petition for modification, she was emolled as a full- time student, taking fourteen credits per semester?3 Her testimony at the master's hearing included the following: deviated from this position when, in response to a question posed by Plaintiff, asking if he was presently able to work as a truck driver, Defendant responded, "I don't know." NT. 8. 13 NT. 6-7. 14 NT. 4. 15 NT. 5. Defendant testified the earnings also included overtime pay. NT. 5. 16 NT. 5-6. Defendant was being paid weekly. NT. 5-6. 17 NT. 6. 18 NT. 9. 19 NT. 9-10. Plaintiff testified that her grade point average at the Harrisburg Area Community College was a 3.66. NT. 15. 20 NT. 10, 12. 21 NT. 12. 22 NT. 14. 23 NT. 9. 4 Master Q: Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Since June of [20]03 how has your academic situation changed? I am now emolled full-time at [Harrisburg Area Community College], full-time plus, 14 credits a semester. When did you start that? I think it was this past semester that I started in full, because I did three-quarters time before that. So it was. . . [the] Spring of2004. So the January semester of 2004 ? Yes... . * * * * Are you going to school over the summer? Yes. How many credit hours are you taking over the summer? I believe over the summer its nine credits; yes, three classes. And in September you will pick up with the full load again? If 24 not more, yes. . . . Plaintiff testified that she was currently unable to work, due in large part to several painful conditions relating to her jaw and mouth, which made it difficult to k 25 spea . Plaintiff and the parties' child had once resided in the home of Plaintiff s mother, located in New Cumberland,26 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,27 24 NT. 9-11. 25 NT. 16. Plaintiff had worked as a waitress and a department store clerk and testified that, due the aforementioned conditions, she was physically unable to converse with customers for long periods of time. NT. 16. 26 NT. 11. 27 The court will take judicial notice of the fact that New Cumberland IS located within Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5 where the child shared a bedroom with another person,28 presumably the Plaintiff. In June of 2004, Plaintiff and the child moved away from the home of Plaintiff s mother,29 and, at the time of the July 12, 2004, modification hearing, they resided in Loysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania. 30 In order to support herself, Plaintiff was dependent upon financial support of her family,31 certain student loans, and a small scholarship. 32 Plaintiff was supporting the parties' child with the child support payments made by Defendant. 33 In order to facilitate her pursuit of an education, Plaintiff was making payments of $125.00 per week to a friend in exchange for approximately 25 hours per week of childcare services. 34 With respect to childcare expenses, Plaintiff s testimony at the master's hearing included the following: Master Q: What do you do with [the child] when you are going to school? Well, [a friend] watches her. And who is that? Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Master Q: Plaintiff A: Just a girlfriend of mine. She has watched her for the longest time now since I've started going to school. What do you pay for childcare? I give her $125.00 a week and she watches her like approximately 25 hours a week. . . .35 28 NT. 11. 29 See NT. 9. 30 NT. 8, 11. 31 NT. 14-16. 32 NT. 11-12, 16. 33 NT. 12-14. Plaintiff stated that a portion of the support money received goes to paying household related bills. NT. 11-12. 34 NT. 13. 35 NT. 13. 6 Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the modification hearing, the support master determined that Defendant was earning less than he had earned while employed at Ward Trucking and that Plaintiff s status as a student had changed from part-time to full-time, and he concluded that because of these changed circumstances a review of the support order was appropriate. 36 Despite her unemployed status, the master assigned Plaintiff an earning capacity of $206.00 per week, or a gross income/earning capacity of $893.00 per month.37 The support master, after calculating tax and FICA deductions,38 determined Plaintiffs net monthly income/earning capacity to be $764.00.39 The support master determined that Defendant had gross monthly earnings of $1,922.00 during 2004.40 (The difference between this figure and that proffered by Defendant in his exceptions of $1,927.00 is de minimis, and, in any event, for purposes of a support calculation is more favorable to Defendant than to Plaintiff). Applying a standard tax computer program to this figure, in conjunction with Defendant's ( a) filing status of single, (b) the 2004 federal standard tax deduction of $404.17, (c) two exemptions,41 and (d) the federal child tax credit, to calculate Defendant's FICA and federal, state and local tax obligations, the support master arrived at a monthly figure of $264.00 in tax and FICA deductions for support purposes.42 The use of a standard tax computer program to calculate 36 See Support Master's Report. 37Id. 38 Defendant was awarded the tax exemption for the parties' child and a "single" filing status was assigned to Plaintiff. Id. 39Id. 40 Support Master's Report, Ex. "B." 41 The support master awarded Defendant the exemption for the child because Plaintiff had no actual income with which to take advantage of the exemption. Master's Report, at 3. 42 Support Master's Report, Exs. "A," "C"; see Pa. RC.P. 1610.16-2(c)(1) (enumeration of permissible deductions from gross income for purposes of calculation of net income in support matters) . 7 these deductions, which is routine practice in domestic relations cases,43 avoids the problems inherent in relying upon individual withholding schemes, which do not always correspond to the taxpayer's actual obligations. Defendant's resultant monthly net income/earning capacity figure was $1,658.00 ($1,922.00 less $264.00). The combined net income/earning capacity figure was $2,422.00 ($764.00 plus $1,658.00). A monthly combined basic child support obligation under the guidelines was $571.00.44 Defendant's proportional share (68.45%) of this obligation was $390.85. Defendant's proportional share (68.45%) of childcare expenses ($542.67 per month),45 totaled $370.77, increasing his monthly child support obligation figure to $761.62. Plaintiffs proportional share (31.55%) of the child's portion (one-half) of medical/dental premiums being paid by Defendant ($10.38 per week, or $44.98 per month) totaled about $7.09; when credited to Defendant's support obligation ($761.62),46 this figure produced a monthly child support obligation of $755.00 on the part of Defendant.47 43 See Seeley-Burnham v. Burnham, 52 Cumberland LJ. 48, 52; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 49 Cumberland LJ. 219, 224 n.32 (2000). 44 See Pa. RC.P. 1910.16-3. 45 See Pa. RC.P. 1910.16-6(a). 46 See Pa. RC.P. 1910.16-6(b). Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910 . 16-6(b ) provides the following general rule, which conflicts with Defendant's apparent position that his health insurance premium payments should be deducted from his gross income: 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. . . . Pa. RC.P. 1910.16-6(b). This is the method utilized by the support master in dealing with Defendant's payment of premiums to provide health insurance coverage on behalf of the child in this case. 47 This figure is rounded to the nearest dollar. 8 On July 14, 2004, the master issued a report, which included several recommendations48 as outlined above that were incorporated into an interim order of court dated July 14, 2004.49 Thereafter, on July 21, 2004, Defendant filed the . d b 50 exceptIOns quote a ove. DISCUSSION Statement of Law Child support and modification. In Pennsylvania, parents are responsible for the financial support of their unemancipated minor children. Act of October 30, 1985, P.L. 264, S 1, as amended, 23 Pa. C.S.A. S 4321(2). The amount of support each parent provides is determined by their respective incomes and abilities to contribute support. DeWalt v. DeWalt, 365 Pa. Super. 280, 284, 529 A.2d 508, 510 (1987). After a support order has been entered, and upon a showing of a "material and substantial change" in the circumstances of the interested parties, the trier of fact may modify or terminate an existing order in an appropriate manner based upon the evidence presented. Pa. RC.P. 191O.l9(a), (c). Review of exceptions to support master's report. 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. 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 48 See Support Master's Report. 49 See Interim Order of Court, dated July 14,2004. 50 See Defendant's Exceptions. 9 choose to utilize a master's report." Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. at 507-08, 544 A.2d at 1035. Exceptions to support master's report. Exceptions to a support master's report and recommendation are provided for by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 191O.l2(f), which provides, in relevant part: "Within ten days after the date of the report. . . any party may file exceptions to the report or any part thereof, to rulings on objections to evidence, to statements or findings of fact, to conclusions of law, or to any other matter occurring during the hearing." Pa. RC.P. 191O.l2(f) (emphasis supplied). Health insurance premiums. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16- 6(b )( 1) provides, in relevant part: A party's payment of a premium to provide health insurance coverage on behalf of [a child] 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 [Defendant] is paying the premium, then obligee's [Plaintiff s] share is deducted from the obligor's [Defendant's] basic support obligation. Pa. RC.P. 191O.l6-6(b)(1) (emphasis supplied). Guidelines. There exists in Pennsylvania a rebuttable presumption that a support calculation based upon the guidelines is correct. Act of October 30, 1985, P.L. 264, S 1, as amended, 23 Pa. C.S. S4322(b); see also Wonders v. Wonders, 415 Pa. Super. 416, 422, 609 A.2d 821, 824 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). Application of Law to Facts Defendant's first exception complains of the support master's calculation of his net income/earning capacity, contending that his deductions from gross income/earning capacity should have been $444.86 instead of $264.00. The disparity in figures appears to arise from Defendant's belief (a) that the master was bound by withholding figures in calculating his tax obligation and (b) that his health insurance premium payments were deductible from his gross income. The 10 reason that the former proposition is incorrect has been discussed in this opinion, 51 as has the reason that the latter proposition is incorrect. 52 Defendant's second exception purports to identify an inconsistency between Plaintiff s testimony at the July 12, 2004, modification hearing and a finding by the master that Plaintiff was a full-time college student; the exception also questions the reasonableness of "40 hours" per week of childcare at a cost of $125.00 per week.53 This exception is apparently based upon a disregard or misunderstanding of the testimony quoted above with regard to (a) Plaintiffs full- time status as a student during the school year as of January, 2004, and (b) the schedule of the child's caregiver. To the extent that the exception encompasses a challenge to the reasonableness of the sum of $125.00 per week for 25 hours of childcare, the court is unable to agree that the figure is an umeasonable one. Defendant's third exception asks the court to order Plaintiff to produce a certain tax form which Plaintiff is alleged to have filed for the 2003 tax year. 54 The purported reason for the request-premised upon his natural rights as a "father" 55 -is to allow Defendant the ability to ascertain the identity of the aforementioned childcare provider, and, thereby, allow Defendant to investigate the childcare provider's background. 56 The record contains no indication that Defendant raised an issue as to the fitness of the childcare provider, either by way of a discovery request or through cross-examination of Plaintiff at the master's hearing. 57 To the extent that Defendant now requests a discovery order with respect to this subject, the request 51 See notes 43-44 supra and accompanying text 52 See note 47 supra and accompanying text. 53 See Defendant's Exceptions. 54 See Defendant's Exceptions. 55 See id. 56 See id. 57 See generally NT. 16-17. 11 is untimely. Furthermore, under the circumstances, the topic of the exception is not within the permissible scope of exceptions set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 191O.l2(f).58 Defendant's fourth exception argues that the master's credit to him of a little over $7.00 per month for payment of health insurance premiums was unfair in light of his payment of $10.38 per week for such premiums. The manner in which this figure was calculated, and its consistency with the Rules of Civil Procedure both in amount and application in the ultimate calculation of Defendant's support obligation, has been discussed above. 59 As with Defendant's other exceptions, the court finds itself unable to agree with Defendant's position in this regard. F or the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 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 Interim Order of court dated July 14, 2004, is entered as a permanent order. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Michael R. Rundle, Esquire Support Master 58 See Pa. RC.P. 1910.12(f). 59 See, e.g., note 46 supra and accompanying text. 12 Amber R Parlati RR 2, Box 195 Loysville, P A 17047 Plaintiff, Pro Se Gerald R Morton 896 Cedars Road Lewisberry P A 17339 Defendant, Pro Se 13