The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About510 S 2003 WENDY L. SIKES, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION WILLIAM 1. CARDWELL, : PASCES NO. 892105546 Defendant : NO. 510 SUPPORT 2003 IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., December 2,2004. F or disposition in this child support case are exceptions to a report of the Cumberland County Support Master, filed by Plaintiff. The exceptions are as follows: 1. The Support Master failed to include in Defendant's income the amount of his voluntary retirement contribution in the amount of Six Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Five and no/100 ($6,795.00) Dollars. 2. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant's income be increased by $6,795.00 and that his support obligation be recalculated. 1 F or the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff s exceptions will be dismissed, and the interim order of court entered in accordance with the recommendations on September 16, 2004, will be entered as a final order. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is Wendy L. Sikes, an adult individual residing at 312 Shepherd Lane, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania? Defendant is William 1. Cardwell, an adult individual residing at 975 Wayne Avenue, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.3 They 1 Plaintiffs Exceptions to Order of Court by Support Master, filed September 7,2004. 2 NT. 50, Master's Hearing, September 9,2004 (hereinafter NT. ~. 3 NT. 23. are the parents of two children, Curlista Cardwell, who lives primarily with Plaintiff, and Brenda Cardwell, who lives primarily with Defendant. 4 Plaintiff filed a complaint for child support with respect to Curlista Cardwell on June 6, 2003.5 Ultimately, following a support master's hearing on October 27, 2003, an order was entered directing Defendant to pay child support in the amount of $410.00 per month.6 On June 9, 2004, Defendant filed a petition to decrease the support order, based upon a reduction in his income and new information concerning Plaintiff s income.7 A support master's hearing on this petition was held on September 9, 2004. The evidence at the hearing, as it pertained to the present issue raised in Plaintiff s exceptions (i.e., the proper calculation of Defendant's income available for support), was to the effect that in 2003, Defendant had (a) gross income from an engineering services business in the amount of $54,084.00, (b) gross income from a racing and auto parts business in the amount of $6,529.00, (c) gross rental income of $9,000.00, and (d) interest income of $7.00.8 Expenses, excluding depreciation, for the first business totaled $13,657.00; expenses, excluding depreciation, for the second business totaled $653.00;9 and expenses, excluding depreciation, for the rental property totaled $7,522.00. The total income for Defendant was thus $40,427.00 for the first business, $5,876.00 for the second business, $1,478.00 for the rental property, and $7.00 in interest. Defendant's total income, without taking into consideration deductions to be applied for 4 NT. 51. 5 Plaintiffs Complaint for Support, filed June 6, 2003. 6 Interim Order of Court, October 29, 2004 (Bayley, J.) (becoming final in absence of exceptions ten days later). 7 Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, June 9, 2004. 8 Defendant's Exhibit 1, Master's Hearing, September 9,2004 (hereinafter Plaintiffs/Defendant's Ex.~. 9Id. 2 purposes ofa support calculation,lO was thus $47,788.00 per year, or $3,982.00 per month. This figure coincides with the amount determined by the master and does not include any reduction for certain voluntary retirement program payments being made by Defendant in the amount of $6,795.00 per year,l1 or $566.25 per month. Defendant's tax and FICA obligations were calculated by the master utilizing a standard computer program routinely used in Domestic Relations cases.12 In this regard, a married, filing separately, status was assumed,13 and the standard deduction ($404.17 per month), two exemptions ($516.66 per month), and child tax credit ($83.33 per month) were applied, resulting in a total monthly federal, state and local tax figure of $574.43 and a monthly FICA figure (in Defendant's case, his self-employment tax) of $540.20. The subtraction of these permissible deductions under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 191O.l6-2(c)(1)(A), (B), totaling $1,114.63 per month,14 from Defendant's monthly total of $3,982.00 produces a (rounded-off) monthly net income figure available for support of $2,867.00. This is the figure utilized by the support master in completing the calculation of Defendant's support obligation. 15 No deduction was applied to the $3,982.00 figure for Defendant's voluntary retirement fund contributions. 10 See Pa. RC.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1) (deductions to be made from gross income for purposes of calculating net income). 11 See Defendant's Exhibit 1; NT. 6. 12 "The use of a standard tax computer program to calculate these deductions, which is routine practice in domestic relations cases, avoids the problems inherent in relying upon individual withholding schemes, which do not always correspond to the taxpayer's actual obligations." Parlati v. Morton, No. 1095 Support 2002, at 7-8 (Cumberland Co. November 1, 2004), _ Cumberland LJ. _, _ (2004); see Seeley-Burnham v. Burnham, 52 Cumberland LJ. 48, 52; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 49 Cumberland LJ. 219,224 n.32 (2000). 13 This was in accordance with Defendant's filing status on his 2003 federal income tax return. See Defendant's Exhibit 1. 14 See Support Master's Report, Exhibit "A," filed September 16, 2004 (hereinafter Master's Report). 15 S M ' R Exh'b' "B" ee aster s eport, I It . 3 An application of the support guidelines to the parties' situation, which included a child support obligation on the part of Plaintiff for the parties' other child, resulted in a monthly child support obligation on the part of Defendant of $289.00.16 DISCUSSION The gist of Plaintiff s exceptions to the support master's report in this case is that the master erroneously failed to include in, or deducted from, Defendant's income voluntary payments into a retirement program in calculating Defendant's monthly income available for support. Such payments are not themselves income for purposes of support under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2 (a); and, as indicated by the recitation of facts above, the record does not support the proposition that they were deducted from income by the master. Accordingly, in the absence of error on the part of the master in this respect, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff 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 pursuant to the master's report dated September 16, 2004, is entered as a final order. BY THE COURT, s/ 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Support Master 16 S M ' R Exh'b' "B" ee aster s eport, I It . 4 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff James A. Miller, Esq. 2157 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant 5 6 WENDY L. SIKES, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VI. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION WILLIAM 1. CARDWELL, : PASCES NO. 892105546 Defendant : NO. 510 SUPPORT 2003 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff 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 pursuant to the master's report dated September 16, 2004, is entered as a final order. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Support Master Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff James A. Miller, Esq. 2157 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant