HomeMy WebLinkAbout776 S 2003
JODI L. EICKERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION—SUPPORT
:
DUSTIN S. THOENY, : PACSES NO. 831104197
Defendant : DOCKET NO. 776 SUPPORT 2003
IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, J., July 21, 2005.
In this child support case, Jodi L. Eickert (Plaintiff/mother) filed a petition for
1
modification of an existing support order against Dustin S. Thoeny (Defendant/father).
2
A conference was held on the petition and an interim order was entered, from which
3
both parties requested a hearing de novo. A hearing was held before the support master
on Plaintiff’s petition and an interim order was entered based upon the master’s report
4
and recommendation. Plaintiff then filed pro se exceptions to the master’s report and
5
recommendation. For disposition at this time are Plaintiff’s exceptions filed by Plaintiff.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff’s exceptions to the master’s report
and recommendation will be dismissed.
1
Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed Aug. 6, 2004.
2
Order of Court, Sept. 15, 2004.
3
Appeal of Interim Child Support Order Dated September 15, 2004, filed Sept. 28, 2004; Request for a
Hearing De Novo, filed Sept. 15, 2004.
4
N.T. 1, Hr’g., Oct. 12, 2004 (hereinafter N.T. __); Interim Order of Court, Oct. 14, 2004.
5
Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Nov. 18, 2004. Although Plaintiff’s
exceptions were docketed on November 18, 2004, which was well after the ten-day period allowed by
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.12(f) for filing exceptions to a master’s report and
recommendation, this court, after a hearing on the matter, determined Plaintiff’s actual filing to have been
timely. See Order of Court, Apr. 29, 2005.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Based upon the evidence presented at the support master’s hearing, the facts may
be summarized as follows:
6
Plaintiff/mother is Jodi L. Eickert, who currently lives at 2843 Juneau Drive,
7
Missoula, Montana. Plaintiff is presently employed as a medical transcriptionist for
8
Northern Lights Medical Transcription. Plaintiff’s income varies month by month and is
based upon the number of lines she transcribes, with her current compensation rate set at
9
six cents per line. Based upon the year 2003, Plaintiff has been filing her federal income
tax return as “head of household,” claiming her three children as dependency
10
exemptions.
Defendant/father is Dustin S. Thoeny, who currently lives at 301 Eleventh Street,
11
Apartment A, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant lives
12
with his wife, who he married on June 9, 2003, and her two children. Since June 7,
2004, Defendant has been employed with KEI Pearson—a staffing agency that works
with government contracts across the United States—and is presently working at the
13
Defense Distribution Center in New Cumberland. His current salary is $42,000.00 a
14
year. Based upon the year 2003, Defendant has been filing his federal income tax
15
return as “married filing separately,” claiming no children as dependency exemptions.
6
Order of Court, Apr. 29, 2005.
7
N.T. 4.
8
N.T. 5.
9
N.T. 5-7; Pl.’s Ex. 1, Hr’g., Oct. 12, 2004 (hereinafter Pl.’s/Def.’s Ex. __). For example, Plaintiff
transcribed and billed for 5788 lines in July 2004, 4806 lines in August 2004, and 7001 lines in
September 2004. Pl.’s Ex. 1.
10
N.T. 42-43.
11
N.T. 45.
12
N.T. 45-46. Defendant is in the process of adopting his wife’s two children.
13
N.T. 46-47; Def.’s Ex. 1.
14
N.T. 47.
15
N.T. 48-49.
2
Plaintiff and Defendant were once married, but they divorced after moving to
16
Pennsylvania in 2001. Plaintiff and Defendant have three children: Shayna, who was
born on August 23, 1997, Alexys, who was born on July 25, 1998, and Marla, who was
1718
born on March 1, 2000. All three children live with Plaintiff in Montana.
The parties’ daughter Alexys has autism, which has caused significant financial
19
stresses on Plaintiff. The time Plaintiff is available to work as a medical transciptionist
20
is severely limited by Plaintiff’s responsibilities in caring for Alexys. Alexys must
follow a strict diet that is gluten (a protein found in grain) free and casein (a protein
21
found in dairy products) free. Thus, Plaintiff must purchase special groceries in order
22
to prepare meals for Alexys. These special groceries increase to some extent Plaintiff’s
2324
food expenses, costing Plaintiff between $250.00 and $300.00 per month. Plaintiff
does receive approximately $450.00 per month in food stamps to assist in paying for this
25
diet. Additionally, Plaintiff spends a significant amount of time preparing Alexys’
26
meals. For example, Plaintiff must grind rice and beans in order to make flour to use in
27
Alexys’ meals.
Alexys must also see a number of doctors for problems related to her autism.
28
Alexys sees a Dr. Hawes, a naturopathic physician, for problems associated with a yeast
16
N.T. 41-42.
17
N.T. 3-4.
18
N.T. 4.
19
N.T. 10-11.
20
N.T. 10-11.
21
N.T. 12; Pl.’s Ex. 3.
22
N.T. 13.
23
N.T. 14; Pl.’s Ex. 3.
24
Pl.’s Ex. 5.
25
N.T. 32; Pl.’s Ex. 11.
26
N.T. 13-15.
27
N.T. 14.
28
N.T. 40-41.
3
29
overgrowth in her intestinal tract. Alexys also attends sessions with an occupational
therapist to assist with problems in the development of her fine motor skills and her
30
social skills.
According to Defendant, all three of the children are covered under his health
31
insurance policy with Great West Healthcare. Payment for this insurance policy is
32
subtracted from Defendant’s paycheck each pay period. Plaintiff, however, claims that
she is unable to access any information concerning this policy because she is not listed on
33
the policy. Defendant claims he has taken care of this problem; thus, Plaintiff should
now be able to access the policy regarding matters concerning Shayna, Alexys, and
34
Marla.
Both Shayna and Alexys are enrolled in Valley Christian School, a private school
35
located in Missoula, Montana. The tuition for two children to attend the school is
36
$5,075.00 per year. Plaintiff has applied for scholarships to pay for the tuition for her
children to attend the school; however, at the present time, she has worked out an
37
arrangement with the school to pay whatever she can afford each month. Plaintiff has
enrolled Shayna and Alexys in Valley Christian School because she believes a private
38
school will provide a more caring, supportive environment for Alexys. While a public
school would have to offer the assistance necessary to allow Alexys to attend school,
29
N.T. 16.
30
N.T. 17-18; Pl.’s Ex. 4.
31
N.T. 48, 51-52; see also Def.’s Ex. 2-3.
32
N.T. 48; Def.’s Ex. 1.
33
N.T. 33-34.
34
N.T. 34.
35
N.T. 23; Pl.’s Ex. 7.
36
N.T. 24; Pl.’s Ex. 7.
37
N.T. 24-26; Pl.’s Ex. 7.
38
N.T. 36-37.
4
Plaintiff believes it is better to put her children in a facility that is willing to offer certain
39
care to Alexys without the parents’ having to fight for the care to be provided.
40
Additionally, when Alexys is in school, she is in need of one-on-one support.
Plaintiff goes school with Alexys and provides this support when those who usually
41
provide it are unavailable.
42
When Plaintiff has time, she works in the evening as a medical transcriptionist.
43
While working, she relies upon childcare for her three children. The estimated cost of
obtaining childcare for her three children is between $1,300.00 and $1,500.00 per
44
month. However, Plaintiff receives assistance from the state of Montana for childcare
45
expenses, leaving her with a co-pay of $10.00 per month for childcare.
On August 6, 2004, Plaintiff filed a petition to modify Defendant’s support
46
obligation based upon his attainment of employment with KEI Pearson. A support
conference was held on September 15, 2004, after which an interim order was entered
47
against Defendant that set forth a support obligation of $1,100.00 per month. Both
48
parties requested a hearing.
On October 12, 2004, a hearing was held before the Cumberland County Support
49
Master on Plaintiff’s support modification petition.
39
N.T. 36.
40
N.T. 30-31.
41
N.T. 30-31.
42
N.T. 30.
43
N.T. 30.
44
Pl.’s Ex. 11.
45
N.T. 30; Pl.’s Ex. 10.
46
See Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed Aug. 6, 2004; Support Master’s Report
and Recommendation at 3, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
47
Order of Court, Sept. 15, 2004. This support obligation of $1,100.00 per month was to be paid bi-
weekly and was comprised of, according to the order, payments of $1,041.00 for current support and
$65.00 for arrears.
48
See Appeal of Interim Child Support Order Dated September 15, 2004, filed Sept. 28, 2004; Request for
a Hearing De Novo, filed Sept. 15, 2004.
49
N.T. 1.
5
50
On October 14, 2004, the master issued his report and recommendation. Based
upon the evidence presented by Plaintiff and Defendant at the hearing, the master
51
calculated a monthly net income of $2,807.08 for Defendant and $465.91 for Plaintiff,
52
resulting in a basic child support obligation of $1,177.00. Defendant’s share of this
53
child support obligation was thus determined to be $1,009.51. Following adjustments
for child care expenses (upward adjustment of $8.58 for the $10.00 paid out-of-pocket by
Plaintiff per month) and health insurance premiums (downward adjustment of $22.17 per
54
month), Defendant was determined to have a final child support obligation of $995.92.
Additionally, the master awarded Defendant the dependency exemptions for the three
children after determining that awarding the exemptions to Plaintiff would provide no
financial benefit, while providing the exemptions to Defendant would result in a higher
55
net monthly income for purposes of support.
An Interim Order of Court was issued implementing the master’s
recommendations as follows:
A.The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and
Disbursement Unit as support for his children, Shayna A. Thoeny,
born August 23, 1997, Alexys J. Thoeny, born July 25, 1998, and
Marla D. Thoeny, born March 1, 2000, the sum of $996.00 per month.
B.The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and
Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $104.00 per month on
arrearages until paid in full.
50
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
51
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Ex. B, filed Oct. 14, 2004. In Cumberland County, a
computer program—which takes into account a party’s gross income, tax-filing status, and exemptions
claimed—is utilized by the Domestic Relations Office in calculating a party’s net monthly income. See
Seeley-Burnham v. Burnham, 52 Cumb. 48, 52 (2003); Cunningham v. Cunningham, 49 Cumb. 219, 224
n.32 (2000).
52
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Ex. B, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
53
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Ex. B, filed Oct. 14, 2004. This figure is based upon a
“Net Income as a Percentage of Combined Amount” of 85.77%.
54
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Ex. B, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
55
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 3-4, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
6
C.The Defendant shall provide health insurance for the benefit of said
children as is available through his employer at a reasonable cost.
D.The Defendant shall pay 85% of the unreimbursed medical expenses
incurred by said children as that term is defined in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-
6(c).
E.The Defendant shall be entitled to claim said children as dependency
exemptions for federal income tax purposes commencing with tax year
2004. The Plaintiff shall execute to the Defendant any and all
documentation required by the Internal Revenue Service to effectuate
said exemptions.
56
F.The effective date of this order is June 7, 2004.
Plaintiff filed pro se exceptions to the master’s report and recommendation.
Plaintiff’s contentions in the exceptions were expressed as follows:
(4) Child care:
a. Adjustments for childcare were made on the Support Guidelines
Worksheet, are incorrect. Rule 1910.16-6 (a) “…the expenses to
be allocated between the parties shall be the full unsubsidized
cost of the child care, not just the amount actually paid by the
custodial parent.”
b. A deviation of this magnitude is not justified in this case:
i.Rule 1910.16-5 official note states in part, “A child
care subsidy … should not be used to reduce the
child care expenses … to the extent that the obligor
has the financial resources to contribute to the actual
cost of child care.”
ii.Rule 1910.16-5 (b)(3) states that in deciding whether
to deviate from the amount of support determined by
the guidelines, other income in the household is to be
considered.
iii.Other income in the defendant’s household was
never considered.
iv.The standard for deviation under Rule 1910.16(a) is
if the amount is “overly burdensome.” Although
relating to deviations for multiple families, Rule
1910.16-7(a) provides a guideline for what should be
considered “overly burdensome.” The basic support
56
Interim Order of Court, Oct. 14, 2004.
7
obligation does not come close to meeting this
guideline.
(5) Income calculation problems:
a.Defendant has additional income of $803.00 per month
that was not included in the calculations. This income
must be included per Rules 1910-16-2(a), 1910.16-2(8).
b.On pages three and four of the recommendation, the
Plaintiff was calculated a net monthly income of $466.00.
This figure was then used on page 4 to obtain a combined
monthly income of $3,273.00. This is incorrect for the
following reason:
i.If defendant is claiming all three children on
his tax return, the Plaintiff will not be eligible
to claim the EIC.
(6) Taxes:
a.Page three (continuing on pg 4) states the plaintiff
receives no financial benefit from claiming a child or
children as dependency exemptions.
b.In the paragraph immediately preceding this statement, it
was established that the plaintiff would indeed have a
financial benefit.
c.From the records, defendant would have a taxable annual
income for 2004 of approximately $26,678.00.
d.From the records, plaintiff would have an annual income
for 2004 of approximately $3432.00.
e.Using IRS rules and forms, the benefit to the defendant if
he claims all three children will be approximately
$1372.00 as a reduction of taxes owed.
f.Using IRS rules, the plaintiff would have a benefit of
approximately $1370.00 as Earned Income Credit.
g.The plaintiff has physical custody of the children,
currently and historically provides for well over 50% of
their financial needs, as well as providing for all of their
physical, educational, emotional and medical needs.
8
h.It is clearly in the best interest of the children to guarantee
those funds are available to the custodial parent for the
57
care of the children.
DISCUSSION
Statement of Law
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 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). 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. 221, 226-27 (1984).
With respect to the issues raised by exceptions 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, 375 Pa.Super. at 507-08,
544 A.2d at 1035; see also Pa. R.C.P. 1910.12(f)-(h) (indicating that if no exceptions are
filed to certain issues in a master’s report and interim order, those issues are not presented
for review).
Determination of Income and Support Obligation. Both parents share a
responsibility to provide support to their children to the extent that their respective
incomes and earning capacities allow them to do so. Mooney v. Doutt, 2001 PA Super.
12, ¶6, 766 A.2d 1271, 1273. A party’s child support obligation is to be calculated in the
first instance in accordance with guidelines provided in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1(b).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2, which deals with the calculation
of income for purposes of determining a party’s support obligation, provides, in pertinent
part, as follows:
57
Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Nov. 18, 2004.
9
(a) Monthly Gross Income. Monthly gross income is ordinarily
based upon at least a six-month average of all of a party’s income. … The
statute lists many types of income including, but not limited to:
(1) wages, salaries, bonuses, fees and commissions;
(2) net income from business or dealings in property;
(3) interest, rents, royalties, and dividends;
(4) pensions and all forms of retirement;
(5) income from an interest in an estate or trust;
(6) Social Security disability benefits, Social Security retirement
benefits, temporary and permanent disability benefits, workers’
compensation and unemployment compensation;
(7) alimony if, in the discretion of the trier of fact, inclusion of part
or all of it is appropriate; and
(8) other entitlements to money or lump sum awards, without regard
to source ….
Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a).
Furthermore, in determining a party’s income for the purpose of supporting a
child, “the focus is on the person’s earning capacity rather than on the person’s actual
earnings.” Mooney, 2001 PA Super. at ¶6, 766 A.2d at 1273. In determining a party’s
earning capacity, the court should not look to what a person could theoretically earn, but
what a person “could realistically earn under the circumstances[.]” Myers v. Myers, 405
Pa.Super. 290, 297, 592 A.2d 339, 343 (1991). The circumstances to be considered by
the court when determining a party’s earning capacity are the party’s “age, education,
training, health, work experience, earnings history, and child care responsibilities.”
Portugal v. Portugal, 2002 PA Super. 132, ¶6, 798 A.2d 246, 250.
Adjustments for Child Care Expenses. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
1910.16-6(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Child care expenses. Reasonable child care expenses paid by the
custodial parent … are the responsibility of both parents. These expenses
shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their net incomes and
obligor’s share added to his or her basic support obligation. When the
custodial parent is receiving a child care subsidy … the expenses to be
allocated between the parties shall be the full unsubsidized cost of the child
10
care, not just the amount actually paid by the custodial parent. However, if
allocation of the unsubsidized amount would result in a support order that is
overly burdensome to the obligor, deviation … may be warranted.
Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a).
Allocation of Dependency Exemptions. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
1910.16-2(f) provides as follows:
(f) Dependency Tax Exemption. In order to maximize the total
income available to the parties and children, the court may, as justice and
fairness require, award the federal child dependency tax exemption to the
non-custodial parent … and order the other party to execute the waiver
required by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 152(e). The tax
consequences resulting from an award of the child dependency exemption
must be considered in calculating each party’s income available for support.
Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(f); see also Piso v. Piso, 2000 PA Super. 321, ¶¶ 8, 20, 761 A.2d
1215, 1216-17, 1220.
Application of Law to Facts
With respect to Plaintiff’s contention that the master erred in failing to allocate the
full unsubsidized cost of child care between Plaintiff and Defendant, the court believes
the master correctly allocated the child care expenses between the parties by taking into
account only the amount paid by Plaintiff for child care expenses. Had the master
allocated the full unsubsidized cost of child care between the parties, Defendant would
have been responsible for between $1,115.00 and $1,287.00 in child care costs per
58
month. Thus, if the master had allocated the full unsubsidized cost of child care
between the parties, Defendant’s support obligation would have more than doubled from
59
$995.92 per month to between $2,125.00 and $2,297.00 per month. A support
obligation for Defendant of between $2,125.00 and $2,297.00 per month would have
been (a) unreasonable when taking into consideration the fact that Defendant had a net
58
These figures were obtained by taking the estimated range of child care costs per month ($1,300.00 to
$1,500.00) and multiplying it by 85.77%, the Defendant’s percentage of the parties’ combined net
income.
59
These figures were obtained by taking the Defendant’s monthly share of the child support obligation
before adjustments ($1,009.51) and adding the estimated range of child care costs that Defendant would
be responsible for had the full unsubsidized costs of child care been used.
11
monthly income of only $2,807.08 and (b) inconsistent with the child care expenses
actually being paid by Plaintiff.
With respect to Plaintiff’s contention that the master erred in awarding the
dependency exemptions for the parties’ three children to Defendant, the court believes
the master correctly allocated the dependency exemptions to Defendant. Plaintiff has a
60
gross monthly income of $352.00. Once deductions and an exemption for herself are
61
taken, Plaintiff is left with no taxable income. Because Plaintiff already has no taxable
income, claiming the three children as dependency exemptions cannot help lower
Plaintiff’s taxable income and taxes owed, and therefore will not free-up more money for
the support of the parties’ children. On the other hand, allowing Defendant to claim the
three children as dependency exemptions will lower Defendant’s taxable income, and
thus his taxes owed, allowing more of his monthly income to go toward support of the
62
parties’ children.
Additionally, allowing Defendant to claim the parties’ three children as
dependency exemptions will not affect Plaintiff’s ability to receive the Earned Income
Credit. See I.R.C. §§ 32, 152. Under Internal Revenue Code § 32, the only requirement
for receiving the Earned Income Credit is being an “eligible individual,” which requires,
as one option, having a “qualifying child” for the taxable year in which the credit is
received. I.R.C. § 32. A “qualifying child” is defined as:
[W]ith respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an individual—
(A) who bears a relationship [such as a child of the taxpayer],
(B) who has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer
for more than one-half of such taxable year,
(C) who [has not attained the age of 19], and
(D) who has not provided over one-half of such individual’s
own support for the calendar year in which the taxable year of
the taxpayer begins.
60
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Ex. B, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
61
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Ex. A, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
62
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 3-4, Ex. A & B, filed Oct. 14, 2004.
12
I.R.C. § 152(c). Because all three of the parties’ children fall within the definition of a
“qualifying child” in relation to Plaintiff, it would appear that Plaintiff may still receive
the Earned Income Credit regardless of whether Defendant claims the children as
dependency exemptions.
Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s contention that the master erred in calculating
Defendant’s income, the court believes the master correctly calculated Defendant’s
income. The master assigned Defendant a net monthly income of $2,807.08 based upon
his yearly salary of $42,000.00 a year with KEI Pearson. While Plaintiff claims
Defendant has additional income of $803.00 per month that was not included in this
calculation, the record is devoid of any testimony or exhibits that identify the source of
this additional income that Plaintiff claims exists. Therefore, the master correctly
calculated Defendant’s income for purposes of support based upon the record made by
the parties.
ORDER OF COURT
st
AND NOW, this 21 day of July, 2005, after careful consideration of Plaintiff’s
Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, and for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the Interim Order of
Court dated October 14, 2004, 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
Jodi L. Eickert
2843 Juneau Drive
Missoula, MT 59804
Plaintiff, Pro Se
13
Dustin S. Thoeny
301 Eleventh Street, Apt. A
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Defendant, Pro Se
Derek R. Clepper, Esq.
13 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Courtesy Copy
14
15
JODI L. EICKERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION—SUPPORT
:
DUSTIN S. THOENY, : PACSES NO. 831104197
Defendant : DOCKET NO. 776 SUPPORT 2003
IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
st
AND NOW, this 21 day of July, 2005, after careful consideration of Plaintiff’s
Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, and for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed and the Interim Order of
Court dated October 14, 2004, is entered as a final order.
BY THE COURT,
_________________
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Support Master
Jodi L. Eickert
2843 Juneau Drive
Missoula, MT 59804
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Dustin S. Thoeny
301 Eleventh Street, Apt. A
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Defendant, Pro Se
Derek R. Clepper, Esq.
13 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Courtesy Copy