Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-2810 civilSINAN KOONT, RESPONDENT Vo DEANNA SPURLOCK KOONT, PETITIONER IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2810 CIVIL 1992 CROSS-PETITIONS REGARDING ALIMONY OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT BAYLEY, J., September 24, 1999:- Petitioner, DeAnna Spurlock Koont, age 56, filed a petition seeking an order increasing the $200 per month alimony being paid to her by her former husband, Sinan Koont, age 55, pursuant to an order entered on July 5, 1994. Sinan Koont filed a petition seeking an order terminating the alimony. A hearing was conducted on September 20, 1999. The Divorce Code at 23 Pa.C.S. Section 3701(e) provides: Modification and termination.--An order [of alimony] entered pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the court upon changed circumstances of either party of a substantial and continuing nature whereupon the order may be modified, suspended, terminated or reinstituted or a new order made. Any further order shall apply only to the payments accruing subsequent to the petition for the requested relief. Remarriage of the party receiving alimony shall terminate the award of alimony. (Emphasis added.) The parties were married in 1966 and separated at the end of 1987. The $200 per month alimony for an indefinite period was entered as part of a contested economic order when the parties were divorced on July 5, 1994.1 At the time, husband was a tenured associate professor of economics at Dickinson College with an annual gross ~ Since there are cross-petitions for relief we will for ease of reference still refer to them as husband and wife. 2810 CIVIL 1992 income of $44,512. Wife had a masters degree in English and worked in non-tenured teaching positions at the Harrisburg Area Community College, Penn State University York Campus, and Catholic Charities. Her annual gross income was approximately $21,000. In the opinion in support of the order of July 5, 1994, after making a full Section 3701(b) analysis? we noted that wife had been seeking a full-time educational position with benefits but without success. We stated: On his $44,512 gross income, husband now nets $2,824 a month after taxes? He pays $100 a month child support for Shaun and is currently paying wife $250 a month in alimony pendente lite. Wife is netting after taxes about $1,425 a month. Wife has not contributed toward the costs of Eren's undergraduate education. Husband's $8,000 a year contribution translates into $666 a month. Both well-educated parents support Eren continuing in college. Undoubtedly the cost of that education would be paid if the parties were still living together. That cost is a factor to be considered in an overall evaluation of the assets of husband reasonably available to pay alimony. Based on our Section 3701(a) analysis, with particular emphasis on the long marriage, the current financial status of the parties, their age and station in life, the disparity of their incomes and income capacity, the fact that wife has no separate pension while husband already has accumulated non-marital pension benefits and will continue to do so, and the fact that wife will now incur the cost of medical insurance, we are satisfied that alimony should be awarded. We agree with the Master that any future issue regarding alimony should be affected only by changing circumstances of a substantial and continuing nature as provided for in Section 3701(e) of the Divorce Code. At this point we cannot determine for how long the reasonable needs of wife for alimony will continue. It]he current financial status of the parties is as follows taking into 5. From his net income he pays $100 a month toward the family medical plan. 2 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b). -2- 2810 CIVIL 1992 consideration the child support husband is paying for Shaun and the college expenses husband is paying for Eren. HUSBAND WIFE Monthly net income $2,824 1,425 Less child support $100 Plus child support $100 TOTAL $2,724 $1,525 Less college expenses TOTAL $666 $2,058 It appears that husband will have a marginal tax rate of 28% and wife of 15%. Providing wife alimony in the amount of $200 per month means husband's net payment after a 28% tax deduction will be $144 per month, and wife's net gain after a 15% tax payment will be $170 a month. Applying those figures to their current financial status means that husband's available cash for his reasonable needs will be $1,914 a month ($2,058 less $144), and wife's will be $1,695 a month ($1,525 plus $170). We conclude such an alimony award is necessary and reasonable to effectuate economic justice between the parties. The award also allows husband the means to continue his substantial contribution toward Eren's undergraduate education. (Footnote 6 omitted.) Since the entry of the order of July 5, 1994, the parties' son Eren has graduated from Haverford College. Husband paid all unreimbursed expenses for Eren's undergraduate education. The parties' son Shaun graduated from high school in June, 1999. Up to that time husband was paying child support to wife in the amount of $300 per month which was terminated. Shaun is now a full-time undergraduate student at Haverford College. Husband is paying all of his unreimbursed education costs currently in the amount of $7,300 a year. Husband is now earning a gross salary as a Dickinson College economics professor of $55,300. He has a doctorate in economics and mathematics. Wife, who -3- 2810 CIVIL 1992 has a bachelors and masters degree, has been unable to find a full-time college teaching position in the area. She has many ties to this area and does not intend to move. Wife is not certified to teach public school students. She currently is on the adjunct faculty teaching English and related courses at both Lebanon Valley College and Harrisburg Area Community College. At Lebanon Valley she teaches two courses two days a week on contract per semester for $5,200. At HACC she teaches a course on Monday and Tuesday evenings for a total contract of $4,080 per semester. She taught a summer course at HACC for $2,040. Wife does not have medical or pension benefits and does not now have medical insurance. In 1998, wife had total gross income of $22,593.11 not counting alimony. Part of that income was a contract to teach at the United States Army War College in Carlisle which paid her $4,000. In 1999, because of the overall teaching workload and physical strain, she subcontracted part of that course to another person. The contract was for $7,624 to which she subcontracted $3,379 and received $4,245 gross. That contract has been completed and will not be renewed. Wife's projected annual income for 1999 is $24,845:$10,400 from Lebanon College, $10,200 from HACC, and $4,245 from the Army War College. Both parties have some substantial debt. Wife pays rent of $500 per month plus utilities. Husband has medical benefits provided by his employer and a retirement fund. Wife has no retirement fund; however, in the order of equitable distribution of July 5, 1994, the marital portion of husband's pension was awarded 60 percent to wife and 40 -4- 2810 CIVIL 1992 percent to husband. The total value of the pension as of December 31, 1993, was $27,070 which value has increased substantially since that time. The value at the time of separation at the end of 1987 was $14,204. Husband and his new wife purchased a house jointly, however wife put up husband's one-half share of the proceeds. The parties share the household expenses including the cost of the mortgage. Husband's one-half share of the mortgage is $315 per month. Husband did not sell his former residence which he believes has equity of approximately $34,000. The residence is rented for $750 per month but there are two mortgages with a total monthly payment of $1,040. Husband testified that he is incurring a $581 per month loss on this residence but has not sold it because he wants to give itto his children. In July, 1995, wife was first treated for some parasthesias and generalized achiness throughout her extremities. In 1998 she was diagnosed with advanced joint inflammation. She has chronic inflammatory joint disease that will require constant medication to control symptoms as well as progression. Her treating physician is of the opinion that the disease will progress despite medications and therapies to slow its progress and will adversely affect wife's activities of daily living. She will need medicines, laboratory testing, periodic evaluations, appliances and assistive devices and physical therapy to be able to accomplish the activities of daily living which are slowed because of the disease impairment. In Nemoto v. Nemoto, 423 Pa. Super. 269 (1993), the Superior Court stated -5- 2810 CIVIL 1992 that "The purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met." Since the $200 per month alimony was entered on July 5, 1994, (1) husband's annual gross income has increased by almost $11,000 to $55,300, (2) wife's annual earning capacity of approximately $21,000 has remained essentially the same,3 (3) Eren who was in Haverford College and for whom husband was paying $666 in education costs has graduated, (4) Shaun has graduated from high school and husband's $300 per month child support to wife was termi,qated in June, 1999,4 (5) husband now pays $7,300 a year ($608.34 a month) toward Shaun's undergraduate education, (6) wife despite reasonable efforts has been unable to find a full-time college teaching position, (7) wife has no medical coverage, and (8) wife's health is deteriorating and it affects her ability to accomplish the activities of daily living. Based on this evidence we find that there has been a change in circumstances of both of the parties of a substantial and continuing nature and that wife continues to be unable to adequately support herself through appropriate employment. We will grant her petition to increase alimony and 3While this year's projected annual income is $24,845 the projection for next year's annual income is $20,600. 4 Until Shaun graduated husband was voluntarily paying wife $50 per month for the support of Shaun in addition to the $300 support order. -6- 2810 CIVIL 1992 award her $300 per month. Husband's petition to terminate the alimony will be denied.5 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of September, 1999, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of DeAnna Spurlock Koont to modify the alimony award entered on July 5,1994, IS GRANTED. (2) Effective July 1, 1999, the day after the petition for a modification for alimony was filed, Sinan Koont shall pay DeAnna Spurlock Koont alimony in the amount of $300 per month. (;) The, petition of Sinan Koont to terminate alimony, IS DENIED. Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For Respondent DeAnna Spurlock Koont, Pro se 301 West Ridge Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Domestic Relations Office :saa Edgar B. Bayley, ';9. ~ 5 As with the previous award of alimony, this award will be taxable to wife and deductible to husband. -7-