Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-986 supportTERESA M. HYDE, PLAINTIFF V. KEVIN P. HYDE, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DR # 27,029 '986 SUPPORT 1997 IN RE: SUPPORT OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT BAYLEY, J., March 31, 1999:-- On April 6, 1998, following a support hearing in this court, the following order was entered: (1) The court order entered on January 7, 1998, IS VACATED. (2) Kevin P. Hyde is liable for spousal support for his wife Teresa M. Hyde. (3) Pursuant to Pennsylvania Support Guideline computation on Exhibit 1 attached, Kevin P. Hyde shall, for the period between October 24, 1997 and December 31, 1997, pay child support for his daughter Maria T. Hyde, born February 10, 1996 in the amount of $489 per month and spousal support to his wife Teresa M. Hyde in the amount of $675 per month for a total support obligation of $1,164 per month.1 (4) Pursuant to Pennsylvania Support Guideline computation on Exhibit 2 attached, starting January 1, 1998, defendant shall pay child support for his daughter Maria T. Hyde, in the amount of $381 per month and spousal support to his wife Teresa M. Hyde in the amount of $456 per month for a total support obligation of $837 per month. (Support guideline computations omitted) (Emphasis added.) 1. At this point, we have assigned wife a net minimum wage earning capacity of $738 per month.1 1. This translated into a gross monthly earning capacity of $875 or $10,500 annually. 910 CIVIL 1993 On September 3, 1998, husband filed a petition to modify the support order dated April 6, 1998. Following a conference before a Domestic Relations Officer, an order was entered denying the petition. An appeal was filed and a hearing conducted on March 29, 1999. Wife earned a bachelor of arts degree in 1982. The parties were married in 1989. They moved to Pennsylvania in 1991, in furtherance of husband's employment. Wife has not worked full-time since the move to Cumberland County. The most money she had ever earned was $16,000 a year. Wife took some courses at Shippensburg University and obtained a Pennsylvania teaching certificate in 1993. She did not, however, obtain a teaching job. She worked part-time in several jobs until the fall of 1996, when the parties adopted Maria, who was born in China on February 10, 1996. Just prior to the adoption, wife was working for the Redevelopment Authority in Cumberland County. She had started at $9.00 per hour at 20 hours-a week and worked her way up to $11.00 per hour at 30 hours. She quit that job as she and husband agreed that she would remain home with the baby at that time. Wife separated in August, 1997. Husband remained in the marital residence. The residence has since been sold. Wife, with the approval of this court, moved Maria into the home of her mother and step-father in Ocala, Marion County, Florida -2- 910 CIVIL 1993 on June 27, 1998.2 She moved to Florida with the goal of obtaining a full-time elementary teaching position. Wife applied in the Marion County School District for the 1998-1999, school year, but was not hired. There are thirty-six schools in the county school district and there are far more applicants each year than there are positions to fill. Wife took a job at the beginning of the school year as a substitute teacher for $50 per diem, and has been earning approximately $300 per month. She hopes to parlay this substitute teaching position into a full-time position for the next school year.3 Husband is a service technician for Honeywell-Measurex Systems, Inc., earning $2,605 net per month.4 He seeks to modify the current order of child and spousal support claiming that wife should now be ascribed a full-time earning capacity at 2. The custody order was entered by Hoffer, J. Husband filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. That Court has recently remanded the case for the preparation of a comprehensive opinion in support of the order. Husband now has Maria for a fifteen day period every two months. Maria is too young to fly alone so one of the parents accompanies her on each transfer. The parents split the cost of travel. 3. Wife can teach full-time in Florida if she obtains a statement of eligibility from the Florida State Education Agency. Obtaining that statement triggers a two year period in which she will have to obtain a teaching certification to keep a full-time job. To obtain that certification she will have to fulfill other requirements. Wife can be hired by a school district and obtain her statement of eligibility in four to six weeks. If she is hired full-time for the year 1999-2000 she then plans to obtain her statement of eligibility. She has not done that at this point because she does not want to trigger the two year period to obtain a certification until she knows whether she will be teaching full-time. 4. His monthly net income was set at $2,640 when his support obligation was ordered on April 6, 1998. -3- 910 CIVIL 1993 higher than minimum wage. He also maintains that the order should be modified because he is paying a significant amount of marital debt. We do not find this latter argument persuasive. A divorce action is about to be heard by a Master who can distribute marital debt between the parties and take that into consideration in resolving their other disputes. Both parties called vocational evaluation experts to testify. If wife is successful in obtaining a full-time elementary teaching position in Marion County, Florida, the starting salary is $24,500 a year. There is a Catholic School in the area that has been advertising for an elementary teaching position at $21,000 a year, and there is a similar position at a Baptist school at $19,000 a year. With her goal of working in the public school system, wife has not applied fc~r these positions. Whether her substitute teaching experience would help her and her lack of full-time experience hurt her in obtaining such a position is not known. The mother's earning capacity in a nonteaching position in Florida is in the range of $12,000 to $16,000 a year. Although wife earned a bachelor degree in 1982, she does not have strong transferable skills from prior employment that would easily transition her into a good full-time nonteaching position. In Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504 (1988), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated that: A person's 'earning capacity,' with respect to support proceedings, is defined not as an amount which the person could theoretically earn, but -4- 910 CIVIL 1993 as that amount which the person could realistically earn under the circumstances, considering his or her age, health, mental and physical condition and training. Wife suggests that there are some bonding issues with Maria that warrant nurturing and justify her not being ascribed a full-time earning capacity. There was no credible evidence to support that position when we first heard this case in early 1998, nor is there now. One of the advantages of wife of living in Florida is that she does not pay rent to her parents and they take care of Maria when she works,s Wife has not been able to obtain a full-time teaching position in a public school so the salary for such a position is not her earning capacity. If she is able to turn her substitute teaching position into a full-time position starting the next school year it will be a benefit to Maria and both of the parties. It is a goal worth pursuing. However, in the interim we believe the mother must still be ascribed an earning capacity that reflects what she could realistically earn now which is more than her actual earnings. Based on the credibility of all of the witnesses, and considering wife's education, training, health, work experience, and earnings history, we find that her current earning capacity is $14,000 per year.6 Her net earning capacity is $11,900 annually 5. Wife does pay some other household expenses. 6. Husband sought to introduce testimony that wife could earn more than $300 per month by substitute teaching in this area. Besides having far more expenses than she does now, wife would undoubtedly have significant child care expenses if she lived in this area. In any event, a $14,000 per year earning capacity is undoubtedly more than wife could earn as a substitute teacher in this area. -5- 910 CIVIL 1993 or $991 per month.7 The Pennsylvania support guideline computation under Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-1, is: HUSBAND WIFE Monthly net income or earning capacity Combined monthly net income or earning capacity Proportionate expenditure Combined monthly support obligation Defendant/plaintiff income ratio Each parent's guideline child support obligation Husband's monthly net income Wife's monthly net earning capacity Difference in monthly net income Less husband's child support obligation Income available for spousal support . Multiple by Total monthly spousal support 2,605 3,596 14.5% 521.42 72.44 377.72 2,605 1,614 377.72 1,236.28 3O% 37O.88 991 27.56 143.70 991 We will modify the current child support order to $378 per month and the spousal support to $371 per month for a total support obligation of $749 per month effective September 3, 1998. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this "~ ~..~,J-" day of March, 1999, IT IS ORDERED: 7. If wife is not hired for the next school year as a full-time teacher in the Marion High School District, she will be obligated to determine if she can work full- time at a private school which the evidence shows would provide her higher income than her nonteaching earning capacity. -6- 910 CIVIL 1993 (1) The petition of Kevin P. Hyde to modify the amount of child support and spousal support set in the order of April 6, 1998, IS GRANTED. (2) Paragraph 4 of the order of April 6, 1998, is vacated and replaced with this order. (3) Kevin P. Hyde shall pay child support for his daughter Maria T. Hyde, born February 10, 1996, in the amount of $378 per month and spousal support for his wife, Teresa M. Hyde, in the amount of $371 per month for a total support obligation of $749 per month, effective September 3, 1998. (4) Any unreimbursed medical or dental expenses for Maria shall be divided equally by the parties. Theresa Barrett Male, Esquire For Plaintiff Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire For Defendant Charles Carothers, DRO :saa Edgar B. Bayley,~. -7-