HomeMy WebLinkAbout657 S 2010
KETHA M. LEHMAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
: NO. 657 S 2010
ROBERT S. LEHMAN, : PACSES NO. 366111852
Defendant :
IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION
BEFORE HESS, P.J.
OPINION AND ORDER
In this case, an interim order of court was entered directing the defendant to pay spousal
support in the amount of $330.00 per month. The plaintiff has filed four exceptions to the
Master’s report:
1. The Support Master erred in calculating plaintiff’s bi-weekly income;
2.The Support Master erred in treating plaintiff’s income from a part-time job as
regular income, where plaintiff testified the income was when she was in between full
time jobs;
3.The Support Master erred in assigning the defendant an earning capacity of $12.00
per hour; and
4.The Support Master erred in finding that the defendant’s downturn in his business is
attributable to the current economic condition without any evidence to support this
finding.
We do not believe that the Master erred in including the plaintiff’s part-time income from
the Carlisle Elks. The Master assigned only a monthly amount of approximately $426.00, which
amount is reasonable and supported by evidence in the hearing transcript.
We are also satisfied that the Master was correct in his assessment of the defendant’s
earning capacity. The Master assigned the defendant an earning capacity of $26,000 per year
which is more than $12.00 per hour even assuming the defendant works forty hours a week every
single week of the year. The Support Master’s findings concerning the defendant’s earning
capacity are supported by the hearing transcript and the parties’ past tax returns. The Master’s
conclusions concerning the decrease in the amount of work available to the defendant by virtue
of a recent economic downturn are also supported by the record.
We are concerned that the Master may have erred in his calculation with respect to the
plaintiff’s earnings from Sodexo, Inc. The Master arrived at a figure of $1,534.00 bi-weekly.
During the bi-weekly pay period, the plaintiff works eighty-four hours earning $13.00 per hour
and overtime at $19.50 per hour. This would seem to suggest that plaintiff’s bi-weekly salary
from her primary place of employment should be $1,118.00. This change would reduce the
plaintiff’s monthly earning capacity and therefore change the amount of support the defendant
owes. Accordingly, we will remand on the narrow issue of the plaintiff’s income from full-time
employment.
ORDER
th
AND NOW, this 6 day of January, 2011, in accordance with the opinion filed of even
date herewith, this matter is remanded to the Master to re-examine the issue of the plaintiff’s bi-
weekly salary from her primary place of employment.
BY THE COURT,
_______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P.J
KETHA M. LEHMAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
: NO. 657 S 2010
ROBERT S. LEHMAN, : PACSES NO. 366111852
Defendant :
IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION
BEFORE HESS, P.J.
ORDER
th
AND NOW, this 6 day of January, 2011, in accordance with the opinion filed of even
date herewith, this matter is remanded to the Master to re-examine the issue of the plaintiff’s bi-
weekly salary from her primary place of employment.
BY THE COURT,
_______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P. J.
Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Robert S. Lehman, Esquire
Defendant
Michael Rundle, Esquire
Support Master
:rlm