Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout743 S 2008 MICHELLE K. PARTHEMORE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION v. : : STEPHEN K. PARTHEMORE, : PACSES NO. 295110262 Defendant : DOCKET NO. 743 SUPPORT 2008 MICHELLE K. PARTHEMORE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION v. : : STEPHEN K. PARTHEMORE, : PACSES NO. 776110268 Defendant/Respondent. : DOCKET NO. 08-4998 CIVIL IN RE: EXCEPTIONS ORDER th AND NOW, this 25 day of April, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 5, 2010, filed October 25, 2010, the exceptions of Defendant are DENIED. Furthermore, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 5, 2010, filed . November 9, 2010, the exceptions of Plaintiff are DENIED BY THE COURT, __________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. MICHELLE K. PARTHEMORE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION v. : : STEPHEN K. PARTHEMORE, : PACSES NO. 295110262 Defendant : DOCKET NO. 743 SUPPORT 2008 MICHELLE K. PARTHEMORE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION v. : : STEPHEN K. PARTHEMORE, : PACSES NO. 776110268 Defendant/Respondent. : DOCKET NO. 08-4998 CIVIL IN RE: EXCEPTIONS OPINION and ORDER HESS, P.J., April___, 2011. On October 25, 2010, Defendant/Husband/Father Stephen K. Parthemore filed Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 5, 2010. On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff/Mother/Wife Michelle K. Parthemore also filed Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 5, 2010. The history of this case is as follows. Plaintiff and Defendant were married on October 28, 1996, and separated in June 2008. They have four minor children together: Quentin Parthemore, born July 5, 2000; Lance Parthemore, born August 29, 2001; Garrison Parthemore, born May 12, 2003; and Gwyneth Parthemore, born July 10, 2005. Plaintiff has primary physical custody of the children, and Defendant has partial physical custody. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff/Wife filed a divorce complaint and sought spousal and child support, counsel fees, and costs and expenses. That same day, she also filed a petition for 2 alimony pendente lite. On May 6, 2009, the Support Master issued a Report and Recommendation. That report called for Defendant/Husband to pay child support of $2,821.00 per month and alimony pendente lite of $3,625.00 per month. On May 7, 2009, the Honorable M.L. “Skip” Ebert issued an interim order of court implementing the Support Master’s report. Shortly thereafter, Defendant/Husband filed Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. On August, 12, 2009, the undersigned entered an Order and Opinion granting two of Defendant/Husband’s exceptions and remanding the matter to the Master for recalculation of support with instructions to determine Plaintiff/Wife’s earning capacity and to re-examine Husband’s income. As a result of our order, on October 22, 2009, the Support Master held a remand hearing on the matter. On May 11, 2010, an additional hearing was scheduled but not conducted. A conference between the parties and the Master was held, yet there appears to have been a disagreement between the parties as to its outcome. As a result, the second remand hearing was held on September 8, 2010. On October 5, 2010, the Master issued his Report and Recommendation which were adopted by an Order of Court that same day. The Order set the monthly disposable income of Defendant/Husband at $16,725.00 for 2008 and $18,365.00 for 2009. The Plaintiff/Wife was assigned a part-time earning capacity of $23,400.00 annually. Effective January 1, 2010, the Defendant/Husband was directed to pay child support in the amount of $3,033.00 per month and alimony pendente lite in the amount of $3,600.00 per month. He was also directed to pay a sum of $663.00 per month in arrears. A finding of contempt, considered as a result of a Motion filed by Plaintiff/Mother, was deferred upon the condition that the Defendant/Husband makes the monthly payments in accordance with the Order. The exceptions filed by the Defendant are as follows: 1.The Support Master erred in determining the amount of income attributed to Defendant Stephen K. Parthemore (hereinafter “Husband”) for support purposes. 3 2.The Support Master erred in his outright, complete rejection of Michael S. Signor, CPA/ABV/CFF’s report of Husband’s earnings. The Support Master rejected Mr. Signor’s report because it is based on a five-year average. Although Mr. Signor’s report includes a five-year average, the report also includes the figures for each year from 2005 through and including 2009. The Support Master also rejected Mr. Signor’s report in full because Mr. Signor deducted Husband’s litigation expenses from the amount of income available to Husband for support. When the litigation expenses are not deducted, Mr. Signor’s report still shows that Husband’s income for 2008 and 2009 was significantly less than the amount calculated by Wife’s expert. The Support Master’s report provides no further reason for finding fault with Mr. Signor’s report. 3.The Support Master erred by failing to take into consideration Parthemore Funeral Home’s corporate expenditures when calculating Husband’s net income. 4.The Support Master erred in his full acceptance of the findings of Wife’s expert, Gayle R. Bolinger because Husband presented evidence as to why some funds were not available for distribution to the Funeral Home’s partners. 5.The Support Master erred in his further acceptance of the findings of Ms. Bolinger because even if Husband failed to show that it was necessary for his business to retain certain earnings, Ms. Bolinger’s calculations were nevertheless flawed in other areas. 6.The Support Master erred in assigning Plaintiff Michelle K. Parthemore (hereinafter “Wife”) an earning capacity of only $23,400.00, despite his finding that Wife’s “earnings in her last year of employment were in the range of $102,000.00 to $104,000.00.” Support Master’s Report, p.4. 7.The Support Master erred in failing to hold Wife to a full-time earning capacity and instead holding Wife to a part-time earning capacity where there is no barrier to Wife obtaining full-time employment and where Wife has presented no evidence in support of the position that she can work on a part-time basis only. 8.The Support Master erred in failing to hold Wife to a full-time earning capacity where Wife has testified as to her unwillingness to obtain employment. Because Wife has been assigned such a low earning capacity, she has no incentive to find suitable work. Wife is being rewarded and Husband is being punished for Wife’s disinclination to work, despite the fact that all children will be enrolled in school full-time and despite testimony that the parties never mutually agreed that Wife should remain out of the work force indefinitely. 9.The Support Master erred in finding that the income reflected on Husband’s K-1 schedule should be income available for determining Husband’s monthly support obligation. 10.The Support Master erred in failing to consider that Husband is obligated to pay support in an amount greater than 50% of his salary, which is confiscatory and contrary to the law. (Defendant’s Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of Oct. 5, 2010, filed Oct. 25, 2010). The exceptions filed by the Plaintiff are as follows: 1.The Master erred in finding that Wife’s realistic present earning capacity is $23,400.00 annually. 2.The Master erred in finding that Wife’s net monthly earning capacity is $1,681.00. 4 3.As a result of the Master’s error in Wife’s earning capacity, his findings with regard to the amount of child support are also in error. 4.As a result of the Master’s error in Wife’s earning capacity, his findings with regard to the amount of alimony pendente lite are also in error. 5.The Master erred by making a downward deviation to Husband’s alimony pendente lite obligation based solely on Husband’s payment of the mortgage. 6.The Master erred by failing to find Husband in contempt of the Court’s Order of May 6, 2009. 7.The Master erred by failing to award Wife counsel fees based upon Husband’s contempt of the Court’s Order of May 6, 2009. 8.Wife reserves the right to file additional exceptions upon receipt of and review of the transcript of the testimony. (Plaintiff’s Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Nov. 9, 2010). We will address each exception in turn. Initially, we note that “a master's report and recommendation, although only advisory, is to be given the fullest consideration, particularly on the question of credibility of witnesses, because the master has the opportunity to observe and assess the behavior and demeanor of the parties.” Moran v. Moran, 2003 Pa. Super. 455, ¶ 9, 839 A.2d 1091, 1095. Defendant’s first exception alleges that the Master erred in determining the amount of income attributable to Defendant Stephen K. Parthemore for support purposes. Defendant/Husband was found by the Master to have a monthly disposable income of $18,365.00 for the 2009 tax year. (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 6, October 5, 2010). This resulted in a child support obligation of $3,033.00, and an alimony pendente lite obligation of $4,095. Defendant/Husband was also given a downward adjustment in his alimony pendente lite obligation as a result of mortgage payments he made on the marital home. This resulted in a final alimony pendente lite obligation of $3,600.00, and a total monthly support obligation of $6,633.00. The Master arrived at these totals after applying the support guideline calculations. Defendant/Husband takes issue with the initial finding of income attributable to him that was then applied in the guidelines. 5 It is clear from the record that the Master heard and considered the testimony and reports of all experts offered by the parties. The Master made clear in his report that, based on his judgment, he accepted the testimony and report of Wife’s expert, Ms. Gayle R. Bolinger. He carefully noted why the defendant’s expert’s analyses were flawed. Ms. Bolinger performed estimates of the Defendant/Husband’s 2008 and 2009 corporate tax returns, and she presented her analysis of Defendant/Husband’s disposable income for each year. Based on this evidence and testimony, the Master found that Defendant/Husband had a monthly disposable income of $18,365.00. We find no error in the Master’s findings of fact based on his acceptance of Ms. Bollinger’s method of analysis and her conclusions. Defendant’s second exception alleges as follows: The Support Master erred in his outright, complete rejection of Michael S. Signor, CPA/ABV/CFF’s report of Husband’s earnings. The Support Master rejected Mr. Signor’s report because it is based on a five-year average. Although Mr. Signor’s report includes a five-year average, the report also includes the figures for each year from 2005 through and including 2009. The Support Master also rejected Mr. Signor’s report in full because Mr. Signor deducted Husband’s litigation expenses from the amount of income available to Husband for support. When the litigation expenses are not deducted, Mr. Signor’s report still shows that Husband’s income for 2008 and 2009 was significantly less than the amount calculated by Wife’s expert. The Support Master’s report provides no further reason for finding fault with Mr. Signor’s report. (Defendant’s Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of Oct. 5, 2010, filed Oct. 25, 2010). We find that the Master did not err in his rejection of Michael S. Signor’s report of Defendant/Husband’s earnings. The Superior Court recently held that “[b]oth a master and a trial court have discretion to accept or reject an expert's testimony.” Childress v. Bosogian, 2011 Pa. Super. 5, ¶ 10, 12 A.3d 448, 456-57, (2011) (citing Vargo v. Schwartz, 940 A.2d 459, 467 (Pa. Super. 2007)) (stating that “[t]he finder of fact is entitled to weigh the evidence presented and assess its credibility” and “[i]n so doing, the finder of fact ‘is free to believe all, part, or none 6 of the evidence and [an appellate court] will not disturb the credibility determinations of the court below.’”). The Master weighed the evidence, heard the testimony of all witnesses, including the experts, and received all expert reports. We agree with the Master that Mr. Signor’s report is methodologically flawed, and that he erred in averaging income over several years and in deducting litigation expenses. Defendant’s third exception alleges that the Master erred by failing to take into consideration Parthemore Funeral Home’s corporate expenditures when calculating Husband’s net income. As stated above, the Master properly accepted the testimony and report of Plaintiff’s expert, Ms. Bolinger. The Master’s Report and Recommendation states that, in preparing her expert report, Ms. Bolinger considered both the 2008 and 2009 corporate returns for the Parthemore Funeral Home. Furthermore, “[s]he presented her analysis of the Husband’s disposable income for each year.” (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 5). The Master’s Report and Recommendation also stated that “In arriving at [the Defendant’s monthly disposable income] Ms. Bolinger noted that Husband received distributions of $74,225.00 as shown on his K-1 from the corporation, but that the corporation’s financial statements revealed sufficient cash flow to have paid distributions of $137,944.00.” Id. It is clear, therefore, that Ms. Bolinger considered the Parthemore Funeral Home K-1 (Form 1065), as well as the corporation’s financial statements. Indeed, these documents have been attached to her report. A K-1 requires deductions to be listed, and a corporation’s financial statements certainly contain corporate expenditures. Defendant’s fourth and fifth exceptions allege, again, that the Master erred in his full acceptance of the findings of Wife’s expert, Gayle R. Bolinger. Specifically, he contends that Ms. Bolinger should have taken into consideration the necessity of the corporation to retain 7 earnings. As the Master notes, however, when given the opportunity, Husband was unable to meet his burden of proof on those contentions. Defendant’s sixth exception alleges as follows: The Support Master erred in assigning Plaintiff Michelle K. Parthemore (hereinafter “Wife”) an earning capacity of only $23,400.00, despite his finding that Wife’s “earnings in her last year of employment were in the range of $102,000.00 to $104,000.00.” Support Master’s Report, p.4. The earning capacity of a person is defined “not as an amount which the person could theoretically earn, but as that amount which the person could realistically earn under the circumstances, considering his or her age, health, mental and physical condition and training." Strawn v. Strawn, 444 Pa. Super. 390, 395 (1995). Furthermore, a court is also to consider “the amount of time that a wife has been out of work during her marriage.” Strawn, 444 Pa. Super at 395 (citing Adams v. Adams, 387 Pa. Super. 1, 563 A.2d 913 (1989)). The Master’s Report and Recommendation provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Wife was 42 years of age when the action was initiated. She has a bachelor’s degree in marketing and approximately 10 years of experience (1990 to 2000) in pharmaceutical sales. She has no health problems that would affect her ability to work full-time. Her earnings in her last year of employment were in the range of $102,000.00 to $104,000.00. She has not worked outside of the home since December, 2000. (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 4). With that background, the Master heard the testimony of two vocational experts concerning the Plaintiff/Wife’s present earning capacity. We are satisfied that the Master thoroughly considered the testimony and reports of both parties’ experts in his Report. (See Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 4-5). He determined that “[c]onsidering all the factors, Mr. Leslie’s [expert] opinion that the Wife could realistically earn $23,400.00 annually working part-time in marketing/merchandising is accepted as a realistic earning capacity for support purposes.” (Support Master’s Report and 8 Recommendation at 5). The wife’s expert took into consideration the fact that the wife is the mother of four relatively young children, that she has been out of the work force for more than ten years, and that her prior work experience making a substantial salary is largely a lifetime away. We are satisfied that the Master acted reasonably in arriving at an earning capacity of $23,400.00 annually. (See Master’s Report and Recommendation at 4-5). Defendant’s sixth exception will be denied. Defendant’s seventh and eighth exceptions both allege that the Master erred in failing to hold Wife to a full-time earning capacity and instead holding Wife to a part-time earning capacity. For the same reasons that Defendant’s sixth exception will be denied, Defendant’s seventh and eighth exceptions will also be denied. Defendant’s ninth exception alleges that the Master erred in finding that the income reflected on Husband’s K-1 schedule should be income available for determining Husband’s monthly support obligation. In Fennel v. Fennel, the court stated that: Indeed, in situations where the individual with the support obligation is able to control the retention or disbursement of funds by the corporation, he or she will bear the burden of proving that such actions were “necessary to maintain or preserve” the business. Fennel v. Fennel, 753 A.2d 866, 869 (Pa. Super. 2000). On August, 12, 2009, the undersigned entered an Order and Opinion granting two of Defendant/Husband’s exceptions and remanded the matter to the Master for recalculation of support with instructions to determine Plaintiff/Wife’s earning capacity and to re-examine Husband’s income. In our order, we stated that on remand Husband “should have the opportunity to make the requisite showing of necessity under Fennel.” (Order of Court, Aug. 12, 2009). As a result of our order, two remand hearings were held in order to give Defendant/Husband the opportunity to make the requisite Fennel showing. In his Report, the Master acknowledged that this was one of the purposes for which 9 the matter had been remanded, and, furthermore, that Defendant/Father was given an opportunity to make the required showing. (See Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 5-6). With respect to this issue, the Master found as follows: At the hearings held on October 22, 2009 and September 8, 2010 he was given that opportunity [to make the required showing]. He presented no evidence of “necessity” requiring the retention of corporate earnings. Consequently Ms. Bolinger’s analysis of disposable income is accepted. (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 6). It is clear, therefore, that Defendant/Husband had the opportunity to make a showing that the income reflected on Husband’s K-1 schedule should not be income available for determining Husband’s monthly support obligation. The Report and Recommendation makes clear that he did not, and we find no error with the Master’s determination. Defendant’s tenth, and final, exception alleges that the Master erred in failing to consider that Husband is obligated to pay support in an amount greater than 50% of his salary, which is confiscatory and contrary to the law. The Master made clear in his report that, based on his judgment, he accepted the testimony and report of Wife’s expert, Ms. Bolinger. Ms. Bolinger performed estimates of the Defendant/Husband’s 2008 and 2009 corporate tax returns, and she presented her analysis of Defendant/Husband’s disposable income for each year. Based on this evidence and testimony, the Master found that Defendant/Husband had a monthly disposable income of $18,365.00. The Defendant/Husband’s child support, alimony pendente lite, and arrearage payments come to a total of $7,363.00 per month. According to the Master’s Report and Ms. Bolinger’s testimony and report, Defendant’s total monthly disposable income reflects his salary, corporate distributions, and significant corporate perks that he receives. The $7,363.00 per month payment is not greater than 50% of his monthly income ($18,365.00); as a result, the payment is not confiscatory. 10 Plaintiff’s first four exceptions all pertain to the issue of the Plaintiff/Wife’s earning capacity, and they will be addressed together. Plaintiff’s first exception alleges that the Master erred in finding that Wife’s realistic present earning capacity is $23,400.00 annually. Plaintiff’s second exception alleges that the Master erred in finding that Wife’s net monthly earning capacity is $1,681.00. Plaintiff’s third exception alleges that as a result of the Master’s error in Wife’s earning capacity, his findings with regard to the amount of child support are also in error. Plaintiff’s fourth exception alleges that as a result of the Master’s error in Wife’s earning capacity, his findings with regard to the amount of alimony pendente lite are also in error. As stated above in the consideration of Defendant’s sixth, seventh, and eighth exceptions, the Master did not err in assigning the Plaintiff/Wife an earning capacity of $23,400.00. Again, the earning capacity of a person is defined “not as an amount which the person could theoretically earn, but as that amount which the person could realistically earn under the circumstances, considering his or her age, health, mental and physical condition and training." Strawn, 444 Pa. Super. at 395. A court is also to consider “the amount of time that a wife has been out of work during her marriage.” Id. The Master considered every factor the Superior Court has instructed should be considered when determining an earning capacity for a party. The Master also heard the testimony of two vocational experts concerning the Plaintiff/Wife’s present earning capacity. The Master’s Report makes clear that the $23,400.00 figure is a reasonable potential earning capacity to assign to Plaintiff. The Report provides, in pertinent part, as follows: While theoretically the Wife may be able to immediately return to employment in the area of pharmaceutical sales despite 10 years of absence from the field and earn $80,000.00, in the opinion of this Master that possibility is not realistic. Mr. Bierley’s [expert] report pointed out that pharmaceutical companies are downsizing their sales staff due to the current economic conditions. The Wife would be competing for a job with individuals who have recent experience in the 11 field and who would not require the training needed by someone who has been out of the industry for 8 to 10 years. Similarly Mr. Bierley’s opinion that the Wife’s employment opportunities are limited to unskilled part-time positions earning no more than $8.00 per hour is also unrealistic. The Wife clearly has the present ability to do more than flip burgers or clean bathrooms. She has a college degree in Marketing and 10 years of sales experience. Considering all factors, Mr. Leslie’s opinion that the Wife could realistically earn $23,400.00 annually working part-time in marketing/merchandising is accepted as a realistic earning capacity for support purposes. (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 4-5). We find no error in the Master’s analysis. Plaintiff’s fifth exception alleges that the Master erred by making a downward deviation to Husband’s alimony pendente lite obligation based solely on Husband’s payment of the mortgage. The Master’s Report shows that Defendant/Husband suggested a downward adjustment in the obligation for payment of the mortgage on the marital residence. In his report, the Master quoted and cited to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-6(e) which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: If the obligor is occupying the marital residence and the mortgage payment exceeds 25% of the obligor’s net income (less any amount of spousal support, alimony pendente lite, or child support the obligor is paying), the court may make an appropriate downward adjustment in the obligor’s support obligation. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-6(e). In applying the foregoing, the Master stated the following: With the Husband’s income and support obligation as set forth above and a mortgage payment of $3,665.00 monthly, the Husband qualifies for a downward adjustment in his obligation. A recommendation is made that the obligation for alimony pendente lite be reduced to $3,100.00, resulting in a total monthly obligation of $5,937.00. The Husband’s income increased in 2009. Using the same analysis as she employed in 2008, Ms. Bolinger calculated the 2009 disposable income to be $18,365.00 per month. This results in an increase in child support to $3,033.00. The obligation for alimony pendente lite would increase to $4,095.00. A downward adjustment to $3,600 is recommended because of the mortgage payments. The total monthly obligation increases to $6,633.00. (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 6). 12 The above-quoted portion of the Master’s Report and Recommendation is, however, accompanied by a footnote which provides that “This action was commenced prior to the amendments to the support guidelines effective May 12, 2010. Either party may file a petition for modification should he or she so choose based upon the recent amendments.” (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 6, Fn. 11). In 2008, the year this action was commenced, Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-6(e) was accompanied by an Electronic Pocket Part Update which explained the subsection (e) then in effect; it provided, in pertinent part, that “The amendment to subdivision (e) recognizes that the obligor may be occupying the marital residence and that, in particular circumstances, justice and fairness may warrant an adjustment in his or her support obligation.” (emphasis added). At that time, there was no requirement mandating that the obligor “occupy” the marital residence; rather, at that time, the statute was permissive and gave the finder of fact the permission to make a downward adjustment for mortgage payments made by an obligor in certain circumstances. The Master suggested that if a party to the action desired to file a petition for modification they were free to do so. Neither party has done so, and we find no error with this analysis. Plaintiff’s sixth exception alleges that the Master erred by failing to find Husband in contempt of the Court’s Order of May 6, 2009. Plaintiff/Wife had filed a petition requesting that the Defendant/Husband be held in contempt for failing to pay the amount of child support and alimony pendente lite required by an Order of Court entered May 6, 2009. (Petition for Contempt of Child Support and Alimony Pendente Lite Order, filed July 15, 2010). A hearing on that petition was scheduled for September 2, 2010 before the Honorable Edward E. Guido. At that time, counsel for the parties agreed to have the hearing cancelled and to have the contempt issues heard and resolved by the Master. (Order of Court, Aug. 31, 2010). A hearing 13 was held by the Master on the matter, and at that time he reviewed the Defendant/Husband’s payment record and made the following findings: In a civil contempt proceeding the complaining party must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a party violated a court order. The party alleged to be in contempt may then present evidence that he has the present inability to comply and make up arrears. Godfrey v. Godfrey, 894 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2000). There is no question that the Husband has not complied with the order of May 6, 2009 to pay the sum of $3,625.00 in alimony pendente lite per month. However, because of the present posture of the case, i.e. the remand on the grounds that this Master erred in setting the APL order in May, 2009, this Master is today reluctant to recommend that the Husband be found in contempt. Rather a finding of contempt will be deferred with the proviso that the Husband make all payments as required herein, whether or not further exceptions are filed in the case. (Support Master’s Report and Recommendation at 7). We are satisfied that the Master acted reasonably in this regard. Plaintiff’s seventh exception alleges that the Master erred by failing to award Wife counsel fees based upon Husband’s contempt of the Court’s Order of May 6, 2009. In light of the deferral of a contempt finding, this action was proper. Plaintiff’s eighth exception provides that “Wife reserves the right to file additional exceptions upon receipt of and review of the transcript of the testimony.” This is not a valid exception to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s eighth exception, whatever it may mean with respect to the Report and Recommendation sub judice, is denied. ORDER th AND NOW, this 25 day of April, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 5, 2010, filed October 25, 2010, the exceptions of Defendant are DENIED. Furthermore, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s 14 Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 5, 2010, filed . November 9, 2010, the exceptions of Plaintiff are DENIED BY THE COURT, __________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Maria P. Cognetti, Esquire For the Plaintiff Max J. Smith, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :rlm 15