Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1095 S 2002 GERALD R. MORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : AMBER PARLATI, : PASCES NO. 038105095 DEFENDANT : 1095 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., July 22, 2011: -- Plaintiff/Petitioner requests that this court grant his exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons explained below, this court denies that request. I. FACTS Plaintiff/Petitioner, Gerald R. Morton (Father) and Defendant/Respondent, Amber Parlati (Mother) are the parents of a minor child, Sophia M. Parlati (Child). Although the main point of contention between the parties is who may claim child as a dependency tax exemption, the following facts will aid in addressing all of Father’s exceptions. Mother is single and lives alone with the Child. She has full custody of the Child and is her primary caregiver. During the relevant time period to this inquiry, Mother was employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Department of Corrections as a nurse, with a gross income of $41,092.67. In November of 2010, Mother voluntary left that position and now works at Links2Care and Pediatria (both pediatric home care agencies) at a lesser pay rate. Mother 1095 SUPPORT 2002 testified she voluntarily left her higher paying position with the State to better use her skills as a nurse and for the personal fulfillment of working with children instead of prisoners. Because of her extensive work hours, she employs childcare services at her own expense. The amount of childcare is dependent on Mother’s varied work schedule, but estimated costs are approximately $100 per week. Mother claimed the Child as a dependency tax exemption in 2009 and testified that she intends to claim the Child again in 2010. Father is currently single and resides with his parents. He is employed by Pepsi Bottling as a driver. Father’s gross income for the relevant time period was $56,764.71. Per a previous order, Father provides health insurance coverage for himself and the Child at a cost of $18.00 per week. In addition to the Child, Father has support obligations for three other minor children to a different woman. Father claims one of these three children as a dependency exemption for federal income tax purposes, but does not claim the other two. After a hearing and upon consideration of the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the court entered an interim order on March 1, 2011. The court ordered that Father continue to pay support and provide health insurance for the Child. In addition, the interim order directed Father to provide Mother with childcare expenses. Most significantly, the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation awarded Mother the dependency tax exemption. Father filed the following exceptions: 1. The Defendant claimed she has $100.00 in childcare per week but did not provide the lower court with receipts or tax documents supporting that. -2- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 2. The Support Master entered a downward deviation to $737.00 per month but the Support Guideline Worksheet (Exhibit B) has it at $818.59 per month and $188.40 per week. 3. The Support Master found that the Defendant should claim the child as a dependent. The Plaintiff has paid more than half of the child support since the child was born thus being awarded the dependency May 2006 by the Cumberland County Court by the recommendation of the Support Master. 4. The Support Master set the repayment of the arrears at $73.00 per month. All other orders by the Court the arrears had been set at $25.00 per month. 5. The Plaintiff filed petition for modification on October 21, 2010 because of current employment health insurance decreased and the Defendant was employed by the Department of Corrections and had excellent health insurance. 6. The Support Master found as fact that the Plaintiff provides health insurance for the Defendant (Ms. Parlati) when in fact it is the child (Sophia) that the Plaintiff insures. II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review A Support Master’s Report is to be given the fullest consideration and should not be disturbed unless the record indicates a clear abuse of discretion based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). Abuse of discretion is found where the evidence on record is insufficient to sustain the award, where the law is overridden or misapplied, or where the exercise of judgment is unreasonable. Lampa v. Lampa, 538 A.2d 350, 352 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988). -3- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 B. Father’s Exceptions Before addressing Father’s primary concern, the dependency tax exemption, we will address his other issues. Although all are being dismissed, we recognize the challenge self-represented individuals have in comprehending what is truly at issue. Therefore, we offer the following brief explanations to aid the parties’ understanding, using the same numbering as the Father’s exceptions: 1. The record satisfied the Master and the court that Mother incurs childcare expenses of $100.00 per week. Mother testified credibly regarding these costs and, therefore, further documentation was not necessary. 2. Father is mistaken in his belief that the downward deviation from $818.59 to $737.00 was not effected. Consequently, there is no issue in dispute. . . . 4. The payment of $73.00 towards the arrears is appropriate in light of $2,000.00 Father owed at the time of the hearing. 5. The Master adequately addressed the numerous factors that had changed for both parties since the date of the last award in 2006, and, in fashioning his order, he gave appropriate weight to all of them. Mother’s change in job status, and her resulting change in health insurance, was one of many factors the Master considered. -4- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 6. The Master made a typographical error in his Finding of Fact #9 wherein he referred to the child as Amber instead of Sophia. This minor mistake has no bearing on the ultimate recommendation and is inconsequential. Finally, the court also dismisses Father’s argument that the Support Master unfairly awarded Mother the dependency tax exemption. Father argues that because he pays more than fifty percent of the child support, he is entitled to claim the Child as a tax exemption. In addition, Father notes a 2005 recommendation by the Support Master that granted Father the exemption based on his support obligations. Notes of Testimony, February 23, 2011 at 7 (N.T.). However, the court disagrees and defers to the Support Master’s recent findings. According to 26 U.S.C. § 152(e) the custodial parent is automatically granted the dependency tax exemption except in certain specific circumstances. These circumstances include (1) multiple source agreements; (2) where a pre- 1985 instrument gives the non-custodial parent the exemption and that parent pays more than $600 per year in support; and (3) where the custodial parents signs a waiver of the exemption. Id. None of these circumstances exist here. Instead, the Child lives with Mother full time, with Mother providing her basic needs. N.T. at 15. In addition, Mother expressly told Father that since the Child lived with her fulltime that she would be claiming the Child on her taxes starting in 2005. N.T. at 9. Father suggests Piso v. Piso, 761 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) may apply to this case. In Piso, mother and father had two children, of which mother -5- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 had primary custody. Mother claimed the dependency exemption for both children. Because both parents had substantially similar incomes, father requested that he be able to claim one child as a tax exemption. Id. at 1216. Father argued that without claiming any of the children as an exemption, he was forced into a higher tax bracket leaving fewer funds available for support. The court allowed father to claim one of the children noting that the trial court could use discretion to grant a dependency tax exemption to the non-custodial parent where appropriate. While Father is correct in his argument that the trial court may grant a dependency tax exemption to the non-custodial parent, this court does not find it appropriate here. Unlike in Piso where there were two children in question, there is only one child between Mother and Father. Furthermore, where splitting the available tax exemptions in Piso allowed mother and father to stay on equal grounds, here, allowing Father to claim the exemption only puts him further ahead of Mother financially. As previously stated, the court reviews exceptions to a Support Master’s Report and Recommendation for a clear abuse of discretion based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Here, the court finds no such abuse and accepts the Support Master’s finding awarding Mother the dependency tax exemption. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Father’s exceptions do not raise any arguable abuse of discretion by the Master. The Master’s findings and recommendations -6- 1095 SUPPORT 2002 are fully supported by the law and the record. The request for exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation is dismissed. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of July, 2011, upon consideration of the exceptions filed to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on February 23, 2011, the briefs filed by the parties, and oral argument present on June 13, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that plaintiff/petitioner’s ARE DISMISSED exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendation and the current interim order of court dated March 1, 2011, is entered as a final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Gerald Morton, Pro se 1956 Reservoir Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Amber Parlati, Pro se 116 Pine Grove Road New Bloomfield, PA 17068 :saa -7- GERALD R. MORTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : AMBER PARLATI, : PASCES NO. 038105095 DEFENDANT : 1095 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of July, 2011, upon consideration of the exceptions filed to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on February 23, 2011, the briefs filed by the parties, and oral argument present on June 13, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that plaintiff/petitioner’s ARE DISMISSED exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendation and the current interim order of court dated March 1, 2011, is entered as a final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Gerald Morton, Pro se 1956 Reservoir Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Amber Parlati, Pro se 116 Pine Grove Road New Bloomfield, PA 17068 :saa