The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About701 S 2010 THOMAS H. BRIGHTBILL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : KAREN A. ODOM, : PACSES NO. 004111773 DEFENDANT : 701 SUPPORT 2010 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., February 22, 2012: -- On October 24, 2011, the Plaintiff filed exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation dated October 4, 2011. The exceptions consist of nine “objections to the finding of fact” and four “objections to discussion and conclusions.” Ultimately, there is one issue in this case, which the Plaintiff succinctly identified in his brief: Whether the Support Master erred in suspending the Defendant’s support obligation, when the Defendant testified that she was actively seeking employment and if offered employment she would accept said 1 employment? Not surprisingly, Plaintiff’s suggested answer to the question is “Yes.” After a thorough review of the record in this case and for the reasons set forth hereafter, we answer the question in the negative. Plaintiff’s brief in support of his exceptions, p. 3. 1 701 SUPPORT 2010 FINDINGS OF FACT 2 We incorporate the Support Master’s findings of fact in toto; however, because Plaintiff has taken issue with those findings, we set forth the following findings, which are particularly salient: 9. The Defendant is complying with a condition of purge contained in a contempt order of April 15, 2011 by actively applying for employment. 10. Since the hearing in November, 2010 the Defendant has been diagnosed as suffering from Depression, Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Hypertension. 11. The Defendant is currently taking Prozac for depression, Klonopin for panic disorder, and Norvasc for Hypertension, all prescribed by her physicians. 12. The Defendant sees her psychiatrist monthly and a psychotherapist weekly. 13. The Defendant’s psychiatrist and her family physician have both opined that the Defendant does not have the present ability to maintain gainful employment. 14. The Defendant has applied for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) and has been denied both. Furthermore, because of Plaintiff’s objections to the Master’s findings we add these findings to those of the Master: 1. After a hearing before the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., on April 15, 2011, Defendant was found in contempt and was directed, among other things, to apply to no less than 10 jobs per week. Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, Findings of Fact 1-17, October 2 4, 2011. -2- 701 SUPPORT 2010 2. If the Defendant had succeeded in her efforts to obtain employment, she would have accepted an offer only because she felt compelled to do so by Judge Oler’s order. 3. Following the April 15, 2011 finding of contempt, the Defendant received additional mental health services that resulted in at least two evaluations of her ability to work. 4. Neither the Defendant nor the professionals who treat her feel that she is able to work. 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). DISCUSSION First and foremost, we credit the Master with weighing not only the evidence presented to him, but also the credibility of the witnesses, and note that his determination must be accorded great weight. Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333, (Pa. Super. 2007). Although we believe there is ample evidence on which the Master could base his decision, we note that Plaintiff’s exceptions call for us to focus on four little words – “If I had to.” Not surprisingly, Plaintiff interprets this as rendering Defendant fit as a fiddle for full-time employment. -3- 701 SUPPORT 2010 Rather than parse these four words in a vacuum, let us examine, as did the Master’s neutral ears, the context of the exchange: Q If you are offered that job will you take it? A I don’t know until I would be offered that and I don’t know how I would react to it because of my mental status. Q Let’s say that you are offered it and you can coordinate it with your husband’s or your fiance’s work schedule, would you take the job? A If I had to. Q You agree with me that you are not able to make ends meet with your fiance’s salary, correct? A Yes. Q And that you need additional money for the household? A Yes. Q That’s a true statement? A Yes. Q So you would be able to work if you had to? A If I had to. In addition, the Master had the benefit of this brief exchange on re-direct examination: Q In regards to you taking a job if you are offered one right now, any job, do you feel like you have to do that because of Judge Oler’s order? A According to his order, yes. Q Do you feel that you would be able to carry through on the duties of any job at this point that you would take on? A No. Keeping in mind the Master’s obligation to judge the credibility of the witnesses through his direct observation, we find his first-hand, neutral interpretation of the Defendant’s inability to work to be consistent with our second-hand assessment. In short, the Defendant is unable to be gainfully employed and therefore suspending the order was appropriate. -4- 701 SUPPORT 2010 In relying on the Master’s evaluation on September 28, 2011, we do not disregard the determination on April 15, 2011 by the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., to hold the Defendant in contempt. However, it is clear that subsequent to the contempt finding, additional evidence of the Defendant’s mental health issues and her inability to work were compiled and presented to the Master. This court has been presented with new evidence in a much shorter span that has changed our perspective. Given the five months that passed between hearings, we are not surprised that the Master came to a seemingly conflicting decision. Nor, will we be shocked if something changes after the ink is dry on our signature, a possibility that the Master accounted for in his order. Nevertheless, we find the determination of the Master to be wholly supported by the facts presented to him. Accordingly, we enter the following order. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on September 28, 2011, and Plaintiff’s brief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff’s exceptions to DISMISSED the Master’s Report and Recommendation are and the current interim order of court dated October 4, 2011, is entered as a final order of court. -5- 701 SUPPORT 2010 By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Derek Clepper, Esquire Special Counsel for DRO Karen A. Odom 109 Regency Woods N Carlisle, PA 17015 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa -6- THOMAS H. BRIGHTBILL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : KAREN A. ODOM, : PACSES NO. 004111773 DEFENDANT : 701 SUPPORT 2010 IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on September 28, 2011, and Plaintiff’s brief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff’s exceptions to DISMISSED the Master’s Report and Recommendation are and the current interim order of court dated October 4, 2011, is entered as a final order of court. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Derek Clepper, Esquire Special Counsel for DRO Karen A. Odom 109 Regency Woods N Carlisle, PA 17015 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :saa