HomeMy WebLinkAbout814 S 2010
KATHERINE S. FOSTER, fka, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
(KATHERINE S. RIFE), : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFF :
:
v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
JOHN E. RIFE, JR., : DOCKET NO. 814 SUPPORT 2010
DEFENDANT : PACSES NO. 338111931
ORDER OF COURT
th
AND NOW
, this 10 day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the exceptions
filed by the Defendant to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record
of the case presented before the Support Master on January 12, 2012, the briefs filed by
the parties, and the Court noting that neither party has requested oral argument in the
case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
that the following Final Order is
entered:
A.For the period of October 3, 2011 through December 31, 2011 the
Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as
support for his son, Jonathan X. Rife, born May 6, 2006, the sum of $355.15 per month.
B.Effective January 1, 2012 the Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State
Collection and Disbursement Unit for the support of said child the sum of $468.00 per
month.
C.The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and
Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $47.00 per month on arrears.
D.The Defendant shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of
said child as is available to him through employment or other group coverage at a
reasonable cost.
E.The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in the
amount of $250.00 annually for unreimbursed medical expenses incurred for said child.
Unreimbursed medical expenses of the child that exceed $250.00 annually shall be
allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical
expenses must provide documentation of expenses to the other party no later than March
st
31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated
was received. The unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows: 60% by the
Defendant and 40% by the Plaintiff.
BY THE COURT,
Christylee L. Peck, J.
Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire
4010 Glenfinnan Place
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Plaintiff
John E. Rife, Jr.
P.O. Box 21
Dauphin, PA 17018
Defendant, pro Se
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Support Master
2
KATHERINE S. FOSTER, fka, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
(KATHERINE S. RIFE), : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFF :
:
v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
:
JOHN E. RIFE, JR., : DOCKET NO. 814 SUPPORT 2010
DEFENDANT : PACSES NO. 338111931
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Peck, J., May 10, 2012.
On October 3, 2011, the above captioned action was commenced by the filing of a
complaint for support by Katherine S. Foster, formerly Katherine S. Rife, (“Plaintiff”)
1
against John E. Rife, Jr., (“Defendant”). A hearing was held before a conference officer
on October 27, 2011, and an Interim Order of Court dated October 27, 2011, signed by
2
Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. was filed on October 28, 2011. By letter dated November 10,
2011, Defendant appealed Judge Oler’s Order of October 27, 2011, and requested a
3
hearing before the Cumberland County Support Master.
Pursuant to this request, a hearing before the Support Master was conducted on
January 12, 2012. A record was made of this proceeding which consists of 21 pages of
4
testimony and Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 through 3 and Defendant’s Exhibit 1. The Support
Master filed his Report and Recommendation on January 12, 2012, at which time an
5
Interim Order of Court was entered by President Judge Kevin A. Hess.
On January 23, 2012, Defendant filed timely exceptions to the Support Master’s
6
Report and Recommendation. The exceptions filed by Defendant are stated as follows:
(1) The Support Master infringed upon Defendant’s First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights by including in the support calculations of Defendant’s income a prospective
1
Complaint for Support, Oct. 3, 2011.
2
Interim Order of Court, (Oct. 28, 2011).
3
Def.’s Letter, Nov. 10, 2011.
4
Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), Feb. 1, 2012; Index of Exs.
5
Support Master’s Report and Rec., Jan. 13, 2012; Interim Order of Court (Jan. 12, 2012).
6
Def.’s Letter, Jan. 23, 2012.
7
amount Defendant should be receiving in child support for Defendant’s other child; and
(2) The Support Master incorrectly determined the date upon which Plaintiff began
incurring daycare expenses and incorrectly required Defendant to pay an increased
8
amount for months of tuition that never occurred.
An Order was entered on January 25, 2012, directing the transcript of the Support
Master hearing be prepared, directing Defendant to file a brief with this Court within 15
days of the transcript being filed, and directing Plaintiff to file a reply brief with this
9
Court within 30 days of the transcript being filed. All parties filed timely briefs but no
10
party requested oral argument.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After complete review of the record in this case, this Court makes the following
findings of fact:
11
Plaintiff resides in Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff
12
reverted to her maiden name following the parties’ divorce. Defendant resides in
13
Dauphin, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The parties are the parents of Jonathan X.
14
Rife (“Jonathan”), a minor child born May 6, 2006. The parties share physical custody
15
of Jonathan equally.
Plaintiff is employed by Ahold Financial Services where she earns $12.50 per
16
hour for a 40-hour work week. Since the beginning of January of 2012, Plaintiff has
17
had childcare expenses of $100 bi-weekly. Plaintiff has an eight-year-old child to a
7
Def.’s Letter, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 1, ¶ 3-6; p. 2, ¶ 4-6.
8
Def.’s Letter, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 3, ¶ 3.
9
Order of Court (Jan. 25, 2012)
10
Def.’s Letter, Feb. 6, 2012; Pl.’s Brief in Response to Def.’s Exceptions in Support of the Master’s Report and
Rec., Feb. 29, 2012.
11
N.T. p. 3, ll. 19-21.
12
N.T. p. 4, ll. 1-4.
13
N.T. p. 11, ll. 17-18.
14
N.T. p. 3, l. 4.
15
N.T. p. 7, 12-15.
16
N.T. p. 4, ll. 8-9, 21-24.
17
N.T. p. 8, l. 5; Pl. Ex. 3; Def.’s Letter, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 3, ¶ 3.
2
18
prior relationship in her custody. Plaintiff’s tax filing status for tax year 2011 is head of
19
household with her eight-year-old child claimed as a dependency exemption.
Defendant is employed by Rite Aid Corporation where he earns a gross bi-weekly
20
income of $1,664.82. Defendant also has an eight-year-old child to a prior relationship
21
in his custody. Defendant pays $83.96 bi-weekly for health insurance coverage on
22
himself and his two children. Defendant’s tax filing status for tax year 2011 is head of
23
household with two children, including Jonathan, claimed as dependency exemptions.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s first exception is founded on the false premise that the Support
Master included in the support calculation of Defendant’s income a prospective amount
that Defendant should be receiving in child support for Defendant’s other child. Based
on this false premise, Defendant concluded that his rights under the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution had been violated. Defendant also cited the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution to bolster this argument. However, the
Support Master correctly calculated Defendant’s income and did not use a prospective
24
amount. Because Defendant is in error as to the Support Master’s calculation of
Defendant’s income, this Court finds that none of Defendant’s constitutional rights have
been infringed upon by the Support Master.
The Support Master’s calculation is based on Defendant’s gross bi-weekly income
of $1,664.82 earned from Rite Aid Corporation. The gross bi-weekly income is
multiplied by 26 bi-weeks in a year to determine Defendant’s gross yearly income of
$43,285.32. Then the gross yearly income is divided by 12 months in a year to determine
Defendant’s gross monthly income of $3,607.11. This gross monthly income
determination is consistent with the gross monthly income correctly found by the Support
18
N.T. p. 5, ll. 20-25; p. 6, ll. 1-4.
19
N.T. p. 9, ll. 9-14.
20
N.T. p. 12, ll. 3, 9-10; Index of Exs., Def. Ex. 1.
21
N.T. p. 13, ll. 7-15.
22
N.T. p. 12, l. 25- p. 13, l. 6; Index of Exs., Def. Ex. 1 (Summation of HMK HLTH FUND 70 $63.70, DELTA
DENTAL PPO $14.76, and VISION $5.50).
23
N.T. p. 14, ll. 21-24; p. 15, ll. 1-6.
24
See the analysis that follows of the Support Master’s calculation.
3
Master. The Support Master used Defendant’s gross monthly income to determine
Defendant’s net monthly income for support purposes of $3,178.00. This net monthly
income formed the basis for determining Defendant’s share of the basic child support
obligation. Both parents have an obligation to support their children in accordance with
their relative incomes and ability to pay. Depp v. Holland, 636 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super.
1994).
It is clear from the above calculation that the Support Master did not include any
prospective amount in determining Defendant’s gross monthly income. Therefore,
because the above calculation does not use a prospective amount, it does not infringe
upon Defendant’s First Amendment rights as Defendant has alleged, and this exception is
without merit.
Defendant’s second exception alleges the Support Master incorrectly determined
the date upon which Plaintiff began incurring daycare expenses and incorrectly required
Defendant to pay an increased amount for months of tuition that never occurred. This
Court finds this exception to be without merit because the Support Master correctly
determined when Plaintiff began incurring daycare expenses.
At the beginning of January 2012, Plaintiff began incurring childcare expenses of
25
$100 bi-weekly. The Support Master’s decision correctly reflects this fact:
Because the parties were still married when the complaint was filed and are
now divorced, thus changing their tax filing status, and because the
Plaintiff began incurring childcare expenses in January, 2012, the charging
order of $355.15 as set forth in the interim order of October 27, 2011 shall
remain in place through December 31, 2011. The order will be increased to
$468.00 per month effective January 1, 2012 to reflect the changes which
have occurred since the support conference held in October.
25
N.T. p. 8, l. 5; Pl. Ex. 3; Def.’s Letter, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 3, ¶ 3, stating “Jonathan had not been enrolled in ANY
daycare up until just a few weeks ago.”
4
Support Master’s Report and Rec., Jan. 13, 2012, p. 2, ¶ 7. The Support Master did not
require Defendant to pay an increased amount for child care that had not occurred during
the months prior to January 2012. The Support Master, in determining the support
obligation, correctly made an upward adjustment for Plaintiff beginning January of 2012
for the added childcare expenses that she incurred. Defendant’s monthly share of the
basic child support obligation which increased in January of 2012 correctly reflects the
adjustment.
Accordingly, the following Order of Court is entered:
ORDER OF COURT
th
AND NOW
, this 10 day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the exceptions
filed by the Defendant to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, the record
of the case presented before the Support Master on January 12, 2012, the briefs filed by
the parties, and the Court noting that neither party has requested oral argument in the
case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
that the following Final Order is
entered:
A.For the period of October 3, 2011 through December 31, 2011 the
Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as
support for his son, Jonathan X. Rife, born May 6, 2006, the sum of $355.15 per month.
B.Effective January 1, 2012 the Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State
Collection and Disbursement Unit for the support of said child the sum of $468.00 per
month.
C.The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and
Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $47.00 per month on arrears.
D.The Defendant shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of
said child as is available to him through employment or other group coverage at a
reasonable cost.
5
E.The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in the
amount of $250.00 annually for unreimbursed medical expenses incurred for said child.
Unreimbursed medical expenses of the child that exceed $250.00 annually shall be
allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical
expenses must provide documentation of expenses to the other party no later than March
st
31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated
was received. The unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows: 60% by the
Defendant and 40% by the Plaintiff.
BY THE COURT,
s/ Christylee L. Peck
Christylee L. Peck, J.
Susan Kay Candiello, Esquire
4010 Glenfinnan Place
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Plaintiff
John E. Rife, Jr.
P.O. Box 21
Dauphin, PA 17018
Defendant, pro Se
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
Support Master
6