The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About207 S 2009 WILLIAM L. FEUCHTENBERGER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, : : : : v. : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : CARLA A. FEUCHTENBERGER, : : PACSES NO. 624110738 Defendant, : DOCKET NO. 207 SUPPORT 2009 ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 30 day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendations filed by the Plaintiff, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on December 7, 2011, the briefs filed by the parties, and the Court noting that neither party requested oral argument in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the following Order is entered: 1.For the period of February 24, 2011, through April 10, 2011, Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for her son, Travis S. Feuchtenberger, born May 3, 1997, the sum of $277.00 per month. 2.For the period of April 11, 2011, through July 22, 2011, Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for said child the sum of $326.00 per month. 3.Effective July 23, 2011, Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for said child the sum of $400.00 per month. 4.Plaintiff 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.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 st documentation of expenses to the other party no later than March 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated was received. 1 The unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows: 33% by Defendant and 67% by Plaintiff. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 2 WILLIAM L. FEUCHTENBERGER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, : : : : v. : : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : CARLA A. FEUCHTENBERGER, : : PACSES NO. 624110738 Defendant, : DOCKET NO. 207 SUPPORT 2009 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., May 30, 2012- Background Before this Court are the Exceptions on Behalf of Plaintiff to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation (“Master’s Report”) of December 16, 2011. Plaintiff’s exceptions to the 1 Master’s Report are reproduced below: The Support Master erred for the following reasons: A.The definition of “income” in the Divorce Code includes “annuities.” B.The Master erred in determining that the monies received by the Defendant from an annuity were not “income.” C.The Master further erred in not at least considering the taxable portion of the annuity which was $60,681.00 in 2010. D.The definition of “income” in the Divorce Code includes “annuity” not “income from annuity.” E.The Master erred in the determination of the Plaintiff’s income of $60,412.00 per year. The gist of Plaintiff’s argument involves the statutory interpretation of Rule 1910.16-2(a) and Section 4302 as it relates to the definition of “income” for the purpose of modifying support 1 Exceptions on Behalf of Plaintiff, filed Jan. 4, 2012. 1 obligations. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-2(a); 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302. After review of the record, 2 briefs, and case law, this Court endorses the Master’s Report. Findings of Fact The Finding of Fact as established by the Master are not in dispute between the parties 3 and thus, this Court adopts the Support Master’s Finding of Fact. For the purpose of the present 4 matter the following factual determinations are specifically relevant: inheritance 22. In June, 2010 the Defendant received an from her grandfather in the form of annuities with a gross amount of $165,078.00, of which $60,681.00 was subject to federal income tax. inheritance 23. In July, 2011 the Defendant received a second in the amount of $100,000.00. (emphasis added). Discussion “While [the Master’s Report] is to be given the fullest consideration, especially with regard to the credibility of witnesses, a trial court is required to review the report to determine if the recommendations are appropriate.” Goodman v. Goodman, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (Pa. Super. 1988). In the case sub judice, this Court finds the Master’s recommendations to be entirely appropriate. The Master correctly cites Humphreys v. DeRoss for the proposition that “the corpus of an inheritance” is not applicable within the statutory definition of “income” as it relates to a determination of support obligations. 790 A.2d 281, 287 (Pa. 2002); see also Maher v. Maher, 835 A.2d 1281, 1286 (Pa. 2003); Drevenik v. Nardone, 862 A.2d 635, 637 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“Humphreys and Maher held that the corpus of an inheritance could not be included as ‘income’ by the trial court when it calculates a support obligation pursuant to the Support Guidelines.”). 2 Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Dec. 16, 2011 [hereinafter Master’s Report]. 3 Master’s Report, 1-2. 4 Master’s Report, 2. 2 Defendant attempts to sidestep the holding of Humphreys by classifying the money Plaintiff received as strictly an annuity, but clearly the money received was within the corpus of inheritance and thus, ineligible for consideration as “income” for the purpose of modifying support obligations. See Humphreys, 790 A.2d at 287. However, the corpus of an inheritance may be considered when adjusting a support obligation, and here, the Master has suggested an upward deviation. See id. at 288. Therefore, no part of Plaintiff’s inheritance (i.e., see Master’s Report, Finding of Fact ¶¶ 22-23) will be considered “income” for the purpose of modifying support obligations of Plaintiff, but an upward deviation is warranted. Finally, Plaintiff has waived his exception that the Master erred in calculating Husband’s income. See Wiser v. Wiser, 59 Cumb. 216, 221 (2010). On January 9, 2012, this Court, inter 5 alia, ordered: 2. The Plaintiff shall file a brief, in these chambers, in support of the exceptions Any issue not not later than fifteen (15) days from the date the transcript is filed. briefed by the Plaintiff shall be deemed waived. (emphasis added). Plaintiff subsequently filed a brief in support of Plaintiff’s exceptions but failed to address the exception which claimed an error in the Master’s calculations for Husband’s income, therefore, Plaintiff has waived that particular issue. Accordingly, the following Order of Court is entered: ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 30 day of May, 2012, upon consideration of the Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendations filed by the Plaintiff, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on December 7, 2011, the briefs filed by the parties, and the Court noting that neither party requested oral argument in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the following Order is entered: 5 Order of Court, Jan. 9, 2012. 3 6.For the period of February 24, 2011, through April 10, 2011, Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for her son, Travis S. Feuchtenberger, born May 3, 1997, the sum of $277.00 per month. 7.For the period of April 11, 2011, through July 22, 2011, Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for said child the sum of $326.00 per month. 8.Effective July 23, 2011, Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for said child the sum of $400.00 per month. 9.Plaintiff 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. 10.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 st documentation of expenses to the other party no later than March 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: 33% by Defendant and 67% by Plaintiff. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. P. Richard Wagner, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 4