Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-0677 Civilweek to apply on any arrearages until said arrearages have been paid in full. This order shall be retroactive to August 18, 1992. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the parties inform the Domestic Relations Office of any change of employment, change of personal or employment address, or change of address of any child receiving support, in writing or by personal appearance in the Domestic Relations Office, within seven days of such change. Should a party wilfully fail to inform the Domestic Relations Office of the required information, the Court may adjudge the party to be in contempt of court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.21, and may order the party to be punished by one or more of the following: jail, fine or probation. The Defendant's income is attached. BY THE COURT, Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc /7 V1 J. Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc week to apply on any arrearages until said arrearages have been paid in full. This order shall be retroactive to August 18, 1992. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the parties inform the Domestic Relations Office of any change of employment, change of personal or employment address, or change of address of any child receiving support, in writing or by personal appearance in the Domestic Relations Office, within seven days of such change. Should a party wilfully fail to inform the Domestic Relations Office of the required information, the Court may adjudge the party to be in contempt of court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.21, and may order the party to be punished by one or more of the following: jail, fine or probation. The Defendant's income is attached. BY THE COURT, Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc J. Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc DINA M. METALLO-VOSHELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT MICHAEL D. VOSHELL, DR NO. 18992 Defendant NO. 677 SUPPORT 1992 IN RE: CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Z?O jday of February, 1993, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Appeal from the Recommended Order dated October 5, 1992, and following a hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the prior order of support entered in this case be amended so that the Defendant shall pay through the Domestic Relations Office, P.O. Box 320, Carlisle, PA 17013, the sum of $243.00 per week for and toward the support of wife and three children, James Michael, born October 8, 1981, Stephanie Marie, born June 1, 1985, and Matthew David, born April 6, 1987. This Order is allocated $184.00 per week to child support and $59.00 per week to spousal support. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant maintain medical insurance coverage on the beneficiaries of this Order as provided by his employer, that the parties shall fully cooperate in processing all medical insurance papers to submit claims to the husband's medical insurance carrier for the wife and the parties' children, that husband shall promptly reimburse the wife for any insurance payments that he receives from his medical insurance carrier for money which the wife paid to the medical provider, and that the parties shall be equally liable for all medical expenses not covered by insurance for the children. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant shall pay the additional sum of $5.00 per week to apply on any arrearages until said arrearages have been paid in full. This order shall be retroactive to August 18, 1992. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the parties inform the Domestic Relations Office of any change of employment, change of personal or employment address, or change of address of any child receiving support, in writing or by personal appearance in the Domestic Relations Office, within seven days of such change. Should a party wilfully fail to inform the Domestic Relations Office of the required information, the Court may adjudge the party to be in contempt of court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.21, and may order the party to be punished by one or more of the following: jail, fine or probation. The Defendant's income is attached. BY THE COURT, Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc J. Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc DINA M. METALLO-VOSHELL, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL D. VOSHELL, Defendant Oler, J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT DR NO. 18992 NO. 677 SUPPORT 1992 IN RE: CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT BEFORE OLER. J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT This case is an appeal by Plaintiff from an order for child and spousal support dated October 5, 1992. The order was based upon a recommendation of the Domestic Relations Office, and provided for an appeal by either party within ten days of its mailing. A hearing was held by the Court on the appeal on February 18 and February 19,1993. Following the hearing, these Findings of Fact, Discussion and Order of Court are made and entered. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff is Dina M. Metallo-Voshell, an adult individual residing in Bowmansdale, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Michael D. Voshell, an adult individual residing in Bradenton, Florida. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant were married on May 22,1981, in Bradenton, Florida. 4. Plaintiff and Defendant are the mother and father respectively of three children born of the marriage: James Michael Voshell (born October 8, 1981), Stephanie Marie Voshell (born June 1, 1985), and Matthew David Voshell (born April 6, 1987). No. 677 SUPPORT 1992 5. The parties separated in May of 1991, but are not yet divorced. 6. The aforesaid children live with Plaintiff, their mother, in Pennsylvania. 7. Defendant father is employed as a registered nurse in the cardiac catheterization laboratory in a Florida hospital; this laboratory is associated with the hospital's critical care unit. 8. The net income of Defendant father is $435.00 per week, which includes overtime hours; this sum is found by the Court to be his present net earning capacity. 9. Plaintiff mother is not employed; she is a full-time student at Harrisburg Area Community College, but thus far has accumulated only a few credits toward a college degree. 10. Daycare expenses for the children, if Plaintiff were to incur them, would be $155.00 per week. ll. Prior to his present employment in Florida, when the parties were together, Defendant father held two jobs: full-time employment as a staff nurse in the intensive care unit at Harrisburg Hospital, netting $460.00 per week, and part-time employment as a nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital, netting $145.00 per week. 12. Defendant father left Pennsylvania and moved to Florida because of severe depression, resulting from the failure of his marriage, and the presence of family support in Florida. 13. When Defendant moved to Florida, he was initially uncertain whether he X No. 677 SUPPORT 1992 would return to Pennsylvania and resume his employment at Harrisburg Hospital. 14. Plaintiff mother encouraged Defendant's departure to Florida because of his suicidal mental state; the Court finds that the move was medically reasonable and unmotivated by a desire on the part of Defendant to decrease his earnings. 15. Plaintiff mother was a dental assistant prior to her marriage in Florida, with net earnings of $180.00 per week. 16. Plaintiff mother presently has a net earning capacity of $160.00 per week. 17. The parties' children do not have any special needs; unpaid medical bills for the children, however, total $1000.00. 18. On or about August 17,1992, Defendant father filed a petition to reduce the spousal and child support order dated November 18, 1991, which provided for a sum of $1250.00 per month, allocated $950.00 to child support and $300.00 to spousal support, for medical insurance coverage through Defendant's employer, and for an equal division of medical expenses not covered by Defendant's insurance. 19. The recommended order resulting from said petition, and being appealed herein by Plaintiff mother, is dated October 5,1992, and provides for a sum of $230.00 per week allocated $180.00 to child support and $50.00 to spousal support, and for medical insurance coverage through Defendant's employer, the said order to be retroactive to August 18, 1992. 20. The parties have stipulated that the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to 91 No. 677 SUPPORT 1992 support as amended January 27, 1993, shall govern these proceedings. DISCUSSION "A spouse's ability to pay support is determined not only by his [or her] property and income but also his [or her] earning capacity.... The attribution of an earning capacity to a spouse prevents that spouse from intentionally reducing his [or her] earnings, and then using the reduction in earnings to reduce payment due or increase a payment received....r' "By the attribution of an earning capacity, it has been held that a parent's ambition to obtain an education cannot be realized at the expense of his [or her] obligation to pay child support...." Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual §5.08(D), at 154 (1990); cf. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(i); McNulty v. McNulty, 347 Pa. Super. 373, 500 A.2d 876 (1985). "Normally, the burden [of child care expenses] will be divided equally between the parents by determining the reasonable child care expenses and adding one-half of this amount to the obligor's monthly obligation." Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(i). In the present case, it is believed that Defendant father's present net earning capacity is properly valued at his present actual net earnings of $435.00 per week, which includes overtime, notwithstanding that he previously earned slightly more at a full-time job in Pennsylvania, and supplemented those earnings with part-time 1 Frank & Gale, Pennsylvania Family Practice Manual §5.08(D), at 154 (1990); see Beegle v. Rasler, 395 Pa. Super. 174, 576 A.2d 1100 (1990). 4 No. 677 SUPPORT 1992 employment. In this regard, the Court believes that his relocation to Florida was reasonable given his mental condition and not ill -motivated, and that in general one's earning capacity should be measured by full-time hours as opposed to hours greatly in excess of full-time, even though one may have been willing to work extra hours when the family was intact. It is also believed that Plaintiff wife's present net earning capacity is properly valued at $160.00 per week, notwithstanding that some years ago she was actually earning $180.00 net per week. Based upon these net weekly income figures, and stipulated daycare expenses, as well as upon stipulations for inclusion in the Order of a requirement that the parties promptly submit medical insurance claims, that Defendant reimburse Plaintiff for any insurance payments which Defendant receives for money paid by Plaintiff to a medical provider, and that the parties be equally liable for medical expenses of the children not covered by insurance,' the Order immediately following will be entered. Attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is a copy of the computation resulting in the Order.' ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this.VVday of February, 1993, upon consideration of Plaintiff's 2 Plaintiff wife has requested that this provision apply to her medical expenses as well. 3 Even if the Court were to attribute no earning capacity to the Plaintiff on the theory that her pursuit of a college degree is preferable to employment in light of child care expenses attendant to employment, the amount of support per period suggested by the guidelines does not vary appreciably ($247.00 as opposed to $243.00). 5 No. 677 SUPPORT 1992 Appeal from the Recommended Order dated October 5, 1992, and following a hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the prior order of support entered in this case be amended so that the Defendant shall pay through the Domestic Relations Office, P.O. Box 320, Carlisle, PA 17013, the sum of $243.00 per week for and toward the support of wife and three children, James Michael, born October 8, 1981, Stephanie Marie, born June 1, 1985, and Matthew David, born April 6, 1987. This Order is allocated $184.00 per week to child support and $59.00 per week to spousal support. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant maintain medical insurance coverage on the beneficiaries of this Order as provided by his employer, that the parties shall fully cooperate in processing all medical insurance papers to submit claims to the husband's medical insurance carrier for the wife and the parties' children, that husband shall promptly reimburse the wife for any insurance payments that he receives from his medical insurance carrier for money which the wife paid to the medical provider, and that the parties shall be equally liable for all medical expenses not covered by insurance for the children. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant shall pay the additional sum of $5.00 per week to apply on any arrearages until said arrearages have been paid in full. This order shall be retroactive to August 18, 1992. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the parties inform the Domestic Relations Office of any change of employment, change of personal or [o No. 677 SUPPORT 1992 employment address, or change of address of any child receiving support, in writing or by personal appearance in the Domestic Relations Office, within seven days of such change. Should a party wilfully fail to inform the Domestic Relations Office of the required information, the Court may adjudge the party to be in contempt of court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.21, and may order the party to be punished by one or more of the following: jail, fine or probation. The Defendant's income is attached. Robert E. Rains, Esq. Eric C. Surette, Intern Family Law Clinic Attorney for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Domestic Relations Office :rc BY THE COURT, s/J. Wesley Oler. Jr. J. fi - DINA M. METALLO-VOSHE/1. Vs HIONAFK D. VOSHE/'L DR whim-------HPARING8FFICER: VON R' OBLIGOR OBLIGEE 1. TOTAL; ROSS PER--- _�-�� `-- � ��� - ' �� 4Z�� -�W-' -- 2. LESS DEDUCTIONS: 0 /W 0 /W 3. NET INCOME PER PAY PERIOD: 435 /W 160 /W ----�---� -���� - �� 1 , 8�5 - �----6���---- 5. COMBINED MONTHLY NET INCOME: 2`578 6. PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE: 34.9 % 9. TOTAL SUPPORT: 899 -1 NFI+N'FT�I -27-..-- 11- EACH PARENT'S OBI|RATION: 656 243 12. MONTHLY CHILD CARE EXPENSE: 676 13. MONTHLY 14. TOTAL MONTHLY CH7LD SUPPORT OBLIGATION: 994 581 15. TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT PFR PAY PERIOD: 229 /W 134 /W -�iFT�[r���MF�r 17. LESS OBLIGEE'S MONTKY NFT lNCOMF: 693 18. LESS OBLIGOR'S MON[lyY CHILD 5UPPORT ORLlKAT[nN: 994 20. MULTIPLY BY: .3 �~ AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SPOUSAL SUPPORT: 59 Z3. TOTAL SUPPORT OBIlRArION PFR PAv: 743 /W CALCULATIONS BASED ON 3 CHILDREN.