HomeMy WebLinkAbout357 S 2008
HELEN FISCHBACH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
:
:
BRIAN FISCHBACH : PACSES NO. 979109980
DEFENDANT : 357 SUPPORT 2008
IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
ORDER OF COURT
th
AND NOW
, this 10 day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s
Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendations, the record of the
case presented before the Support Master, 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
thethat Plaintiff’s exceptions
DENIED
to the Master’s Report and Recommendations are and the current Interim
Order of Court dated April 18, 2012, is entered as a Final Order of Court.
By the Court,
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
P. Richard Wagner, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
HELEN FISCHBACH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
:
:
BRIAN FISCHBACH : PACSES NO. 979109980
DEFENDANT : 357 SUPPORT 2008
IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Ebert Jr., J.,
September 10, 2012 -
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Plaintiff, Helen Fischbach and Defendant, Brian Fischbach are parents of
three minor children, Aden who is 16 years old, Danyon who is 13 years old and
1
Alexandra who is 8 years old. The Plaintiff resides with the minor children in the family
2
home at 804 Hamilton Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County. The Defendant resides
3
with his girlfriend at 101 Media Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County.
The Plaintiff is employed by the Carlisle Area School District as a secretary,
4
making $8.40 an hour, working a 40 hour week during the school year. According to
5
her 2011 federal income tax return, the Plaintiff’s gross income was $10,618.00. She
1
Fischbach v. Fischbach, 357 Support 2008, In Re: Fischbach v. Fischbach,
hearing on April 15, 2011, hereinafter “4/15/11 hearing p.__”, p. 4
2
Fischbach v. Fischbach, 357 Support 2008, In Re: Fischbach v. Fischbach,
vol. II hearing on April 17, 2012, hereinafter “4/17/12 hearing vol. II p.
__”, vol. II p. 94, 95
3
Fischbach v. Fischbach, 357 Support 2008, In Re: Fischbach v. Fischbach,
vol. I hearing on March 15, 2012, hereinafter “3/15/12 hearing vol. I p. __”
vol. I p. 3, 17
4
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 95-6
5
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 96; Plaintiff Exhibit 4
1
pays $91.70 bi-weekly for health insurance for herself and the children. Per a private
6
agreement, the Defendant pays her $180 toward the health insurance. The mortgage
7
payment, excluding taxes and insurance is $1,150.00 a month.
As of March 2011, the Defendant was owner of Appian Associates. The
Defendant is an engineer and has been working as a civil engineer for the past twenty-
8
two years. Immediately prior to starting Appian Associates, the Defendant and a
partner owned Fischbach Morgan & Associates. In 2010, the Defendant received a
9
guaranteed payment of $78,939.00 and pass through income of $38,340.00.
According to his 2011 federal income tax return, the Defendant received a net profit
10
from Appian Associates in the amount of $21,906.00. Additionally, the Defendant
11
received guaranteed payments from Fischbach Morgan & Associates of $17,743.00;
12
income from Fifty-Five & Out of $3,735.00; and gains from the sale of business
13
property in the amount of $2,884.00. The Defendant received IRA distributions and
14
pension and annuities payments from an inheritance from his uncle.
On April 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Support requesting spousal
15
support and child support for her and Defendant’s three minor children. Said
6
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 96-7, 102
7
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 98
8
3/15/12 hearing vol. I p. 4
9
Support Master Report and Recommendation, filed April 27, 2011
10
3/15/12 hearing vol. I p. 6,7; Defendant Exhibit #1
11
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 63; Defendant Exhibit #1
12
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p 73; Defendant Exhibit #3
13
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 69; Defendant Exhibit #1
14
3/15/12 hearing vol. I p. 8; 4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 71
15
Fischbach v. Fischbach, 357 Support 2008, Complaint for Support, filed
April 28, 2008
2
16
complaint was withdrawn. On December 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a new complaint for
17
support requesting spousal support and support for the parties’ three minor children.
Following a conference at the Domestic Relation’s Office, an Interim Order of Court was
filed where the Plaintiff’s income was determined to be $1,477.10 and the Defendant’s
18
income was $5,055.39. Plaintiff appealed the March 9, 2011, Interim Order and a
hearing was held on April 25, 2011.
19
Following the hearing, the Support Master filed his report and recommendation.
On April 27, 2011, this Court issued an Interim Order of Court adopting the following
20
Support Master’s recommendations:
A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection
and Disbursement Unit as support for his children, Aden C.
Fischbach, born August 11, 1994, Danyon M. Fischbach, born
May 16, 1997, and Alexandra K. Fischbach, born June 17,
2002, the sum of $1,624.00 per month.
B. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection
and Disbursement Unit as spousal support the sum of
$1,232.00 per month, which sum includes a mortgage
adjustment of $223.00 per month.
C. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection
and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $205.00 per month
on arrears.
D. The Defendant is given a credit on arrears in the amount of
$3,800.00 for direct payments made to the Plaintiff in January
and February, 2011.
16
Fischbach v. Fischbach, 357 Support 2008, Order, Ebert, Jr., J. filed May
16, 2008
17
Complaint for Support, filed December 22, 2010
18
Order of Court, filed March 9, 2011.
19
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed April 27, 2011
20
Interim Order of Court, Ebert, Jr., J., filed April 27, 2011
3
E. The Defendant shall provide health insurance coverage for the
benefit of said children as is available to him through
employment or other group coverage at a reasonable cost.
F. The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in
the amount of $250.00 annually for unreimbursed medical
expenses incurred for said children. Unreimbursed medical
expenses of the children that exceed $250.00 annually shall be
allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of
unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of
st
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: 84% by Defendant and 16% by
Plaintiff.
On October 17, 2011, the Defendant filed a petition for modification of the April
th21
27 Interim Order. The Defendant averred a change in circumstance where he was
no longer employed, and, therefore, had a lower earning capacity than he did at the
th22
time the April 17 Order was filed. Following a modification conference, this Court
issued an Order denying the Defendant’s petition to modify, based on “no significant
23
change in circumstance”. The Defendant appealed this Order and requested a
24th
hearing before the Support Master. A bifurcated hearing was held on March 15 and
April 17, 2012.
21
Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed October 17,
2011
22
Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed October 17,
2011
23
Order, Ebert, Jr., J., filed November 16, 2011
24
See letter filed November 29, 2011
4
On April 20, 2012, following the hearing, the Support Master filed his report and
2526
recommendation. This same date, an Interim Order of Court was issued
27
implementing the Master’s Report and Recommendation as follows:
A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection
and Disbursement Unit as support for his children, Aden C.
Fischbach, born August 11, 1994, Danyon M. Fischbach, born
May 16, 1997, and Alexandra K. Fischbach, born June 17,
2002, the sum of $1,207.00 per month.
B. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection
and Disbursement Unit as spousal support the sum of $667.00
per month, which sum includes a mortgage adjustment of
$223.00 per month.
C. The Defendant shall provide health insurance coverage for the
benefit of said children as is available to him through
employment or other group coverage at a reasonable cost.
D. 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
st
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: 76% by Defendant and 24% by
Plaintiff.
E. The effective date of this order is October 17, 2011.
F. Because of the credit resulting from the retroactive effect of this
order, the Defendant may reduce the monthly amount payable
by the sum of $100.00 until said credit is eliminated.
On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed Exceptions, and timely briefs were filed. The
Plaintiff’s exceptions are summarized as follows:
25
Fischbach v.Fischbach, 357 Support 2008, Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed April
20, 2012.
26
Interim Order of Court, Ebert, Jr., J. filed April 20, 2012
27
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed April 20, 2012
5
1. The Support Master failed to consider “annuities” that were
received by the Defendant in violation of 23 Pa.C.S.A. 4302 which
defines income to include annuities.
2. The Support Master failed to properly calculate the mortgage
contribution from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, in that the Master
utilized the mortgage contribution that he had previously utilized on
April 27, 2011, without recalculating based upon a reduction of the
amount of support that was recommended from the Defendant.
3. The Support Master erred in determining that the Defendant was
entitled to a reduction in his support obligation after specifically
concluding on April 27, 2011, that the Defendant sustained a
voluntary reduction of his income.
4. The Master erred in not precluding the Defendant from seeking and
receiving a reduction in his income, when Defendant failed to
appeal the April 27, 2011, Report and Recommendation finding
that the Defendant sustained a voluntary reduction of his income.
5. The Support Master erred in concluding that the Defendant should
provide health insurance coverage for the children when the
Plaintiff is providing it. And the Master failed to direct the
Defendant to continue to pay the Plaintiff $180.00 per month per a
private agreement.
6. The Support Master erred in concluding that the Defendant
sustained his burden of proof that a modification was warranted
where testimony revealed that the Defendant voluntarily dissolved
his partnership.
DISCUSSION
I. Scope and Standard of Review
In reviewing child support matters, appellate courts apply the abuse of discretion
standard. Ball v. Minnick, 538 Pa. 411, 648 A.2d 1192 (1994). An abuse of discretion
is defined as not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is
overridden or misapplied, or that the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or
the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record, then
discretion is considered abused. Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 616 A.2d 628, 631 (1992)
6
citing In re Women’s Homeopathic Hospital of Philadelphia, 393 Pa. 313, 142 A.2d 292,
294 (1958). “[A] master's report and recommendation, although only advisory, is to be
given the fullest consideration, particularly on the question of credibility of witnesses,
because the master has the opportunity to observe and assess the behavior and
demeanor of the parties.” Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011)
quoting Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
II. Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report
A. The Support Master correctly did not consider the inheritance
payments in the support calculations.
The Plaintiff argues that the Support Master failed to consider “annuities”
that were received by the Defendant as income. The Support Master properly
concluded that the monies received from an inheritance in the form of an IRA,
pension and annuity were not subject to the support calculations.
The controlling case is Humphreys v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281 (Pa. 2002).
The issue the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed was how the receipt of an
inheritance affected child support obligations of a payor. In Humphreys, the
minor child lived with her adult sister, and father paid support of the minor child.
The adult sister filed a petition to modify the support order based on a change in
circumstance. This circumstance was that father received an inheritance from
his mother. Specifically, after the sale of the decedent’s house, the father
realized $83,696.50. Both the trial court and Superior Court determined that the
entire amount of the inheritance was income, and modified the Support Order to
reflect such finding.
7
The Supreme Court held that the corpus of an inheritance may not be
included in the statutory definition of “income”. Id, at 287. In its analysis, the
Supreme Court looked at the definition of “income” as defined in Pa.R.C.P.
§4302. While the definition includes “income from an interest in an estate or
trust”, it does not include “the principal of an inheritance or trust”. Id. at 284-85.
“Considering that inheritance is one of the most common means by which wealth
is transferred, it defies logic that the legislature would not have clearly provided
for inheritance within the statutory definition of income if that were its intent.” Id.
at 285.
The Court further considered the purpose of the Support Guidelines as
found in Pa.C.R.P. 1910.16-2; the stated purpose being to ensure that “persons
similarly situated shall be treated similarly.” Id. at 286. The lower courts
considered the $82,500 the Appellant received as inheritance and divided it by
the number of months remaining until the minor child reached majority,
presenting the defendant with an additional monthly income of $4,545.00.
Appellant’s actual income was $1,041.00 a month. The Supreme Court
reasoned that this equation “ignores the economic reality that [Appellant] is not
similarly situated to a person with a monthly cash flow of $5,586.00.” Id.
Additionally, the Support Guidelines consider the proportionate needs of a
child of separated parents from that of a child if the parents lived together.
“Including an inheritance in income available for support does not reflect how
families in which parents live together treat inheritances. In an intact family, the
8
receipt of a lump sum is likely to be used for purchases, investments or savings,
and not for meeting living expenses. Therefore, considering the entire
inheritance as income available for support is contrary to the purpose of the
support guidelines.” Id.
However, the Court ruled that an inheritance may be considered when
adjusting a support obligation pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 where the
guidelines allow consideration of the parties’ assests. Id. at 287-88.
In Maher v. Maher, 835 A.2d 1281 (Pa. 2003), the Supreme Court had the
opportunity to revisit the issue of whether an inheritance is income for purposes
of calculating child support. In Maher, the trial court determined that Appellee
(the payee) received an inheritance totaling $142,773.75 after taxes, and almost
doubled her monthly income. Id. at 1282-83. Interestingly, the case does not
specify how or in what form the Appellee received this inheritance. Regardless,
relying on its decision in Humphreys, the Supreme Court found that the corpus of
an inheritance may not be considered income for purposes of calculating child
support. Id. at 1286.
In Maher, the Court characterized the payee’s gift as an “inheritance”.
The case does not specify from where the lump sum came; an annuity; the
liquidation of stocks; the sale of a house; or distribution from a bank account. In
Humphreys, the Appellant was the beneficiary of an estate where the decedent’s
home was sold and the money received from the sale of the house was
characterized as an “inheritance”. In the present case, the Support Master found
9
that the Defendant received an inheritance of $50,211.00. The testimony
revealed that this inheritance was comprised of IRA distributions and pension
and annuities payments. Appellant’s interpretation of Humphreys would require
this Court to treat an inheritance received from the sale of assets estate
differently from an inheritance received from an annuity. This reading produces
illogical results.
Therefore, this Court finds that the Support Master properly did not use
the approximate $50,000.00 received from an inheritance, in computing the
support obligation.
B. The Support Master correctly calculated the mortgage
contribution.
The Plaintiff requests an upward adjustment of the mortgage contribution,
arguing that the Support Master failed to award 50% of the excess amount. The
Defendant requests a downward adjustment to the mortgage contribution,
arguing that the “mortgage payment” does not include real estate taxes and
insurance payments.
The pertinent Rule is Pa.R.C.R. 1910.16-6(e)
(e) Mortgage Payment:
… If the obligee is living in the marital residence and the mortgage
payment exceeds 25% of the obligee's net income (including amounts of
may
spousal support, alimony pendente lite and child support), the court
up to 50%
direct the obligor to assume of the excess amount as part of
the total support award. …
shallinclude
For purposes of this subdivision, the term “mortgage” first
real estate taxes and homeowners'insurance
mortgages, and may
include any subsequent mortgages, home equity loans and any other
10
obligations incurred during the marriage which are secured by the marital
residence.
Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-6(e) (emphasis added).
Based on the April 20, 2012, Order, the Plaintiff’s monthly income is
$1,267.00. She receives monthly spousal support in the amount of $444.00 and
$1,207.00 in child support payments. Her total net income is $2,918.00.
Twenty-five percent of Plaintiff’s net income is $729.50. The Plaintiff’s mortgage
payment, excluding taxes and insurance, is $1,110.00. Her monthly real estate
taxes and home owners insurance is $291.65. According to the definition of
“mortgage” in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(e), the Plaintiff’s mortgage payment is
$1,401.65. The excess amount or difference between Plaintiff’s mortgage
payment and $729.50 is $672.15.
The statute allows the court to direct the obligor, in this case the
Defendant, to assume up to 50% of the excess. Fifty percent of $672.15 is
$336.08. The Support Master directed the Defendant to pay $223.00, which is
approximately 33% of $672.15. In the Support Master’s report, he writes “A
mortgage adjustment of $223.00 was included in the prior order and will remain
28
in effect, …” Clearly, the Support Master was aware of the prior mortgage
adjustment, and chose not to make any amendments in the most current report.
It is in the Court’s discretion to award up to 50% of the excess. In this case, the
Master exercised this discretion in not awarding the full 50%. This Court finds no
error in this award.
28
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed April 20, 2012
11
C. The Support Master correctly reduced support obligations after
29
finding that the Defendant sustained his burden of proof.
“An award of support, once in effect, may be modified via petition at any
time, provided that the petitioning party demonstrates a material and substantial
change in their circumstances warranting a modification.” Plunkard v.
McConnell, 962 A.2d 1227, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008) See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4352(a);
see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.19. “The burden of demonstrating a ‘material and
substantial change’ rests with the moving party, and the determination of whether
such change has occurred in the circumstances of the moving party rests within
the trial court's discretion.” Id. See Bowser v. Blom, 807 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2002).
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(1), where the court finds a voluntary
reduction in income, the support obligation will not be modified. However, the
inquiry does not end there. If there was a voluntary change in employment which
resulted in a reduction of income, the person seeking modification must show
that the reduction was not made for the purpose of avoiding a child support
obligation. Secondly, the petitioner must show that a reduction in support is
29
In Defendant’s brief, he requests that this Court order the Plaintiff to
refund the overpayments immediately, as opposed to the Support Master’s
recommendation of $100 monthly deductions of the Defendant’s support
payments. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.12(f) a party has 20 days to file
exceptions to the Support Master’s report. If exceptions are filed, any
other party may file exceptions within 20 days of the date of service of the
original exceptions. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12. Matters not covered by exceptions
filed in an action to support to the report of a hearing officer are deemed
waived unless, prior to entry of the final Order, leave is granted to file
exceptions raising those matters. Waiver of matters not covered by
exceptions, 5A Goodrich Amram 2d § 1910.12(f):2. The Defendant did not file
exceptions, therefore, his issue raised in his brief is deemed waived.
12
warranted based on his/her efforts to mitigate any income loss. Grimes v.
Grimes 596 A.2d 240, 242 (Pa. Super. 1991).
In Grimes, the father left his fifteen-year job as a coal miner to work for an
equipment company making about half of his salary. The father admitted to
voluntarily leaving his job because of health reasons. Furthermore, the new job
schedule allowed him to work daylight hours and provided room for
advancement, including the opportunity to go to school. The Superior Court
acknowledged that coal mining is a “dangerous and health-threatening
occupation”, and, therefore, the father proved that he did not leave his job to
avoid his support obligation. Id. at 243. However, the father failed to provide
evidence of the second prong: that he attempted to mitigate his income loss.
The Court found no evidence 1) that father attempted to find a job with a
comparable salary; 2) as to why finding a job with a comparable salary was not
possible; and 3) of father’s education, training, or employability in areas other
than mining. Id.
In the present case, the Defendant filed a petition for modification of the
th
April 27, 2011, Support Order. Prior to April 27, the Support Order in place was
th
dated March 8, 2011. The Plaintiff filed an appeal from the March 8 Order, and
on April 25, 2011, the Support Master held a hearing. At this hearing, the
Defendant testified that his business, Fischbach Morgan & Associates just
dissolved the end of March 2011, and that his income substantially changed.
The Support Master found that “the Defendant has sustained a voluntary
13
reduction of his income. There has been an insufficient period of time for the
Defendant to demonstrate sufficient efforts to mitigate his income loss.
Consequently [sic] no reduction in the obligation is recommended at the present
time. This will not preclude the Defendant from filing a petition for modification at
30
some point in the future.”
In October 2011, the Defendant filed a petition for modification alleging
that he was not able to pay the current Support Order because of a change in
31
employment. The Defendant testified that the drop in the economy caused him
32
and his partnership to dissolve their business. Although attempts were made to
33
sell the business, nothing came to fruition. The Plaintiff called the Defendant’s
accountant, and the accountant testified that the economy caused engineering
34
firms to lose business and declare significant decreases in income.
Furthermore, the Defendant started up Appian Appalachian the same month of
Fischbach Morgan & Associates dissolving.
Therefore, this Court finds that the Support Master did not err in finding
that while the Defendant voluntarily changed employment, this decision was not
made to avoid support payments.
In fulfilling the second prong of Grimes, the Defendant provided sufficient
evidence that he made efforts to mitigate the loss of income. Unlike the father in
30
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed April 27, 2011
31
Petition for Modification of an Existing Support Order, filed October 17,
2011
32
4/25/2011 hearing p. 19, 20
33
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 89; 4/25/11 hearing p. 25
34
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 77-8
14
Grimes, the Defendant in the present case provided a list of employers he called,
sent resumes to, and interviewed with in addition to utilizing search engines to
35
help find job openings in his field. The Defendant worked as a civil engineer for
twenty-two years, and his professional contacts were in this field. He started a
business almost immediately in his field of expertise, and is continuing to make
efforts to increase Appian’s profits. The result may be different if he started over
in a new field, or accepted a job in a clerical position where there is no potential
for him to earn approximately $100,000.00 like he once did at Fischbach Morgan
& Associates.
Accordingly, this Court finds the evidence of record sufficient to establish
the Defendant’s burden in seeking a modification of his existing support
obligation.
D. Both parties agree that the Support Master erred in
recommending that the Defendant provide health insurance for
the minor children.
In the Support Master’s Findings of Fact, he acknowledges that the
parties have a private agreement whereby the Defendant makes direct
payments to the Plaintiff in the amount of $180.00 a month to reimburse her for
36
the children’s insurance coverage and the Plaintiff’s loss of incentive pay.
Both parties agree that the recommended Order should not include paragraph
C where the Defendant is directed to provide health insurance for the children,
based upon this private agreement between the parties.
35
4/17/12 hearing vol. II p. 87-89; Defendant Exhibit #4
36
Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed April 20, 2012
15
The Plaintiff additionally requests this Court to find that the Support
Master erred in excluding from his recommendation a provision directing the
Defendant to pay the Plaintiff $180 a month, per their private agreement. In
essence, the Plaintiff wants the Support Master to enforce the parties’ private
agreement. In Pennsylvania there is an abundance of precedent establishing
the proposition that private support agreements and court-determined support
orders may exist simultaneously, stand apart and be enforced separately.
Swartz v. Swartz, 689 A.2d 302, 304-05 (Pa. Super. 1997). There is a
mechanism in place for the Plaintiff to enforce the private agreement; in an
action in assumpsit or equity by specific performance. Id. at 305.
Therefore, since the private agreement can co-exist with the Support
Order, and since the Plaintiff has a remedy if the Defendant fails to comply with
the private agreement, this Court finds that the Support Master did not err in
excluding from his recommendation a provision directing the Defendant to
comply with the parties’ private agreement.
Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
th
AND NOW
, this 10 day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s
Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendations, the record of the
case presented before the Support Master, the briefs filed by the parties, and the Court
noting that neither party has requested oral argument in the case,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT
thethat Plaintiff’s exceptions
DENIED
to the Master’s Report and Recommendations are and the current Interim
Order of Court dated April 18, 2012, is entered as a Final Order of Court.
By the Court,
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
P. Richard Wagner, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Melinda M. Nagy, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
Support Master
17