HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0260 CivilBARRY K STABLEIN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
DEBORAH E. STABLEIN,
Defendant 260 SUPPORT 1993
IN RE: OPINION FILED PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Oler, J., September 14, 1993.
This case commenced with the filing of a complaint for spousal support by Barry
K. Stablein (Husband) against Deborah E. Stablein (Wife). The complaint was filed
on March 18, 1993,1 following the parties' separation on March 3, 1993.2 On May 19,
1993, Wife filed her own complaint for spousal support against Husband.g
A conference was held pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 19 10. 11
before a Domestic Relations Officer on May 26, 1993, at which time both parties denied
that they were liable for spousal support.' The case was then referred to the Court
for a determination as to spousal liability. Following a hearing before the undersigned
judge on July 8, 1993, an Order was entered denying spousal support to either party.'
Husband has appealed the denial of his claim for spousal support to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court. This Opinion is written in support of the Court's Order,
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
1 N.T. 3.
2 N.T. 4, 28.
3 N.T. 3. Wife's complaint was filed at No. 472 Support 1993, and both cases were
heard together.
4 id.
' Order of Court, July 8, 1993.
260 Support 1993
Statement of facts. Husband and Wife were married on May 29, 1992.8 They
separated on March 3, 1993, with Wife moving out of the couple's residence because
of an alleged breakdown in communications between the parties.' There was
testimony that the Wife had suggested on at least one occasion that the parties seek
counseling,8 and that she had once thrown a phone book at Husband.
Prior to the parties' marriage, in March of 1992, Husband had slipped on ice
and suffered a "charcot" fracture of his foot, a condition requiring approximately one
to three years to heal.' In spite of this, Husband was able to obtain employment at
various times during 1992 — at Orf"s Carpet Town (he was terminated after entering
the hospital for testing), at Sears Roebuck as a carpet salesman, and at Central Penn
Business School as an adjunct professor (a position he held until the end of the Fall,
1992, semester).10 Husband also sold real estate in 1992, which he continued to do
to a limited extent from January until April of 1993.11 Husband's estimated income
' N.T. 4, 28. No children were born of the marriage. N.T. 4.
' N.T. 28-9.
8 N.T. 28-9.
9 N.T. 4.
io N.T. 5, 6.
" N.T. 6, 19.
2
260 Support 1993
for 1992 from these combined activities was $15,000.00.12 At the end of February or
beginning of March, 1993, Husband received approximately $2,700.00 in commissions
from the sale of real estate.13 As of the parties' separation in March of 1993,
Husband was interviewing with prospective employers."
Husband obtained employment approximately 3 weeks after filing for support,
on April 12, 1993, with Sprint Cellular." Plaintiff estimates his net monthly income
at $1338.38.18 Plaintiff arrives at this figure by reducing his yearly base pay by 25%
for deductions. In addition to his hourly wage, Husband receives a commission of $10
on every phone activation he sells; he estimates that there will be approximately 30
such activations per month. 17 If the $300.00 per month attributable to the
activations is similarly reduced by 25% for deductions, Plaintiff would realize a net
monthly income of $225.00 from commissions. Based upon Plaintiff's figures, his total
net monthly income is thus $1,563.38.
12 N.T. 19-20. Husband is unable to provide an exact income for 1992 since he has yet
to file a 1992 tax return; he filed for an extension. Id. At least part of this figure appears
to be gross income as opposed to net.
13 N.T. 15.
14 N.T. 6.
15 N. T. 13.
Ls Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. This figure includes $37.18 income from investments in rental
property.
17 N.T. 14.
�4?
260 Support 1993
Wife is employed by Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc." She is paid a bi-weekly
salary of $769.23.19 If her gross wages are accorded the same deduction treatment
which Husband has allowed himself,20 Wife's net monthly income from her salary
would be $1,153.84. In addition to her base salary, Wife receives a monthly
commission of $10 for every phone sold by one of her accounts, which she estimates
to total between $330 and $440 per month.21 Wife's average commission per month
would therefore be $385. A reduction of this amount by 25% for deductions gives Wife
an additional $288.75 net income per month from commissions. Thus, Wife's net
monthly income for present purposes is calculated to be $1,442.59.
Statement of law. Spousal support is provided for in the Act of October 30,
1985, P.L. 264, §1, 23 Pa. C.S. §4321(1): "Married persons are liable for the support
of each other according to their respective abilities to provide support as provided by
law." In this regard, it has been held that "a wage-earning spouse has the obligation
to support a financially dependent spouse, and that the obligation does not arise out
of debt or contract, but is imposed by law as an incident of the marital status." Larkin
v. Larkin, 262 Pa. Super. 294, 297, 396 A.2d 761, 763 (1978).
18 N.T. 30.
19 N.T. 31, Defendant's Exhibit 1.
21 See Plaintiff"s Exhibit 2. Wife's bi-weekly salary is multiplied times 2 and reduced
by 25% for deductions.
21 N.T. 33.
4
260 Support 1993
The Act of October 30, 1985, P.L. 264, §1, as amended, 23 Pa. C.S. §4322(a),
provides that support should be granted according to Statewide guidelines promulgated
by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.22 These guidelines are "based upon the
reasonable needs of the ... spouse seeking support and the ability of the obligor to pay
support, [and] the guideline[s] ... place primary emphasis on the net incomes and
earning capacities of the parties, with allowable deviations for unusual needs ...." Id.
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-1(a) provides that
[t]he amount of support ... to be awarded pursuant to the
procedures under Rules 1910.11 and 1910.12 shall be
determined in accordance with the support guidelines which
consist of the guidelines expressed as grids set forth in Rule
1910.16-2 and as a formula in Rule 1910.16-3 and the
operation of the guidelines set forth in Rule 1910.16-5.
Application of law to facts. In the present case, the evidence presented at the
hearing demonstrated that both parties are presently employed, that their annual net
incomes are about the same, and that neither is properly considered dependent upon
the other. The Guidelines set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2
do not contemplate an award of support to Husband under these circumstances.
While it is true that Husband was unemployed for approximately three weeks
between his filing for support and obtaining his present employment, we feel an award
of support for that period of time is unjustified. Despite having a broken foot,
22 See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16 et seq.
5
260 Support 1993
Husband was able to obtain several jobs prior to the separation, and at the time of the
separation was actively seeking other employment. He had actual earnings of $15,000
from his employment in the previous year, and, as evidenced by his present wage, his
earning capacity is considerably higher. In light of Husband's earning capacity and
the fact that he presently earns slightly more than Wife, the issue of spousal support
during the three week period was regarded as de minimis.
David W. DeLuce, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Barry K. Stablein
Carol J. Lindsay, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
Deborah E. Stablein
Michael Rundle, Esq.
Counsel for Domestic
Relations Ofice
Domestic Relations Office
:rc
on