HomeMy WebLinkAbout1084 S 2010
BRIANA B. DUNN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
DAVID A. DUNN, : PASCES NO. 519112114
DEFENDANT : 1084 SUPPORT 2010
IN RE: DEFENDANT’S EXCEPTIONS TO
SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Masland, J., May 23, 2013: --
On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Modification claiming
the Defendant had not exercised shared custody sufficient to receive a
downward adjustment in his support obligation. The Master found for Plaintiff in
his Support Master’s Report and Recommendation dated February 14, 2013. On
March 7, 2013, Defendant filed exceptions claiming the Master failed to take into
account that “as per the custody order, I will have custody of Troy A. Dunn
1
approximately 170--overnights per year.” (emphasis added). What the
Defendant fails to appreciate, as pointed out explicitly by the Master, is that split
custody adjustments are not based on the court-ordered schedule, but on what
actually takes place.
Having heard the custody case, we are aware of the challenging
circumstances. In his brief/exceptions Defendant admitted that he had “refus[ed]
custody to work out personal issues and other issues related to the pending
1
Defendant lists a second exception–“I have started my new job and I am making an annual
salary of $75,000.” Because the Master based his recommendation on a salary of $67,500, we
consider this “exception” to be primarily a notice to the Domestic Relations Office of a change in
income. Certainly, it would not reduce his obligation.
9008 SUPPORT 2011
divorce,” and for that reason “[took] a break from my custodial rights.” We hope
Defendant follows through but we cannot base support orders on good intentions
down the road. Rather, we look through the rearview mirror at reality.
If Defendant’s shared custody increases we echo the Master’s guidance to
Defendant that “he may file a petition to modify his support obligation at that
time.” Until then, we can do nothing more. In short, the Support Master did not
abuse his discretion and his Report and Recommendation shall not be
distributed.
Accordingly, we enter the following order:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this _____________ day of May, 2013, upon consideration of
the Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation filed by
Defendant, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on
February 13, 2013, and the court noting that neither party requested oral
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
argument in this case, that
Defendant’s Exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendation are
DENIED.
The current interim order of court dated February 14, 2013 is entered
as a final order of court.
By the Court,
__________________________
Albert H. Masland, J.
-2-
9008 SUPPORT 2011
Briana B. Dunn, Pro se
910 Rupp Avenue, Apartment A
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
David A. Dunn, Pro se
171 Knoxlyn Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325
Michael Rundle, Esquire
Support Master
:sal
-3-
BRIANA B. DUNN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
DAVID A. DUNN, : PASCES NO. 519112114
DEFENDANT : 1084 SUPPORT 2010
IN RE: DEFENDANT’S EXCEPTIONS TO
SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this _____________ day of May, 2013, upon consideration of
the Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation filed by
Defendant, the record of the case presented before the Support Master on
February 13, 2013, and the court noting that neither party requested oral
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
argument in this case, that
Defendant’s Exceptions to the Master’s Report and Recommendation are
DENIED.
The current interim order of court dated February 14, 2013 is entered
as a final order of court.
By the Court,
__________________________
Albert H. Masland, J.
Briana B. Dunn, Pro se
910 Rupp Avenue, Apartment A
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
David A. Dunn, Pro se
171 Knoxlyn Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325
Michael Rundle, Esquire
Support Master :sal