Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout974 S 2012 MARIANNA S. SEDLAK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : ROGER SEDLAK, : DEFENDANT : 974 SUPPORT 2012 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS OF PLAINTIFF TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., June 19, 2013:-- Before us are the Exceptions filed by Plaintiff Marianna S. Sedlak to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of March 28, 2013, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for spousal support and awarded the sum of $50.00 per month for child support. Notably, Plaintiff was self-represented until the filing of the Exceptions, which raise several legal and factual issues that were not raised at the time of the hearing before the Master on March 27, 2013. Perhaps, the most salient issue raised by counsel is “that husband had filed an affidavit with the USCIS, formally INS (Form I-864) prior to relocating the 1 Wife to the USA.” Counsel refers the court to Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2011), wherein our Superior Court found “the [I-864] affidavit … was relevant evidence upon which the trial court was authorized to deviate from the support guidelines.” Id. at 1275. In short, Plaintiff raises an issue that could have some bearing on the support in this case; however, there are no facts of record about any affidavit or agreement that would have required consideration by the Master. Having 1 Exceptions to findings of Support Master, ¶ 19. 974 SUPPORT 2012 reviewed the Master’s Report and Recommendation, the hearing transcript and the Exceptions and brief of the Plaintiff, we find that the Master’s findings of fact and analysis are supported by the record and are sound. Had the Plaintiff presented evidence of the I-864 Affidavit and had the 2 Master failed to take that into account, we would consider remanding this case. Nevertheless, based on the record we are satisfied that all of the Exceptions raised by the Plaintiff are without merit. Accordingly, the Exceptions of the Plaintiff shall be dismissed. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of June, 2013, the Exceptions of DISMISSED Plaintiff Marianna S. Sedlak are . The Interim Order of Court dated March 28, 2013, is hereby made final. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Abraham Prozesky, Esquire For Plaintiff Roger Sedlak, 63014-066, Pro se Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 1000 Milan, MI 48160 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :sal 2 In the Exceptions, counsel notes that he does not yet have a copy of the affidavit. Therefore a remand, even if proper, would be premature. -2- MARIANNA S. SEDLAK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : ROGER SEDLAK, : DEFENDANT : 974 SUPPORT 2012 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS OF PLAINTIFF TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____________ day of June, 2013, the Exceptions of DISMISSED Plaintiff Marianna S. Sedlak are . The Interim Order of Court dated March 28, 2013, is hereby made final. By the Court, __________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. Abraham Prozesky, Esquire For Plaintiff Roger Sedlak, 63014-066, Pro se Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 1000 Milan, MI 48160 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master :sal