HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-669 supportCARYN G. ROTH, · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. · NO. 669 SUPPORT 1999
· DRNO. 28,870
ROBERT F. ROTH, · PACSES NO. 985101351
Defendant '
IN RE' SUPPORT APPEAL
BEFORE HESS, J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this ! '~ ° day of April, 2000, following hearing, our order of
November 19, 1999, is modified to provide that the defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State
Collection and Disbursement Unit the sum of $1,140.00 per month, payable $526.15 bi-weekly.
Arrearages shall be adjusted accordingly. All other terms and conditions of our order of
November 19, 1999, including the effective date thereof, shall remain in full force and effect.
BY THE COURT,
Ke~. Hess, J.
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
For the Defendant
DRO
:rlm
CARYN G. ROTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
o
vs. : NO. 669 SUPPORT 1999
: DRNO. 28,870
ROBERT F. ROTH, : PACSES NO. 985101351
Defendant :
IN RE: SUPPORT APPEAL
BEFORE HESS, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a support case in which the defendant was assessed with a monthly net income of
$2,893.13 and the plaintiff's monthly net income was determined to be $0. Support for the wife
and one child, Jamie Ann Roth bom September 13, 1989, was set at a combined total of
$1,400.00. The defendant raises only one matter on appeal. Specifically, he contends that a
certain inheritance, received by the wife, the balance of which, as of September 16, 1999, stood
at $43,900.00 ought to be considered as income in determining the amount of the support order
· to be entered in this case.
We believe that we are required by existing case law to consider the inheritance received
by Mrs. Roth. This would appear to be the express direction of the case of Humphreys v.
Deross, 737 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999).1 In that case, the defendant received more than
$83,000.00 from the estate of his mother. With that money he purchased a new home and other
~ The majority opinion in this case was joined in by five of nine judges. One of the concurring opinions of the
majority, that authored by President Judge McEwen, agreed with the conclusion that inheritance was income but
went on to underscore the necessity of guidance from the legislature or the Supreme Court with respect to guidelines
as to how to uniformly adjust actual incomes to reflect unusual income receipts. Because of these uncertainties in
this area of the law and because the mechanical approach of the trial court in Humphreys was expressly affirmed, we
will apportion the inheritance in this case in the same manner as did the trial court in Humphreys. Specifically, we
will amortize the lump sum balance of the inheritance over the period from the date of the modification petition until
Jamie's eighteenth birthday, a period of eight years.
NO. 669 SUPPORT 1999
items for his current family. The plaintiff petitioned for a modification of the existing support
.order based upon Deross's changed circumstances (i.e., the inheritance). The trial court granted
the modification petition, imputing an additional $4,500.00 in monthly income based upon the
money he had received as his inheritance. The Superior Court affirmed.
Making the same calculation as was made by the trial court in Humphreys, we impute to
the plaintiff a monthly income of $450.00. Thus, according to Rule 1910.16-3, the total child
support appropriate in this case is $697.00. Mr. Roth's responsibility is approximately eighty-
five percent or $592.00 for child support. Using the various foregoing assumptions, and
applying Part IV of Rule 1910.16-4, dealing with spousal support, the appropriate support
payable to Mrs. Roth in this case is $558.00. Thus, the total child and spousal support which will
be ordered in this case is $1,140.00. We will modify the existing order accordingly.
ORDER
AND NOW, this lq * day of April, 2000, following hearing, our order of
November 19, 1999, is modified to provide that the defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State
Collection and Disbursement Unit the sum of $1,140.00 per month, payable $526.15 bi-weekly.
Arrearages shall be adjusted accordingly. All other terms and conditions of our order of
November 19, 1999, including the effective date thereof, shall remain in full force and effect.
B Y THE COURT,
K~3n~A. Hess, J.
NO. 669 SUPPORT 1999
Samuel L. Andes, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Dawn S. Sunday, Esquire
For the Defendant
DRO
·
·
"rlm