Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout669 S 2002 KATHERINE M. STRAIT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : PACSES NO. 639104710 CRAIG SCHILLING, : Defendant : DOCKET NO. 669 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 15 day of December, 2014, after consideration of the Exceptions filed by Defendant, the Exceptions filed by the Plaintiff, the briefs filed by the parties, and after a de novo hearing held on June 12, 2014; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Exceptions of Defendant to DENIED Support Master’s Report and Recommendation are . IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Exceptions of GRANTED IN PART Plaintiff to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation are AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiff’s First through Twelfth and Fourteenth GRANTED Exceptions are, although the specific values Plaintiff includes differ. DENIED Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Exception is . The interim Order of September 4, 2013, is modified as follows: 1. For the period of June 2, 2012, through April 25, 2014, the Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for his daughter, Brittany M. Schilling, born February 23, 1997, the sum of $590.69 per month. 2. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $51.00 per month on arrears. 3. The Plaintiff shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of said child as is available to her through employment or other group coverage at a reasonable cost. 4. 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 said child that exceed $250.00 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of expenses st 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: 55% by Defendant and 45% by Plaintiff. 5. Expenses incurred for psychological counseling for the child shall be treated as medical expenses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c). By the Court, _______________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Bradley Griffie, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Craig Schilling, Pro Se Defendant 2 KATHERINE M. STRAIT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : PACSES NO. 639104710 CRAIG SCHILLING, : Defendant : DOCKET NO. 669 SUPPORT 2002 IN RE: EXCEPTIONS OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPORT MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., December 15, 2014 – A de novo hearing was held before the Support Master on August 1, 2013, (hereinafter “Support Master Hearing”), after which the Support Master filed his Report and Recommendations. The Support Master made the following recommendations: A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit for the support of his daughter, Brittany M. Schilling, born February 23, 1997, the sum of $509.00 per month. B. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $51.00 per month on arrears. C. The Plaintiff shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of said child as is available to her 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 said child that exceed $250.00 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses must provide st documentation of 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: 51% by Defendant and 49% by Plaintiff. E. Expenses incurred for psychological counseling for the child shall be treated as medical expenses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c). 3 1 F. The effective date of this order is July 2, 2012. Defendant filed Exceptions to the Support Master’s Report on September 13, 2013. Defendant’s Exceptions are summarized as follows: 1. The Support Master has misstated facts and abused his discretion by adding a distribution of $11,500.00 to Defendant’s pass through income of $13,616.00 from Let’s Move It, Inc. as that distribution is already included in the pass through income of $13,616.00. 2. The Support Master has misstated facts and abused his discretion in claiming that Defendant’s distribution of $11,500.00 is tax free. Although there is no payroll tax paid on a distribution to a shareholder that distribution is, in fact, subject to federal income tax and is included in the pass through income of the corporate tax return. 3. The Support Master has misstated facts and abused his discretion by claiming that Let’s Move It, Inc. had no employees other than Defendant in 2013. This statement is in direct conflict with Defendant’s testimony and the contents of Let’s Move It, Inc. corporate tax return. 4. The Support Master has abused his discretion in adding $13,166.00, a tax deduction on Let’s Move It, Inc. corporate tax return for 2011, to Defendant’s pass through income as income available for support. 5. The Support Master has abused his discretion by claiming that the controlling custody order in this case does not reflect shared custody 2 between the parties. On September 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendations of September 4, 2013. Plaintiff’s exceptions are as follows: 1. The Support Master erred in basing a determination of the Defendant’s income on the Defendant’s 2011 Federal Income Tax Return which was shown to be totally inaccurate and without any factual basis, based upon the Defendant’s own testimony and other evidence presented. 2. The Support Master erred in giving any credibility to the Defendant’s 2011 Federal Income Tax Return which was shown by the Defendant’s own testimony and other exhibits presented to be totally and completely irrelevant to Defendant’s income and without any factual basis. 1 Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed September 4, 2013 (hereinafter “Report ___”) 2 Exceptions of Defendant to Support Master’s Report and Recommendation, filed Sep. 13, 2013 4 3. The Support Master erred in determining the Defendant’s correct income, by failing to include his personal expenses paid out of his only bank account, which is used for his personal and business expenses, evidencing the fact that he spent in excess of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($18,000.00) out of that account for his personal housing expenses in 2011. 4. The Support Master erred in determining the Defendant’s correct income, by failing to include his personal expenses paid out of his only bank account, which is used for his personal and business expenses, evidencing the fact that he spent in excess of FOUR THOUSAND AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($4,000.00) for his personal automobile in 2011. 5. The Support Master erred in determining the Defendant’s correct income by failing to include his personal expenses paid out of his only bank account, which is used for his personal and business expenses, evidencing the fact that he spent at least NINETEEN THOUSAND AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($19,000.00) in additional personal expenses in 2011. 6. The Support Master erred in determining the Defendant’s correct income by failing to include his personal expenses paid out of his only bank account, which is used for his personal and business expenses, evidencing the fact that he spent nearly THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($3,500.00) for the medical bills of an unrelated third party for whom he was not obligated to make payments in 2011. 7. The Support Master erred in determining Defendant’s correct income by failing to include Defendant’s personal use of his American Express credit card, which reflected charges of over TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($26,000.00) in 2011, most items of which were for personal use, either by their nature, or by the Defendant’s own testimony, which American Express credit card was paid out of the only account maintained by the Defendant, which he uses for business and personal use. 8. The Support Master erred in determining Defendant’s correct income by failing to consider the cash withdrawals the Defendant made out of the only bank account that Defendant maintains, which is used for business and personal use, with said cash withdrawals exceeding SIXTEEN THOUSAND AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($16,000.00) for 2011. 9. The Support Master erred in determining Defendant’s correct income by failing to include the ATM withdrawals made by the Defendant from the only bank account that he maintains, which is used for business and 5 personal use in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($7,300.00). 10. The Support Master erred in failing to note the severe discrepancy in the lifestyle of the Defendant based upon his claimed income of around THIRTEEN THOUSAND AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($13,000.00), which lifestyle suggests income six to seven times that amount. 11. The Support Master erred in failing to make a determination of the Defendant’s income based upon his actual personal expenses paid, and use of funds, from his sole bank account and, as such, failed to take into consideration the cost of food, meals, and other routine personal expenses for the Defendant paid from said account. 12. The Support Master erred in failing to use the 2012 financial information that was submitted for the Defendant, rather than using the 2011 information, apparently for the sole reason that the Defendant’s 2012 Federal Income Tax Return was not prepared and available for use, when the evidence was exceedingly clear that Defendant’s Federal Income Tax Returns have no relevance to Defendant’s actual income. 13. The Support Master erred in calculating the Plaintiff’s income by including overtime pay, which the Plaintiff was obligated to secure to meet the needs of her daughter during the more than two year period that Plaintiff had sole physical custody of the child without receiving child support from Defendant. 14. By failing to examine the 2012 income and expenses of Defendant, the Support Master erred in failing to consider the more than NINETEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($19,500.00) withdrawing from the Defendant’s personal account through ATM withdrawals, more than THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($38,400.00) charged on the American Express card and paid from the Defendant’s bank account, and more than SIXTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND XX/100 DOLLARS ($16,200.00) that was removed from the bank account by cash withdrawals, all of which was accomplished in the 2012 calendar year evidencing an even greater personal income in that calendar year than in 3 2011. 3 Plaintiff, Katherine M. Strait’s Exceptions to Support Master’s Report and Recommendations of September 4, 2013, filed Sept. 27, 2013 6 Due to the complexity of this matter and the fact that Defendant did not have his 2012 tax information during the Support Master Hearing, this Court held a de novo hearing on June 12, 2014 (hereinafter “Court Hearing”). Facts Plaintiff and Defendant have one minor Child, Brittany M. Schilling, born on 4 February 23, 1997. The previous and most recent child custody order indicates the parties have shared custody of Child. However, realistically Child resides exclusively 5 with Plaintiff and Child spends no overnight custody with Defendant at this time. Child also undergoes psychological counseling which will be treated as a medical expense for 6 support purposes. Plaintiff is employed by Cumberland Goodwill Fire and Rescue EMS. At the time of the Support Master Hearing, she earned $13.86 per hour for regular hours and 7 $20.79 per hour for any overtime. Plaintiff is paid bi-weekly and is guaranteed nine hours of overtime every two weeks. Plaintiff occasionally works additional overtime beyond the nine hours. Plaintiff’s 2012 tax return indicated that she had a gross annual 8 income of $41,201.49. Plaintiff pays $22.58 bi-weekly for health insurance coverage, which includes 9 Child. Plaintiff files her taxes jointly with her husband and claims two children as dependency exemptions. Plaintiff’s husband earns approximately $92,000.00 per 4 Report, ¶ 3. 5 Report, ¶ 4. Since the time these exceptions were filed, Child has begun residing primarily with Defendant beginning on April 25, 2014. This opinion, however, will only focus on the time period when Plaintiff initiated this support action, July 2, 2012, until the time period Child began residing primarily with Defendant, April 25, 2014. 6 Report, ¶ 23, p. 3 7 Report, ¶ 6-7 8 Report, ¶ 9; Pl’s Ex. 2 to Court Hearing 9 Report, ¶ 12 7 10 year. After taking this information into consideration, Plaintiff’s net monthly income for 11 support purposes was calculated by the Support Master to be $2,703.00. Defendant is the sole owner of Let’s Move It, Inc., a Pennsylvania Subchapter S 12 corporation that performs moving services. At the time of the hearing in front of the Support Master, Defendant had not yet filed his personal and corporate tax returns for 13 2012. Instead, Defendant provided his tax information for 2011 that showed the corporation had gross receipts of $130,910.00, reported ordinary business income of 14 $15,416.00, and pass through income of $13,616.00 to Defendant. In 2011, Defendant also received a distribution from the corporation of $11,500.00, which the 15 Support Master included in Defendant’s income. It was also noted that Defendant’s corporation took a deduction of $13,166.00 for an employee benefit program. The Support Master included this amount as income to Defendant since he determined Defendant was the only employee of the corporation and would therefore be the only 16 person to benefit from the employee benefit program. Defendant’s tax filing status is 17 single. Using his 2011 tax information, Defendant’s net monthly income for support 18 purposes was determined to be $2,797.00. Following the Support Hearing, the Support Master determined the combined net monthly income of Plaintiff and Defendant to be $5,500.00, with a basic support for one child of $989.00. The Defendant’s share of the support was calculated to be $503.00 10 Report, ¶ 11 11 Report, p. 2. Plaintiff’s net monthly income was calculated based on her 2012 tax information. 12 Report, ¶ 13 13 Report, ¶ 16 14 Report, ¶ 17-19. 15 Report, ¶ 21 16 Report, ¶, 20, p. 3 17 Report, ¶ 22 18 Report, p. 3 8 with an increase to $509.00 due to the fact that Plaintiff provides health insurance for 19 Child. At the Court Hearing, this Court was provided with Defendant’s 2012 individual and corporate tax returns. Defendant’s 2012 corporate tax return reflected gross 20 receipts of $128,473.00 and an ordinary business income of $25,941.00. There was an $18,177.00 distribution and a $6,801.00 deduction for employee benefit programs 21 listed on the 2012 corporate tax return. According to his individual tax return, 22 Defendant’s gross income for 2012 was $25,941.00. Defendant has one business checking account with Orrstown Bank and one business American Express credit card that he utilizes for both business and personal 23 expenses. Defendant testified that he personally uses a Quicken file to manage his taxes and he provides this information to his tax preparer each year. In this way, Defendant has a lot of control over which expenses are considered business and which are considered personal, as he makes those determinations when he enters them into 24 the Quicken file. There is no indication in the record that the tax preparer offers any critical professional tax advice to the Defendant. The tax preparer simply takes what the Defendant gives him and inserts the numbers into the tax return. At both the Support and the Court Hearing, Defendant’s checking account statements and credit card statements for both 2011 and 2012 were introduced for review. In both years, 19 Report, p. 3 20 Pl. Ex. No. 8 to Court Hearing 21 Pl. Ex. No. 8 to Court Hearing 22 Pl. Ex. No. 9 to Court Hearing 23 Report, ¶ 14-15 24 Notes of Testimony, In Re: Hearing on Exceptions to Master’s Report, 68-69, June 12, 2014 (hereinafter N.T. Court Hearing at ___”) 9 Defendant made numerous personal purchases using his business checking and American Express accounts. Discussion I. Scope of Review When reviewing a Master’s report and recommendation, a trial court is required to review the report to determine if the Master’s recommendations are appropriate. Goodman v. Goodman, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (Pa. Super. 1988). The reviewing court has the duty to make a complete and independent review of all the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses. Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Reptr. 221, 227 (1984). A Master’s report and recommendation is advisory only and not controlling on the trial court. Id. at 226. However, even though the reviewing court conducts its own review, a Master’s report and recommendation are to be given the fullest consideration, especially with regard to the credibility of witnesses. Goodman, 544 A.2d at 1035. II. Plaintiff’s Exceptions a. Using Defendant’s 2011 Tax Information Plaintiff’s first, second, and twelfth exceptions all claim that the Support Master erred in basing Defendant’s income on his 2011 tax return and failing to use any of his 2012 financial information. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s tax return does not accurately reflect his actual earnings and therefore it was error to rely on the return when calculating Defendant’s income for support. Following the Court Hearing and after reviewing all of the available financial information, this Court finds that the Support Master did err in basing Defendant’s income on his 2011 tax return. Instead, this Court will base Defendant’s income for support purposes on his actual cash flow, determined 10 by his checking account and credit card statements for 2012. In this way, both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s income will be based off of their 2012 earnings. Plaintiff’s first, second, and twelfth exceptions are granted. b. Defendant’s Income Plaintiff’s third through eleventh and fourteenth exceptions all claim that the Support Master erred in determining Defendant’s income because he did not consider the amount of money from his business accounts Defendant spent on personal items. The Support Master calculated Defendant’s income by solely relying on his 2011 corporate and individual tax returns. Plaintiff argues, however, that when you look at Defendant’s checking account statements and credit card statements from 2011 and 2012, Defendant clearly has more disposable income than he claims on his tax return. Essentially, Plaintiff argues Defendant is using the funds from his business account for personal purchases before those funds are taxable income to him. Plaintiff argues Defendant should have a higher income than what his tax return suggests. This Court agrees. While typically, the tax return is the best indication of a party’s earnings, this is not always the case when a party owns his own business. As our Superior Court stated in Murphy v. Murphy, 599 A.2d 647, 651 (Pa. Super. 1991), \[t\]he net income of a defendant as shown on income tax returns is not to be accepted in a support case as the infallible test of his earning capacity. Particularly this is true where the defendant is in business for himself and is allowed substantial business “expenses”, items of depreciation and sundry other deductions which enable him to live luxuriously before spending his taxable income. (internal citations omitted). This is true even though a business may be considered not profitable for tax purposes. Id. In this type of situation instead of just looking at the tax 11 returns, the court should look to the actual disposable income of the party when making a determination about financial responsibilities. Labar v. Labar, 731 A.2d 1252, 1255 (Pa. 1999). In Labar, when considering the proper calculation of income for a support obligation, our Supreme Court stated: \[t\]hat income must reflect actual available financial resources and not the oft-time fictional financial picture which develops as a result of depreciation deductions taken against…income as permitted by the federal income tax laws. Otherwise put, ‘cash flow’ ought to be considered and not federally taxed income. Id. at 1255 (emphasis in original). Defendant’s pass through income for 2011, relied on by the Support Master, was 25 $13,616.00. His 2012 income taxes reflect his pass through income was $25,941.00. As will be discussed in greater detail infra, Defendant’s claimed income, for both 2011 and 2012, is significantly lower than what Defendant requires to maintain his home, to say nothing of the comfortable lifestyle he leads. Therefore, in order to gain an accurate understanding of Defendant’s true income, a review of his checking account statements and actual expenses is necessary. This is especially true because Defendant maintains one checking account for all of his business and personal expenses and makes his own determinations for what is considered business and personal through his Quickens program. At the Court Hearing, Defendant argued that only his pass through income should be considered for support purposes. Defendant maintains that a prior Order from now President Judge Hess, dated May 18, 2005, and upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, held that only his pass through income would be used for support purposes. Therefore, Defendant argues that based on the law of the case doctrine, his 25 Pl. Ex. 9 to Court Hearing 12 income in all future child support proceedings must always be based on only his pass through income, which is the only income he claims on his individual tax return. However, Defendant is mistaken. The May 18, 2005, Order and Opinion by Judge Hess did not hold that Defendant’s pass through income was the only income to be considered. Rather, the opinion stated that any repayment to Defendant of money 26 he loaned his business would not be considered income to Defendant. Furthermore, on appeal of that Order our Superior Court found that Defendant had waived the specific question of whether his pass through income should be considered his only 27 income because Defendant had not cited to any applicable case or statutory law. While at the time this decision may have, for all practical purposes, made Defendant’s pass through income his only income available for support purposes, it was not specifically held that only his pass through income would be used for support purposes in perpetuity. In fact, in their opinion, the Superior Court stated in a footnote that “\[t\]he lower court was neither bound to accept the contents of Schilling’s tax returns in determining 28 his income, nor was it precluded from accepting those figure\[s\]”. In the same note, the Court also cited to Francis v. Francis, 517 A.2d 997, 1001 (Pa. Super. 1986), which states that “\[w\]hen income and earning capacity are at issue in a self-employment situation, the court may make its own deductions from the evidence and the accompanying circumstances”. Taken with the idea that the purpose of child support is for the best interest and support of the parties’ minor children, there is nothing indicating 26 Opinion and Order, In Re: Cross-Exceptions to Master’s Report and Recommended Order, May 18, 2005, J. Hess. 27 Katherine M. Wetzel v. Craig Schilling, 966 MDA 2005, Non-Precedential Decision, 9, Jan. 3, 2007 28 Id. at 11, n. 8 13 that the law of the case doctrine dictates that only Defendant’s pass through income should be considered when determining his income available for support. Here, there was no argument made or facts presented at either the Support Hearing or the Court Hearing that the business was still repaying Defendant for any loans Defendant made to it. In fact, at the Support Hearing, Defendant testified that he 29 had paid off his Orrstown business line of credit a year before. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case a thorough evaluation of Defendant’s one business and personal checking account is required. This Court will use a cash flow analysis when determining Defendant’s income for support purposes. i. Household Expenses Plaintiff’s third exception is that the Support Master erred in failing to consider that Defendant pays in excess of $18,000.00 for his personal home expenses out of his one checking account. Plaintiff argues these housing expenses should be included as part of Defendant’s income. This Court agrees. Defendant has two mortgages on his home, one he pays to HFC West and the 30 second he pays to PNC Bank. In 2012 Defendant paid $13,580.52 towards his first 31 mortgage and $2,300.00 toward his second mortgage, for a total of $15,880.52. 32 Defendant also spent $121.15 for his home trash service, $2,017.25 for his home 3334 electric service, $468.50 for homeowner’s insurance with Westfield Insurance, and 29 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 34 30 N.T. Court Hearing at 53-55; N.T. Support Hearing at 35. 31 See Attachment A; Pl. Ex. 27-38 to Court Hearing 32 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 37; N.T. Court Hearing at 54; See Attachment B; Pl. Ex. 30, 33, 35 to Court Hearing 33 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 36; N.T. Court Hearing at 56; See Attachment B; Pl. Ex. 28-33, 35-37 to Court Hearing. At some point during 2012, Defendant switched his electric from Met-Ed to First Energy. 34 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 33; See Attachment B; Pl. Ex. 33, 36 to Court Hearing 14 35 $471.05 for his home sewer service, for a total of $3,077.95 towards his home expenses. Defendant testified that he does not pay any utilities, other than phone 36 service, for his business office. Therefore, the expenses listed supra must be personal expenses to Defendant and not business expenses. All of Defendant’s $18,958.47 personal home expenses for 2012 total . This amount will be included to calculate Defendant’s actual income for 2012. Plaintiff’s third exception is granted. ii. Other Personal Expenses Plaintiff’s fourth exception is that the Support Master erred in failing to consider the amount that Defendant pays for his personal vehicle out of the business checking account. Her fifth exception is that the Support Master failed to take into consideration the many other personal expenses that Defendant pays out of the business account, such as: his gym membership, voice lessons, veterinary bills, personal attorney’s fees, and payments towards his personal credit cards. Plaintiff argues this list is not exhaustive and urges this Court to make a thorough review of all Defendant’s personal expenses. This Court agrees. After reviewing Defendant’s checking account statements from 2012, it is clear that Defendant uses the funds to purchase many personal items. Defendant spent 37 $1,843.74 on his personal Honda vehicle. In 2012, Defendant also made several personal purchases from various stores and payments on personal store credit cards, 38 including Kohl’s and Sears, totaling $1,906.64. Finally, Defendant spent a total of 35 N.T. Court Hearing at 54; See Attachment B; Pl. Ex. 30, 35, 38 to Court Hearing 36 N.T. Court Hearing at 56 37 See Attachment C; N.T. Sup. Hearing at 43; N.T. Court Hearing at 56-57 38 See Attachment D; N.T. Sup. Hearing at 35, 45 15 39 $8,618.73 on various other personal expenses in 2012. These expenses range from 404142 Defendant’s IRA, monthly gym membership fee, personal medical expenses, voice 434445 lessons, personal child support payments, personal income taxes and other miscellaneous charges. These personal charges also include the cost of court ordered 46 counselling services for Defendant and Child. Defendant argued in his brief that he should be compensated for these counseling expenses. While Child’s counseling is to be treated as unreimbursed medical expenses according to the latest support order, these payments will still be treated as personal income to Defendant as they were paid for out of his one checking account, and cannot be considered business related. In 2012, Defendant also made various church and charity donations from his one checking account. Defendant is the sole owner of Let’s Move It, Inc. and is able to unilaterally decide what donations to make. As part of the cash flow analysis, these donations will be considered personal expenses to Defendant. See Murphy v. Murphy, 599 A.2d 647, 651 (Pa. Super. 1991) (net income on tax returns not to be accepted where a defendant is in business for himself and can take several business expenses and deductions before spending his own taxable income). The $1,360 that Defendant donated in 2012 will be included as part of his income. The total that Defendant paid out of his business account for his personal $13,729.11 expenses is . This amount will be included in Defendant’s income for 2012. 39 See Attachment E 40 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 36 41 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 35-36 42 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 47 43 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 36 44 N.T. Court Hearing at 67 45 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 46 46 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 27, 37 16 Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth exceptions are granted, although with differences in Plaintiff’s suggested amounts. iii. Food Expenses Plaintiff’s eleventh exception is that the Support Master erred by not taking into consideration the amount that Defendant spends on food expenses. This section will only focus on Defendant’s grocery purchases. Defendant testified that these expenses could be personal or business related as he sometimes purchases Gatorade and lunch 47 for his workers. Plaintiff, therefore, urges this Court to at least consider half the amount Defendant spends on his food purchases as personal income to Defendant. Looking at Defendant’s checking account statements for 2012, Defendant spent $1,322.30 for food expenses at Giant. Defendant also made purchases at 48 supermarkets on his business American Express card in 2012, totaling $1,246.92. Defendant spent a total of $2,569.22 on grocery store purchases in 2012. This Court $1,284.61 will assume at least half of these food expenses, or , are Defendant’s personal food purchases and will be included in his income. Plaintiff’s eleventh exception is granted. iv. ATM Withdraws and Cash Withdraws Plaintiff’s eighth and ninth exceptions are that the Support Master erred in failing to consider as part of Defendant’s income the amount of ATM withdraws and checks written to cash from his business checking account. As there is no evidence these funds were used for a business purpose, Plaintiff argues the value of these withdraws were personal to Defendant and should be included as part of Defendant’s income. 47 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 38, 48 48 See Attachment G 17 At the Support Hearing, Defendant admitted that he was the only one who could access the checking account, write and sign checks, and was the only one with an ATM 49 card for the account. Looking at Defendant’s checking account statements and the cancelled checks attached to those statements, it appears that Defendant’s usual practice is to notate what each check is for in the memo line. This is true even when checks are written out to cash. For example, Defendant frequently writes checks out to cash and notes that the cash is for casual labor. Therefore, it can be assumed that when Defendant writes out a check to cash and does not denote what the cash is for, Defendant is using the cash for personal reasons and not for business. Defendant wrote a total of $4,870 checks out to cash without any notation as to 50 what the cash was used for and this amount will be considered income. Plaintiff urges this Court to include much more of the checks Defendant wrote out to cash, including those where the memo line is filled out for causal labor. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Defendant does not use the money for anything other than what is notated in the memo line. Therefore, only those checks written to cash with no indication of what the check is for will be included as part of Defendant’s personal income. Defendant also withdrew $3,683.00 from his checking account from ATM machines in 2012. Considering his practice of notating what cash is for on checks, it can be assumed that any ATM withdraws are personal in nature; otherwise Defendant could have just written out a check to cash with the correct notation. Additionally, 49 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 33 50 See Attachment H; Pl. Ex. 27-29, 31-38 to Court Hearing. 18 Defendant offered no explanation for what he used the cash from the ATM withdraws 51 for. $8,508.00 Combining the two, Defendant withdrew a total of through ATM withdraws and checks written out to cash in 2012. Plaintiff’s eighth and ninth exceptions are granted, although the amount considered personal income to Defendant is less than Plaintiff’s suggested amount. v. Third Party Medical Expenses Plaintiff’s sixth exception is that the Support Master erred in failing to consider medical expenses Defendant paid out of his business checking account to unrelated third parties. In 2012, Defendant made several medical payments for Clement Johnson. Clement Johnson was working a job for Defendant’s company, but was not an employee of the company. As such when he was injured on the job, Defendant could not turn the claim into a worker’s compensation claim. The following exchange occurred at the Support Hearing: Defendant: \[Clement Johnson\] was out working on the job with us just to be helpful and he dropped a mirror down and it slit his wrist. He had no health care protection and I couldn’t turn it into worker’s comp. So I told \[Clement Johnson\] I would pay the bills. Plaintiff’s Attorney: You couldn’t turn it into workers’ comp or you didn’t have workers’ comp? 52 Defendant: I couldn’t. He wasn’t on my payroll. As Clement Johnson was clearly not on Defendant’s payroll, Defendant’s company had no obligation to pay for his medical expenses and those medical expenses will be included as income to Defendant. 51 N.T. Court Hearing at 59-61 52 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 42-43 19 In 2012, Defendant also paid a medical bill for DeShawn Miller. Defendant 53 testified that DeShawn Miller was an employee of his. As will be discussed in more detail, infra, in 2012 Defendant’s company had no employees and DeShawn Miller can only be considered an independent contractor. Therefore any medical expenses paid to DeShawn Miller will also be considered personal to Defendant, as he was not an employee of the company during 2012. After reviewing the Defendant’s checking account statements, Defendant spent 54 $3,122.87 on third party medical expenses in 2012. Since Defendant was not obligated to pay for Clement Johnson’s or DeShawn Miller’s medical treatment and it cannot properly be considered a business expense because these individuals were not employees of Defendant’s company, this value will be included as part of Defendant’s income for determining support. Plaintiff’s sixth exception is granted, although with a slightly lower amount that Plaintiff suggests. vi. American Express Payments Plaintiff’s seventh exception is that payments made for personal expenses on Defendant’s American Express credit card, which Defendant uses for both business and personal expenses, should be included as part of his income. The charges made on the American Express credit card are paid out of Defendant’s one checking account. This Court agrees that personal expenses on the American Express card should be included as income to Defendant. 53 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 47 54 See Attachment I 20 In 2012, Defendant made payments totaling $38,382.32 out of his one checking 55 account toward his American Express credit card. Defendant admits that those payments were not all for business and he also uses this card for personal 56 transactions. Defendant maintains that all charges for gas stations and Lowe’s are 57 business related. However, Defendant does use this card for many personal 58 charges, such as show tickets and online dating profiles. Some of Defendant’s other personal charges include entertainment for his home such as Direct TV and Netflix 59 subscriptions. Defendant also charges many personal meals at restaurants including, 60 Olive Garden and Mayapple. Additionally, there are various charges to stores, including Jos. A. Banks and Target. After reviewing Defendant’s credit card statements for 2012, this Court $11,923.89 determined that were personal charges that Defendant made on his American Express business credit card in 2012 and were paid off from his business 61 checking account. This value will be included as part of Defendant’s income for support purposes. Plaintiff’s seventh exception is granted in so far as there are personal charges on Defendant’s American Express credit card that will be included as part of his income, although the amount included in Defendant’s income is less than the $26,000.00 Plaintiff indicates in her exception. 55 See Attachment J; See also Pl. Ex. 27-29, 31-32, 34-39 to Court Hearing 56 N.T. Court Hearing at 69 57 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 51-52 58 N.T. Court Hearing at 70 59 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 52-53 60 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 52 61 See Attachment K; See also Pl.Ex. 43-54 to Sup. Hearing. This value does not include the food purchases already included supra. 21 vii. Conclusion on Defendant’s Income Plaintiff’s tenth exception argues that the Support Master erred in failing to conclude Defendant had a higher income based on the lifestyle he leads. Plaintiff’s fourteenth exception sums up all of Plaintiff’s other exceptions. It is clear from the review of Defendant’s checking account and credit card statements that Defendant has more disposable income than he claims on his tax returns by using his business’s income before it is passed through to Defendant. This is also evident in Defendant’s lifestyle, which includes payments for show tickets, voice lessons, and numerous meals in addition to his other household expenses. In 2012, Defendant’s stated income on his tax return was $25,941.00. However, after adding up all of his personal expenses from both his checking account and credit card statements, Defendant really spent $57,526.95 on his personal needs for 2012. Defendant’s income $57,526.95 for support purposes is therefore, and Plaintiff’s tenth and fourteenth exceptions are granted, although again with different values than Plaintiff suggests. c. Plaintiff’s Overtime Plaintiff’s thirteenth exception is that the Support Master erred by including overtime hours worked by Plaintiff, beyond her normal guaranteed nine overtime hours every other week. Plaintiff argues that her employer is looking to hire more part-time workers and her overtime hours will be decreased as a result. The Support Master did not err and Plaintiff’s income was properly determined. When calculating Plaintiff’s income for support purposes, the Support Master relied on her 2012 tax return. This is typically the most reliable method for determining a party’s income. The Support Master’s calculation of Plaintiff’s income is 22 representative of Plaintiff’s actual earnings during the relevant time period. The Support Master did not err because he was using the relevant tax information made available to him. Plaintiff’s annual gross income of $41,201.49 is correct and Plaintiff’s thirteenth exception is denied. III. Defendant’s Exceptions a. Distribution Defendant’s first two exceptions are that the Support Master erred by including the $11,500.00 distribution as part of his income. Defendant maintains that the distribution was already included in his pass through income and should not have been included as additional income. Defendant also argues that the distribution was not tax free and was subject to federal income tax because it was already included in the pass through income. Defendant’s first two exceptions are deemed moot since this Court has determined that Defendant’s checking account and credit card statements are a much better representation of his income than his federal income tax returns. b. Employees Defendant’s third exception is that the Support Master erred by finding that Defendant’s company had no employees. Defendant’s fourth exception is that it was error for the Support Master to include his company’s deduction for an employee benefit program as part of his income, because he did have employees to benefit from the deduction. Defendant’s fourth exception is moot since this Court is not basing Defendant’s income on his tax returns. 23 As discussed supra, Defendant’s use of employees is relevant in relation to the amount of medical expenses Defendant personally paid for former workers, Clement Johnson and DeShawn Miller. If these workers were not employees of Defendant’s business and Defendant could not turn their medical claims into worker’s compensation, then any medical treatment paid to them is not business related. Rather, it was a personal decision on Defendant’s part to pay for their medical care. At the Support Master hearing, the following exchange took place: Q: Something glaringly missing from the corporate tax return is anything dealing with taxes. How many employees do you have? Defendant: None Q: How long has that been the case? 62 Defendant: Year and a half, two years. Reviewing Defendant’s checking account statements also reveals that in 2012 no payroll checks were written. However, many checks written to cash for the purpose of 63 casual labor were written from Defendant’s checking account. Based on Defendant’s own statement that he did not have employees and there being no evidence of any employees in Defendant’s 2012 bank records, the Support Master did not err in finding that Defendant’s company had no employees. Defendant’s third exception is dismissed and the third party medical expenses paid to independent contractors will be considered personal income to Defendant for support purposes. c. Custody Defendant’s fifth and final exception is that the Support Master erred by claiming that the controlling custody order does not reflect shared custody between the parties 62 N.T. 29 63 See generally Pl. Ex. 27-39 to Court Hearing 24 and failing to reduce Defendant’s support obligation accordingly. The Support Master did not err. It should be noted that the Support Master never claimed that the custody order did not reflect or allow for shared custody; however, he noted that the testimony 64 indicated that realistically Child resided exclusively with Plaintiff. There is a difference between the time a defendant is entitled to spend with a child under the custody order and the time that a defendant actually spends with a child. The rules for calculating child support do allow for a reduction in support if the parties share physical custody. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c)(1). The rule contemplates reducing the support obligation of the obligor because he/she is spending more time with the child and therefore spending more money on the child. Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 814 (Pa. Super. 2001). In Riley, a custody order was in place giving the parties equal shared custody, but the obligor did not actually have the child fifty percent of the time, at least not initially. Id. The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that in order to receive a reduction in support, the obligor must have actually spent time with the child and not merely been entitled to spend time with the child. Id. The “inquiry must be to determine if obligor actually spent time with the child, resulting in an additional expenditure of money.” Id. The Support Rules determine time spent with the child by the number of overnights the child spends during the year with the obligor. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c)(1). In this case, there was un-contradicted testimony from Plaintiff that Child resided 65 with her and has not had any overnights with Defendant for over two years. Defendant did not dispute this fact, but merely argued that the custody order granting 64 Report, ¶ 4 65 N.T. 5 25 66 shared custody had not been changed and he was entitled to a reduction in support. In light of Riley, Defendant is not entitled to a reduction in support because Child spends no overnights with him and in reality there is no shared custody. The Support Master was correct in determining that there should not be a reduction for shared custody when Child does not actually spend any overnights with Defendant. 67 Defendant’s fifth exception is dismissed. IV. Conclusion In the interest of fairness to both parties, both of the parties 2012 financial information was reviewed. This Court was satisfied that the Support Master was correct in basing Plaintiff’s income on her 2012 tax return. However, after reviewing Defendant’s 2012 financial documents, it became apparent that this Court could not merely rely on Defendant’s tax returns. Instead, this Court undertook a cash analysis of Defendant’s 2012 financial information. Defendant’s income for support purposes was determined to be $57,526.95, giving him a monthly net income of $3,364.40. Plaintiff’s monthly net income was $2,703.00. With a combined monthly net income of $6,067.40 the requirement for the basic monthly support for Child is $1,053.00. The Defendant’s share of that amount is $583.89. A nominal adjustment for health insurance coverage, provided by Plaintiff, increases Defendant’s monthly child support obligation to $590.69. Accordingly, the following Order will be entered: 66 N.T. 24-25 67 As mentioned above, Child now resides with Defendant; however, at the time relevant to these exceptions, Child resided only with Plaintiff. 26 ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 15 day of December, 2014, after consideration of the Exceptions filed by Defendant, the Exceptions filed by the Plaintiff, the briefs filed by the parties, and after a de novo hearing held on June 12, 2014; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Exceptions of Defendant to DENIED Support Master’s Report and Recommendation are . IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Exceptions of GRANTED IN PART Plaintiff to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation are AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiff’s First through Twelfth and Fourteenth GRANTED Exceptions are, although the specific values Plaintiff includes differ. DENIED Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Exception is . The interim Order of September 4, 2013 is modified as follows: 6. For the period of June 2, 2012, through April 25, 2014, the Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as support for his daughter, Brittany M. Schilling, born February 23, 1997, the sum of $590.69 per month. 7. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit the additional sum of $51.00 per month on arrears. 8. The Plaintiff shall provide health insurance coverage for the benefit of said child as is available to her through employment or other group coverage at a reasonable cost. 9. 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 said child that exceed $250.00 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of expenses st 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: 55% by Defendant and 45% by Plaintiff. 27 10. Expenses incurred for psychological counseling for the child shall be treated as medical expenses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c). By the Court, _______________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Bradley Griffie, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Craig Schilling, Pro Se Defendant 28 Attachment A Defendant’s Mortgage Payments (2012) st HFC West (1 Mortgage)(See Pl. Ex. 27-38 to Court Hearing) 1. 1/12 – $233.00 2. 1/30 – $907.81 3. 2/13 – $233.00 4. 2/29 – $907.81 5. 3/13 – $233.00 6. 3/29 – $907.81 7. 4/12 – $233.00 8. 4/30 – $907.81 9. 5/14 – $233.00 10. 5/30 – $907.81 11. 6/12 – $233.00 12. 6/29 – $892.21 13. 7/12 – $233.00 14. 8/01 – $892.21 15. 8/13 – $233.00 16. 8/29 – $892.21 17. 9/12 – $233.00 18. 10/01 – $892.21 19. 10/12 – $233.00 20. 10/30 – $892.21 21. 11/14 – $233.00 22. 11/29 – $892.21 23. 12/12 – $233.00 24. 12/31 – $892.21 TOTAL $13,580.52 29 nd PNC Bank (2 Mortgage)(See Pl. Ex. 27-38 to Court Hearing – cancelled checks) 1. 2/08 – $200.00 2. 3/05 – $200.00 3. 3/27 – $200.00 4. 4/24 – $200.00 5. 6/05 – $200.00 6. 7/03 – $200.00 7. 8/28 – $400.00 8. 10/01 – $200.00 9. 11/12 – $200.00 10. 11/28 – $300.00 TOTAL $2,300.00 TOTAL COMBINED $15,880.52 30 Attachment B Defendant’s Other Household Expenses (2012) Home Trash Collection (Waste Management)(See Pl. Ex 30, 33, 35 to Court Hearing) 1. 4/24 – Waste Management - $40.47 2. 7/03 – Interstate Waste Services - $40.21 3. 10/01 – Interstate Waste Services - $40.47 TOTAL - $121.15 Home Electric (Met-Ed) (See Pl. Ex. – 28 - 33, 35 - 37 to Court Hearing) 1. 2/06 – Met-Ed - $183.96 2. 3/05 – Met-Ed - $183.72 3. 3/28 – First Energy - $183.72 4. 4/25 – First Energy - $222.00 5. 6/05 – Met-Ed - $222.00 6. 7/05 – First Energy - $225.33 7. 8/01 – First Energy - $142.00 8. 8/29 – First Energy - $142.00 9. 10/02 – First Energy - $136.52 10. 10/22 – First Energy - $188.00 11. 11/29 – First Energy - $188.00 TOTAL - $2,017.25 Home Water and Sewer (South Middletown Township Municipal Authority) (See Pl. Ex. 30, 35, 38 to Court Hearing) 1. 2/06 – $119.13 2. 4/24 - $112.32 3. 10/01 - $239.60 TOTAL - $471.05 Home Insurance (Westfield Insurance) (See Pl. Ex. 33, 36 to Court Hearing) 1. 3/27 - $234.25 2. 7/03 - $234.25 TOTAL - $468.50 TOTAL COMBINED - $3,077.95 31 Attachment C 68 Defendant’s Car Expenses (2012) See Pl. Ex. 28, 36, 37, 38 to Court Hearing 1. 1/17 $349.17 2. 2/15 – to Bobby Rahal Honda $307.72 3. 2/22 $349.17 4. 3/14 $337.68 5. 11/13 – to Ciocca Honda $500.00 TOTAL $1,843.74 68 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 43; N.T. Court Hearing at 56-57 32 Attachment D Defendant’s Personal Store/Credit Card Payments Paid from Checking Account (See Pl. Ex. 27-39 to Court Hearing)(2012) 69 1. 1/09 – Kohl’s $114.35 2. 1/20 – Kohl’s $152.03 70 3. 1/30 – Sears $100.00 71 4. 1/31 – JC Penney $115.50 5. 3/02 – Sears $100.00 6. 3/28 – Sears $100.00 7. 4/25 – Sears $100.00 72 8. 5/18 – Bon Ton $86.80 9. 5/29 – Kohl’s $214.50 10. 5/30 – Sears $100.00 11. 7/05 – Kohl’s $93.46 12. 7/05 – Sears $69.12 73 13. 7/12 – Angelo’s Soccer Corner $90.00 14. 8/01 – Kohl’s - $133.39 15. 11/06 – Sears $116.59 16. 11/13 – Kohl’s $147.90 17. 11/29 – Kohl’s $25.00 18. 12/14 – JC Penney $48.00 TOTAL $1,906.64 69 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 35 70 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 35 71 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 45 72 Bon-Ton is not specifically referenced in the Notes of Testimony as being personal; however, as Bon Ton is a department store similar to the rest of Defendant’s admitted personal charges it will be included here. 73 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 45 33 Attachment E Defendant’s Other Personal Expenses Paid from Checking Account (2012) IRA – Investment Invesco - (See Pl. Ex. 28, 30, 32-33, 35-36, 38-39 to Court Hearing) 1. 1/10 $80.00 2. 2/10 $80.00 3. 3/12 $80.00 4. 4/10 $80.00 5. 5/10 $80.00 6. 6/11 $80.00 7. 7/10 $80.00 8. 8/10 $80.00 9. 9/10 $80.00 10. 10/10 $80.00 11. 11/13 $80.00 12. 12/10 $80.00 TOTAL $960.00 Gym Membership – Planet Fitness – (See Pl. Ex. 27-38 to Court Hearing) 1. 1/17 $10.00 2. 2/17 $10.00 3. 3/19 $10.00 4. 4/17 $10.00 5. 5/17 $10.00 6. 6/18 $10.00 7. 7/17 $10.00 8. 8/17 $10.00 9. 9/17 $10.00 10. 10/01 $29.00 11. 10/17 $10.00 12. 11/19 $10.00 13. 12/17 $10.00 TOTAL $149.00 34 Defendant Knee Surgery (See Pl. Ex. 33-35, 37-38 to Court Hearing) 1. 1/27 – Appalachian Orthopedic $156.80 2. 2/15 – Appalachian Orthopedic $63.00 3. 3/05 – Walnut Bottom Radiology LLC $480.00 4. 4/27 – CVPM (knee surgery) $500.00 5. 4/27 – OSI $1,280.00 6. 6/18 – Holy Spirit Hospital $137.10 TOTAL $2,616.90 74 Counseling Services (See Pl. Ex. 30-31 to Court Hearing) 1. 8/30 – Blanc Counseling Services $140.00 2. 9/10 – Blanc Counseling Services $140.00 3. 9/21 – Blanc Counseling Services $210.00 4. 10/05 – Blanc Counseling Services $210.00 5. 10/10 – Blanc Counseling Services $140.00 TOTAL $840.00 Voice Lessons – Joan Boytim – (See Pl. Ex. 29, 33, 36, 38 to Court Hearing) 1. 1/24 $60.00 2. 3/27 $60.00 3. 5/29 $90.00 4. 10/08 $60.00 5. 11/31 $120.00 TOTAL $390.00 Defendant’s Child Support Payments – PA SCDU – (See Pl. Ex. 28-30 to Court Hearing) 1. 9/20 $200.00 2. 10/19 $200.00 3. 11/28 $200.00 TOTAL $600.00 74 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 27, 37. 35 Personal Taxes – PA Department of Revenue – (See Pl. Ex. 27 to Court Hearing) 1. 12/13 – 2009 personal income tax $543.00 2. 12/13 – 2010 personal income tax $782.00 3. 12/13 – 2011 personal income tax $384.00 TOTAL $1,709.00 Miscellaneous Personal Charges (See Pl. Ex. 30, 31, 35, 36 to Court Hearing) 75 1. 4/23 – Pat Craig Studios $119.47 76 2. 5/18 – Irwin and McKnight $1,138.49 3. 9/10 – Armitage Golf Club $55.90 4. 10/01 – Sail Magazine subscription $39.97 TOTAL $1,353.83 TOTAL COMBINED $8,618.73 75 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 47 76 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 38 36 Attachment F Defendant’s Church/Charitable Donations 2012 (See Pl. Ex. 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37 to Court Hearing) 1. 2/19 – Carlisle Evangelical Free Church $100.00 2. 3/27 – Carlisle Evangelical Free Church (for missions trip) $100.00 3. 5/18 – Carlisle Family YMCA (for Strong Kids Campaign) $100.00 4. 6/05 – Bible Baptist School (for Summer Ministry Team) $100.00 5. 9/26 – Patti Kingsbury (donation to yard sale) $100.00 6. 10/05 – Carlisle Evangelical Free Church (for Belize trip) $760.00 7. 12/31 – Awaken Haiti $100.00 TOTAL: $1,360.00 37 Attachment G Defendant’s Food Store Purchases from Checking Account (See Pl. Ex. 28, 31, 33, 77 35-38 to Court Hearing) (2012) 1. 1/17 – Giant $53.65 2. 1/26 – Giant $100.00 3. 1/26 – Giant $1.54 4. 2/06 – Giant $142.70 5. 2/21 – Giant $101.49 6. 2/21 – Giant $51.97 7. 3/08 – Giant $122.75 8. 3/19 – Giant $47.22 9. 3/28 – Giant $112.25 10. 4/17 – Giant $149.44 11. 4/26 – Giant $71.33 12. 6/15 – Giant $140.79 13. 8/20 – Giant $183.80 14. 11/27 – Giant $43.37 TOTAL $1,322.30 Defendant’s Food Store Purchases from American Express Credit Card (See Pl. Ex. 48 – 53 to Support Hearing) 1. 5/15 – Giant $51.66 2. 5/15 – Toms Milroy $20.02 3. 5/26 – Giant $150.81 4. 5/31 – Wegmans $11.81 5. 6/30 – Giant $11.96 6. 7/04 – Giant $51.54 7. 7/13 – Giant $28.35 8. 7/29 – Karns $87.63 9. 8/05 – Giant $129.51 10. 8/25 – Giant $83.68 11. 9/02 – Giant $74.64 12. 9/13 – Giant $122.41 13. 10/06 – Giant $62.31 14. 10/19 – Giant $65.66 15. 10/20 – Giant $66.35 16. 10/21 – Giant $22.31 77 N.T. Sup. Hearing at 38, 48 38 17. 10/27 – Giant $35.13 18. 10/29 – Weis Markets $87.38 19. 11/17 – Giant $83.76 TOTAL: $1,246.92 TOTAL 2012 FOOD STORE PURCHASES: $2,569.22 39 Attachment H Defendant’s ATM Withdraws and Checks to Cash (See Pl. Ex. 27-29, 31-38 to Court Hearing)(2012) 1. 1/19 – Check to Cash $675.00 2. 1/30 – ATM $400.00 3. 2/06 – ATM $310.00 4. 2/21 – ATM $400.00 5. 3/05 – ATM $350.00 6. 3/09 – Check to Cash $535.00 7. 4/06 – ATM $450.00 8. 4/13 – ATM $100.00 9. 5/24 – ATM $200.00 10. 6/28 – Check to Cash $2,700.00 11. 7/13 – ATM $400.00 12. 7/13 – Check to Cash $200.00 13. 8/29 – ATM $103.00 14. 9/06 – ATM $100.00 15. 11/09 – ATM $400.00 16. 11/21 – Check to Cash $760.00 17. 12/04 – ATM $322.00 18. 12/27 – ATM $103.00 TOTAL $8,508.00 40 Attachment I Defendant’s paid Third Party Medical Expenses(See Pl. Ex. 28-29, 31-35 to Court 78 Hearing) (2012) 1. 4/05 – Lancaster General Hospital (Johnson) $200.00 2. 4/05 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $200.00 3. 4/24 – Pinnacle Health Hospitals (Johnson) $26.00 4. 5/18 – Lancaster General Hospital (Johnson) $200.00 5. 5/18 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $200.00 6. 6/05 – Carlisle Regional Medical Center (Miller) $542.15 7. 6/05 – Lancaster General Hospital (Johnson) $95.72 8. 6/05 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $200.00 9. 7/13 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $200.00 10. 8/13 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $400.00 11. 8/13 – Pinnacle Health Hospitals (Johnson) $299.00 12. 10/01 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $260.00 13. 11/19 – Sanjiv Naidu (Johnson) $300.00 TOTAL $3,122.87 78 N.T. Court Hearing 57-58; N.T. Sup. Hearing at 47 41 Attachment J Defendant’s Total American Express Credit Card Payments for 2012 – Both Personal and Business (See Pl. Ex. 27-29, 31-32, 34-39) 1. 1/03 $2,000.00 2. 1/17 $617.36 3. 2/13 $2,867.09 4. 3/13 $1,737.49 5. 4/11 $2,591.58 6. 5/15 $1,531.71 7. 6/08 $3,626.43 8. 7/13 $2,547.47 9. 8/13 $2,559.54 10. 9/04 $4,726.64 11. 10/15 $2,510.65 12. 11/05 $3,491.52 13. 12/05 $3,425.45 14. 12/31 $4,149.39 TOTAL $38,382.32 42 Attachment K Defendant’s Personal American Express Credit Card Purchases 2012 (See Pl. Ex. 43-54 to Support Hearing) 1. Statement Due 1/06 $1,070.54 2. Statement Due 2/06 $885.93 3. Statement Due 3/06 $721.84 4. Statement Due 4/06 $805.65 5. Statement Due 5/06 $629.66 6. Statement Due 6/06 $2,402.21 7. Statement Due 7/06 $686.34 8. Statement Due 8/06 $1,209.96 9. Statement Due 9/06 $463.78 10. Statement Due 10/06 $706.08 11. Statement Due 11/06 $977.88 12. Statement Due 12/06 $1,364.02 TOTAL $11,923.89 43 Attachment L Defendant’s Total Income for 2012 (Based on his Personal Expenses) 1. Mortgage Payments $15,880.52 2. Home Expenses $3,077.95 3. Car Expenses $1,843.74 4. Personal Store Expenses $1,906.64 5. Other Personal Expenses $8,618.73 6. Charity Donations $1,360.00 79 7. Food Store Expenses $1,284.61 8. ATM Withdraws and Checks to Cash $8,508.00 9. Third Party Medical Expenses $3,122.87 10. American Express Personal Charges $11,923.89 TOTAL: $57,526.95 79 Only includes half of Defendant’s total food purchases for 2012 44