Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1067 S 2004 ROSE A. ADAMS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION MARKK. ADAMS, Defendant PACSES: 425106947 DOCKET NO. 1067 SUPPORT 2004 IN SUPPORT IN RE: HUSBAND'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDA TIONS BEFORE EBERT. J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., November 17, 2006:-- In this spousal support case, Plaintiff, Rose A. Adams, filed a petition for spousal support from Defendant, Mark K. Adams, and an Order of Court was entered requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff $150.00 per month in spousal support.l The parties reconciled and Defendant's support obligations were suspended. The parties later separated for a second time after which Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking spousal support? On May 17, 2006, Judge Kevin A. Hess issued an Order of Court dismissing the spousal support of the Plaintiff due to Defendant's minimal income capacity and the fact that he was already paying a child support order.3 Plaintiff appealed and a hearing was held before the Support Master after which an Interim Order was entered based upon the Master's report and recommendations.4 Defendant has now filed 1 Order of Court, February 25, 2005. 2 Plaintiff Compliant filed April 25, 2006. 3 Order of Court, May 17, 2006. 4 NT 1 Hr' g., June 20, 2006 (hereinafter NT _); Interim Order of Court, June 21, 2006. exceptions to the Support Master's Report and Recommendations.5 For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's exceptions to the Master's report and recommendations are dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, Rose Ann Adams, of 14 Shirley Lane, Boiling Springs, P A, 6 and Defendant, Mark K. Adams, of 110 Pipeline Road, Newville, PA,7 were married on November 26,2003.8 Each party has a son from a former relationship, but the marriage produced no children.9 The marriage proved to be tumultuous, and during their minimal time together both parties were accused of abusing the other. Protective orders were filed against Defendant while Plaintiff was arrested for assaulting Defendant. 10 Both parties currently reside with their prospective mothers. Plaintiff is unemployed and Defendant works as a forklift operator earning $10.25 per hour. This action was initiated in order to obtain spousal support; currently, no divorce complaint has been filed. 11 The parties were married November 26,2003, separated November 18, 2004, and began reconciling in January of2005. Plaintiff resumed living with Defendant in Rhode Island on Labor Day weekend of 2005 .12 The parties moved back to Pennsylvania, into Plaintiff s mother's residence, in March 2006. The final separation occurred on April 24, 2006. 13 5 Defendant Notice of Exceptions filed June 26, 2006. 6 NT 4 7 NT 26 8 NT 19 9 NT 8 10 Charges were dropped because Plaintiff went to counseling. N.T. 18 11NT4 12 NT 19; A support order had been issued Feb. 2005, see supra, but was suspended in Nov. 2005 at Plaintiff's request. NT 19-20. 13 NT 20 2 On the night of April 23-24, while her husband was spending time with his son,14 Plaintiff went socializing with her sister and came home late in the evening. IS While each party blames the other for what occurred upon Plaintiff s return, it is clear that an aggressive argument began and both parties subsequently called the police.16 The police required the parties to separate for the evening. Following the night of separation, Defendant never returned to the Shirley Lane residence. 17 Plaintiff s education consists of a high school diploma. She has previously held employment as a customer service representative for the Newport Navy Exchange at the Rhode Island base where Defendant served. She has also worked in Rhode Island at a chimney sweep company, at an area touring company, 18 and at a contract company. Plaintiff returned to Boiling Springs on March 15, 2006. Since that time, Plaintiff has only held a job for two days at the Class Six Store in the Carlisle Barracks as a Shift Supervisor. The employment ended due to the fact that Plaintiff is in extreme mental disarray. 19 Presently Plaintiff has no income apart from the child support that she receives for her son, which is in arrears over $1,700.00?0 Plaintiff has been proactive in bettering her mental state. She is currently on antidepressants and nerve medication,21 attends weekly group therapy sessions at the local YMCA,22 and participates in weekly scheduled sessions with psychologist Dr. Kathy Ellis of Franco Associates.23 Despite her attempts to cure her emotional illness through therapy, 14 NT 21-22 15 NT 7; At this point both parties were living at Plaintiff's mother's residence. NT 7. 16 NT S 17NTS'23 18N:T: 9' 19 NT 10; Plaintiff did not quit the job, but rather was asked to leave because of her mental condition. NT 26. 20 NT 16. See Plaintiff's Ex. NO.3. 21 NT 15 22 NT 12 23 NT 14 3 Plaintiff s emotional condition seems to be worsening.24 She has experienced suicidal thoughts and lost over 20 pounds within a month.2s She testifies that her fears of her husband have led her to confine herself in her bedroom.26 Defendant is employed at JFC Temps and currently works at Osbourne & Hessey Logistics as a forklift operator for a wage of$10.25 per hour?7 He works approximately forty hours per week and testifies that he attempts to incur as much overtime as possible. He pays $216.50 in child support for his 16 year-old son.28 On June 21, 2006, the Master issued his report and recommendations based upon the evidence presented by Plaintiff and Defendant at the hearing.29 The Master found that the Defendant, being employed as a forklift operator earning $10.25 per hour, had a gross monthly income of $1,777.00 and, filing his federal income tax return as married/separate, had a net monthly income for support purposes of$I,437.45. In accordance with the formula set forth in Pa. RC.P 1910.16-4(a), Part IV, and considering the Defendant's current child support order of $216.70 per month for his son of a previous relationship, the obligation was found to be $472.75 h 30 per mont . An Interim Order of Court was issued implementing the Master's recommendations as follows: A. The Defendant shall pay to the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit as spousal support the sum of$472.75 per month. B. The Defendant shall pay the additional sum of$20.00 per month on arrearages. 24 NT 15 25 Plaintiff lost over 20 pounds in less than a month as of the hearing June 20, 2006. 26 NT 14; The transcript reveals that the Plaintiff was very emotional during the hearing and she testified that she perpetually suffers from severe emotional trauma. 27NT3l 28 NT 32 29 Support Master's Report and Recommendations, filed June 21,2006. 30 Support Master's Report and Recommendations, filed June 21,2006 at 3-4. 4 C. At the present time no obligation is imposed for provision of health insurance or payment of unreimbursed medical expenses. D. The effective date of this order is April 25, 2006.31 On June 26, 2006, Defendant filed the following exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendations. 32 1.) I, Mark K. Adams, is filing exceptions asserting that documents with support my expenses where not identified at the last hearing. I wish to identify these expenses that reduce my net income of$1152.00 per month. a.) Child support of$216.50 per month b.) Providian Visa credit card $109.00 per month c.) Military Star credit card $40.00 per month d.) PSECU credit card $72.00 per month e.) Navy Federal loan $305.72 per month f.) Navy Federal car loan $207.86 per month g.) Giego car insurance $57.00 per month h.) Gas $280.00 per month Travel 90 miles per day to work Travel 200 miles per week to visit son i.) Food and personal items $150 per month Total expense $1438.08 per month Extra expenses paid with overtime if available 2.) I disagree with the amount of support which was ordered due to the fact that I do not have income to pay the support. 3.) I disagree with Support Master's decision to allow the treatment of Plaintiff. a.) The Support Master said that it was hearsay and was inadmissible in the proceedings. 4. ) Weight loss is all hearsay as of not knowing what her beginning weight was. 5.) Plaintiff also stated that she was hired at Class 6 located at the Carlisle War College. She stated that she was in the same condition then as in hearing throughout the interview. With two other people in line for the job, why would an employer pick a crying applicant? 31 Interim Order of Court, filed June 21,2006. 32 Defendant Notice of Exceptions, filed June 26,2006. Defendant was acting pro se. 5 DISCUSSION 1. Scope of Review As a general rule, unless the testimony and evidence provides grounds upon which the Master's finding of credibility can be impeached, the Court will give his conclusions the fullest consideration. Foca v. Foca, 97 Dauph. 302 Pa.Com.Pl. (1975); See also Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988) (In reviewing a Support Master's report, the reviewing court is required to employ the same standard as is applicable to a review of a Divorce Master's report). It should be noted, however, that the Master's findings are merely advisory and the trial court is not required to follow the recommendations should the evidence prove contrary. The reviewing court has the duty to make a complete and independent review of all the evidence, including an analysis of the weight and credibility to be accorded to the testimony of the witnesses. Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Rptr. 22, 226-27 (1984). After the conclusion of a Master's hearing and the issuance of the report and recommendation, any party has the opportunity to file exceptions to the report or any part thereof. Matters not covered by the exceptions are considered to be waived unless other Court leave is granted. If any exceptions are filed, the Court shall hear argument regarding the exceptions and enter a final decree. 42 Pa. RC.P 1920.55-2. II. Exceptions to the Master's Report Defendant Mark Adams, acting pro se, filed exceptions to the Master's report and recommendations contending that the recommended support obligations should be reduced by the debt and living expenses which he currently pays and which are a result of the marriage. He 6 also disagreed with the Master's findings regarding Plaintiffs incapacity to work.33 Having reviewed the record and after considering the applicable law, this Court dismisses Defendant's exceptions and affirms the findings of the Master. A. Plainti[f's Work Capacity This Court need not spend much time on the issue of Plaintiffs work capacity. Defendant obviously disagrees with the Master's findings yet he offers no evidence to support his contention. Plaintiff, on the other hand, has provided psychological evaluations as proof of her poor mental health34 and has testified under oath of her good faith attempts to obtain and maintain employment - such attempts proved unsuccessful due to her current mental state. As the evidence supports the Master's findings of fact, and since Defendant has offered no evidence to the contrary, this Court affirms those findings. B. Reduction of Support Due to Marital Expenses Defendant contends that his support obligations should be reduced by the debts resultant from the marriage. Generally, in a spousal support matter, the amount of support to be awarded is based upon the parties' monthly net income, Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-2. This statute further provides that: (1) Unless otherwise provided in these rules, the Court shall deduct only the following items from monthly gross income to arrive at net income: (A) federal, state, and local income taxes; (B) F.I.C.A. payments and non-voluntary retirement payments; (C) union dues; and (D) alimony paid to the other party. (2) In computing a spousal support or alimony pendente lite obligation, the Court shall deduct from the obligor's monthly net income all of his 33 Defendant Notice of Exceptions, filed June 26,2006. 34 See Plaintiff Ex. 2. 7 or her child support obligations and any amounts of spousal support, alimony pendente lite, or alimony being paid to former spouses.3S Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-2(c). Considering these provisions, the only expense which could lawfully be deducted from Defendant's income would be his child support payments of$216.50 per month which the Master did, in fact, deduct for support obligations calculation purposes.36 However, even if the Defendant were permitted to deduct credit card and loan expenses from his support obligations, Defendant has provided no evidence to substantiate that his stated expenses did, in fact, result from the marriage. It would be a grave error for this Court to permit Defendant to shirk his support responsibilities merely because he has bills to pay - bills which he voluntarily incurred and which, without evidence showing otherwise, could have been incurred purely for entertainment purposes. The Master was therefore correct in his calculations of Defendant's support obligations and any exceptions regarding a reduction of those support obligations are dismissed. CONCLUSION Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master's Findings of Fact and Recommendations are credible and should be awarded the fullest consideration. Defendant's exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendations will be dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court shall stand as is. Accordingly, the following order will be entered: 36 See Master's Report and Recommendations, filed June 21,2006, at 3. 8 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 ih day of November, 2006, having considered the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the Master's Findings of Fact and Recommendations are credible and should be awarded the fullest consideration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant's exceptions to the Master's Report and Recommendations are dismissed and the current Interim Order of Court dated June 21,2006, is entered as a Final Order of Court. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr. 1. Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Mark K. Adams Defendant Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master 9