HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-203 CivilKATHERINE B. SCHWAGER, IN THE COURT OF OMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUN Y, PENNSYLVANIA
V. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
CIVIL ACTION - SUPPORT
G. MARK SCHWAGER, DR 19,816-1
Defendant NO. 203 S OF 1992
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ;Xt-tLday of October, 1992, upon c nsideration of
Plaintiff's Appeal from the Recommended Order dated August 7, 1992,
and following a hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ANDD ECTED that the
Defendant pay for the support of his adult child, Plaintiff
Katherine B. Schwager, the sum of $160.00 per month, effective July
1, 1992, with credit to be given for any amounts previously paid on
the said August 7, 1992, order, and that he m intain medical
insurance coverage on the beneficiary of this
BY THE COURT,
John Frommer, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Bernard Faigenbaum, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
6;6
:rc
J.
,
KATHERINE B. SCHWAGER,
Plaintiff
V.
G. MARK SCHWAGER,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF OMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUN Y, PENNSYLVANIA
DOMESTIC RELATI NS SECTION
CIVIL ACTION - UPPORT
DR 19,816-1
NO. 203 S OF 19 2
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
This case is an appeal by Plaintiff from an Drder for child
support dated August 7, 1992. The order was based upon a
recommendation of the Domestic Relations Office and provided for an
appeal by either party within ten days of its mailing. A hearing
was held by the Court on the appeal on October 22, 1992, and
October 23, 1992. Following the hearing, these Findings of Fact,
Discussion and Order of Court are made and enterer}.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is Katherine B. Schwager (bon February 26,
1974), the eighteen -year-old daughter of Julia B. Figures (formerly
Julia B. Schwager), referred to hereinafter as Mother, and G. Mark
Schwager, Defendant herein; Plaintiff resides wi h her mother in
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of jivil Procedure
1910.3(4), the child's mother, Julia B. Figures, has appeared on
behalf of the Plaintiff in these proceedings. See Petitioner's
Exhibit 1 [Consent of Child Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.3(4);
Acceptance by Mother].
3. Defendant is G. Mark Schwager, the father of Plaintiff and
a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
No. 203 S of 1992
4. Plaintiff is a full-time college freshman at Penn State
University, main campus, Centre County, Pennsylvania.
5. Plaintiff is not employed at this time, but had a net
income of $644.75 during the summer of 1992 and wal the recipient
of a one-time scholarship award of $250.00 in June of 1992.
6. There appears to be no reason that the Plaintiff could not
be employed on a part-time basis.
7. Defendant is an employee of the Clmmonwealth of
Pennsylvania and has a net income of $3,063.00 per month.
8. The Mother is self-employed and has a net earning capacity
of $2,008.00 per month.
9. Plaintiff's expenses
for tuition, fees, roc m, board, books
and school supplies, and registration and activity fees are
$9,504.06 per year; an additional $2,161.80 represents expenses per
year for dormitory room supplies, clothing, drug store items,
travel, and miscellaneous personal items.
10. Defendant is remarried; his expenses, which the Court
finds to be reasonable, are in excess of his income at this time
and he is in debt; he has no prospect of any significant increase
in income in the foreseeable future.
11. Among Defendant's expenses are a child sup ort obligation
of $684.00 per month, plus a portion of orthodontics' expenses, for
two other children born of his marriage with the Mother -- James
(born December 15, 1976) and Elizabeth (born June 12, 1981). See
2
No. 203 S of 1992
Order of Court, July 30, 1992.
12. By virtue of the attainment of majority by Plaintiff and
graduation from Lower Merion High School, Defendant Is child support
order was reduced to the aforesaid $684.00 amount f om $842.00 per
month, effective June 16, 1992, subject to any increase pursuant to
these proceedings. See Order of Court, July 30, 1 92.
13. The Mother has claimed an actual net income of $1807.25
per month from her business, and has claimed expenses with three
children of $4,623.00 per month; however, these expenses include
such items as $400.00 per month for clothing, $250.00 per month for
entertainment, $104.00 per month for camp, $65.00 per month for
music lessons, and $50.00 per month for gifts and charitable
contributions.
14. The Mother is remarried and lives with I er family in a
$300,000.00 home in Merion, Pennsylvania; her pr sent household
spends approximately $90,000.00 per year for living expenses.
15. Plaintiff recently has fostered a better relationship
with Defendant, and she is doing well in college, liaving both the
desire and ability to pursue post -secondary education.
16. Defendant's philosophy as to the financi g of a college
education has been that the student is at 1 ast partially
responsible for it; this belief arises out of his own family
experience, wherein he and his siblings put the selves through
school.
3
No. 203 S of 1992
17. The Recommended Order being appealed f
dated August 7, 1992, provided for monthly support
by Plaintiff
the amount of
$150.00 and provision of medical insurance coverag.
18. Under all the circumstances in the case including the
potential effect of a greater order in favor of Plaintiff upon
Defendant's current obligation with respect to support of his
aforesaid minor children and the undue hardship which would be
suffered by Defendant through a greater order, the sum of $160.00
per month is an appropriate amount to be ordered for support of
Plaintiff by Defendant, along with provision of me ical insurance
coverage for her.
DISCUSSION
"It is settled law in Pennsylvania that in (the] absence of an
agreement to educate 'a father has no duty to aid in providing a
college education for his child, no matter how deserving, willing
or able a child may be, unless the father has sufficient estate,
earning capacity or income to enable him to do sc without undue
hardship to himself."' -Lederer v. Lederer, 291 Pa. Super. 22, 24,
435 A.2d 199, 200-01 (1981), quoting Emrick v. Emrick, 445 Pa. 428,
430-31, 284 A.2d 682, 683 (1971). On the other hand, "a support
order may be entered against a parent for a c ild's college
education, even in the absence of an agreement to su port the child
past the age of eighteen, as long as this obliga
result in undue hardship to the parent." Lederer i
4
ion would not
r. Lederer, 291
No. 203 S of 1992
Pa. Super. 22, 25, 435 A.2d 199, 201 (1981).
In college support cases, "the inquiry shifts from the needs
of the child to the ability of the parent to co tribute to the
child's education without undue hardship.... ThiE does not mean
... that a parent may not be required to undergo iome measure of
personal sacrifice in order to fulfill his or her obligation."
Monsky v. Sacks, 403 Pa. Super. 40, 43, 588 A.2d 19 21, allocatur
denied, Pa. , 600 A.2d 954 (1991). "[T]he goal for the
court is to attempt to replicate, as nearly as possible, the
decision the intact family would have made." Marino v. Marino,
Pa. Super. , , 601 A.2d 1240, 1248 (1992 .
"An award [of child support] made after majority for
contribution to college expenses is made within th discretion of
the court. This exercise of discretion is bounded Dy a judicially
promulgated test consisting of two factors: the desire and ability
of the child to successfully pursue post -secondary education and
the ability of parents to contribute to that effort without undue
hardship.... Neither of these elements exists in a vacuum. It is
therefore necessary for the trial court to examine and weigh a
number of factors peculiar to each case before determining a
result." Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177, 183-84, 556 A.2d 854,
858, allocatur denied, 524 Pa. 598, 568 A.2d 1248 1989).
In the present case, the Court believes that anundue hardship
would be imposed upon Defendant by setting the sup ort obligation
5
No. 203 S of 1992
in favor of Plaintiff beyond $160.00 per month; that the Plaintiff
may properly be expected to finance at least part of her post-
secondary education herself; and that such a result cannot be said
to be inconsistent with what would have occurred had the family
remained intact, given the father's own background and views on the
subject. On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and
principles of law, the following Order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 1992, upon c nsideration of
Plaintiff's Appeal from the Recommended Order dated Nugust 7, 1992,
and following a hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIPECTED that the
Defendant pay for the support of his adult ch ld, Plaintiff
Katherine B. Schwager, the sum of $160.00 per month, effective July
1, 1992, with credit to be given for any amounts pre iously paid on
the said August 7, 1992, order, and that he ma'ntain medical
insurance coverage on the beneficiary of this
John Frommer, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Bernard Faigenbaum, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
BY THE COURT,
2
Jr.
J.
No. 203 S of 1992
DRO
:rc