Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout613 S 2002 BRENDAJ. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION NO. 613 SUPPORT 2002 PACSES NO. 397104667 ANDREWW. SCHULTZ, Defendant IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the plaintiff has filed two exceptions to the report of the support master. She contends that the support master erred (1) in imposing a ten percent downward deviation from the support guidelines and (2) in failing to compute an earning capacity for defendant's fiancee.. Weare satisfied that the master correctly resolved these matters and we will make final the order entered on September 9,2005. The parties are the parents of three children, Devin K. Schultz, born January 4, 1987; Dustin R. Schultz, born June 30, 1992; and Dylan F. Schultz, born January 6, 1994. By order dated January 18, 2005, the defendant's support obligation for these children was set at $705.00 per month. On June 1, 2005, the defendant filed a petition to modify the existing support order based upon the emancipation of the oldest child. Devin K. Schultz graduated from high school on June 9,2005, at the age of eighteen. Devin then moved to his father's home where he pays room and board. The defendant is employed at a monthly salary of$3,515.34. He pays $47.34 per month to provide health insurance and dental insurance coverage for Dustin and Dylan. The defendant resides with his fiancee and their two-year old daughter along with his fiancee's two other NO. 613 SUPPORT 2002 children. The defendant's fiancee is not employed and, in fact, does not intend to return to the work force until their daughter begins school. The plaintiff is employed by Westminster Union Bank in Maryland, where she has a monthly net income of$I,906.52. She pays for her own health insurance coverage. The bi- weekly premiums to add the two children on her coverage for health insurance (but not dental or vision) would be $102.99. The plaintiffs boyfriend, who is employed, assists her financially with household expenses. The support obligation calculated under the guidelines is $759.00 per month. The master has recommended an order of $683.00 per month, representing a ten percent downward deviation in the support order. In support of this recommendation, the master noted: In this case the guideline amount for the support of two children exceeds the Defendant's support obligation for three children entered less than six months before the filing of his petition. In the opinion of this Master, this creates an unjust and inappropriate result. The Defendant has a child to his fiancee residing in his household for whom he has an obligation of support. The Plaintiff is assisted with her household expenses by her boyfriend with whom she resides. Other support obligations of a party and other income in the household of a party are both factors to be considered by the trier of fact in deciding whether to deviate from a guideline calculation. Under the circumstances of this case a downward deviation is recommended. We agree with the master that a downward deviation is appropriate. We also find no merit in the plaintiff s second exception to the master's report. She suggests that there was error in failing to impute an earning capacity to the father's fiancee. The case cited in support of her position is, however, inapposite. The case of Singleton v. Waties, 2 NO. 613 SUPPORT 2002 420 Pa.Super. 184, 616 A.2d 644 (1992) has nothing to do with imputing an earning capacity to a paramour. To the contrary, the case deals with imputing earning potential to the parents who are the parties to the support action. It is the parents who are responsible for the support of their children and the extent of their support obligation is determined by their earning capacity and ability. Id at 647 citing DeMasi v. DeMasi, 530 A.2d 871 (Pa.Super. 1987). In Singleton, the court found that the trial court did not err when it refused to impute an income to the mother of the parties' two and one- half year old child. The child was in ill health and her mother was her primary caretaker. In the matter sub judice, the defendant's fiancee had worked part time at McDonald's prior to the birth of their daughter. Even had the master imputed an earning capacity to the defendant's fiancee, it would not have effected the computation of the defendant's obligation under the support guidelines. ORDER AND NOW, this ih day of November, 2005, the exceptions of the plaintiff to the interim order of court dated September 9, 2005, are DISMISSED and said order is made a final order of court. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. 3 NO. 613 SUPPORT 2002 Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master Gregory L. Lensbower, Esquire 209 Broadway Hanover, P A 17331 F or the Plaintiff Andrew W. Schultz 544 Nelson Street Chambersburg, P A 17201 Pro Se :rlm 4 BRENDAJ. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION NO. 613 SUPPORT 2002 PACSES NO. 397104667 ANDREWW. SCHULTZ, Defendant IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this ih day of November, 2005, the exceptions of the plaintiff to the interim order of court dated September 9, 2005, are DISMISSED and said order is made a final order of court. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Michael Rundle, Esquire Support Master Gregory L. Lensbower, Esquire 209 Broadway Hanover, P A 17331 F or the Plaintiff Andrew W. Schultz 544 Nelson Street Chambersburg, P A 17201 Pro Se :rlm