Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-671 SUPPORTDONNA M. GOSS, Plaintiff VS. HARRY P. CASONI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 329103738 NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S INTERIM ORDER BEFORE HESS, J. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a case involving support for twin children, Barrett Goss and Caitlin Goss, age 11. These children receive social security benefits on account of their relationship to the defendant who is sixty-eight years old. The defendant first argues that the Support Master erred in his handling of the children's social security payments, pursuant to Rule 1910.16-2 (b)(2). The Rule states: If a child for whom support is sought is receiving social security retirement or disability derivative benefits as a result of a parent's age or disability, the benefits the child receives shall be added to the combined monthly net incomes of the obligor and obligee to calculate the income available for support on the vertical axis of the basic child support schedule set forth in Rule 1910.16-3. The presumptive amount of support as set forth on the schedule at the combined income of obligee, obligor and child's benefits shall then be reduced by the amount of the child's social security or disability derivative benefits before apportioning the remaining support obligation between the parties pursuant to Rule 1910.16-4. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-2 (b)(2). According to Exhibit "C" of the Interim Order of Court, the Support Master followed the rule exactly. To the $3,377.62 of combined total monthly net income, the Support Master added the $666.00 that the two children receive each month ($333.00 each) from Defendant's social security benefits. That made the adjusted combined total monthly net income $4,043.62. NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 According to that figure, the child support obligation then came out to $1,143.00. After that, the social security benefits in the amount of $666.00 were properly deducted. That left $477.00, which was apportioned to both Plaintiff and Defendant, by the percentage of their monthly share of the net income. Defendant's (obligor's) support obligation was properly calculated at $282.67.~ Defendant claims that this calculation is unfair based on a scenario that he envisions once he and his wife are divorced. While the disposition of the case today does not depend upon an analysis of possible future scenarios, we, nonetheless, will briefly discuss the defendant's contention. In doing so, it becomes apparent that the defendant does not understand the treatment of social security payments under the Rules. Once the defendant's divorce is final (they are currently separated), she will no longer receive any of his social security benefits, leaving the two children with an increased combined monthly payment of $1,000. This would place the Defendant in an even higher level in the support grid which, he mistakenly believes, would be unfair to him because he is receiving no increase in his monthly income. Defendant's concern, is however, unfounded. If the children were receiving $1000, the adjusted combined total monthly net income would then be $4,377.62. Using the support guidelines of Rule 1910.16-3, the child support obligation would be $1,215.00, which is a higher figure then that which was used when the children were receiving $666.00. However, the $1,000 would then be subtracted, leaving only $215.00. When multiplied by 1 Defendant's support obligation was further reduced by $82.67, based on considerations of defendant's medical expenses. Subsequently, defendant pays the children the sum of $200.00 per month. 2 NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 Defendant's percentage of the net income (.5926), only $127.41 is left in support obligations, as opposed to the $282.67, as it currently stands. Defendant next claims that the Alimony Pendente Lite (APL), which he is currently paying his wife, should not be included in his net income calculation. When the Support Master issued his ruling however, no APL figure had yet been determined. Therefore the issue was not before the Support Master when he made his findings in this case. The circumstances here are different from most cases in Pennsylvania that have dealt with APL and child support. Usually the separated wife who is receiving the APL is the mother of the children receiving the support. Therefore, no matter who the children are living with, whether it be the mother or the father, the money is available to one of the parents so that it is properly included in the combined total monthly net income. In the present case the APL goes to the separated wife, but she is not the mother of the children receiving the support. Rule 1910.16-2 (c)(2) states, "[i]n computing a spousal support or alimony pendente lite obligation, the court shall deduct from obligor's monthly net income all of his or her child support obligations and any amounts of spousal support, alimony pendente lite or alimony being paid to former spouses." Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-2 (c)(2). We learned, during our most recent argument, that the alimony pendente lite matter is currently before the Master.2 We will, therefore, remand this case to the Master so that he will have the opportunity to do what the procedural posture of this case had not heretofore allowed; namely, to enter a support order in this case and an order in the alimony pendente lite case so that each order may take cognizance of the other. 2 In this case the argument was conducted on the record. NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 ORDER AND NOW, this day of June, 2002, this matter is remanded to the Support Master for proceedings consistent with the opinion filed of even date herewith. BY THE COURT, DRO Frederick Huganir, Esquire Michael Rundle, Esquire Harry P. Casoni :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. 4 DONNA M. GOSS, Plaintiff VS. HARRY P. CASONI, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 329103738 NO. 671 SUPPORT 2001 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S INTERIM ORDER BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of June, 2002, this matter is remanded to the Support Master for proceedings consistent with the opinion filed of even date herewith. BY THE COURT, DRO Frederick Huganir, Esquire Michael Rundle, Esquire Harry P. Casoni :tim Kevin A. Hess, J.