HomeMy WebLinkAbout74 S 1991
SUNEE MCALLISTER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
HOWARD MCALLISTER
74 SUPPORT 1991
IN RE: EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., December 29,2006:--
On October 11, 2006, an interim order was entered on the recommendation of
the Cumberland County Support Master requiring Howard McAllister to pay Sunee
McAllister spousal support of $900 per month. Husband filed an exception which is
ready for disposition.
Wife, age 69, lives in Carlisle, Cumberland County. Defendant, age 63, lives in
Darlington, South Carolina. Wife is retired and receives net social security income of
$580 per month. Husband receives a disability retirement benefit from the federal
government of $3,170 per month. He pays a survivor's benefit premium of $206.75 per
month for which wife is beneficiary, leaving a net monthly income of $2,963.25.
Utilizing these net incomes, the Master calculated the spousal support obligation under
the Pennsylvania Support Guidelines at $953.30 per month.1 The Master concluded
that $248 per month that husband pays for unreimbursed prescription medications are
an unusual need and unusual fixed obligation that warrants a deviation downward from
the guideline calculation to $900 per month.2
1 See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(a) Part IV 24-31.
2 Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-5(b)(1).
74 SUPPORT 1991
Wife lives in the marital residence at 856 West Louther Street, Carlisle, which
was purchased on September 1, 1977. There is no mortgage. She pays the taxes,
utilities and the other expenses in maintaining the property. Husband maintains that
the Support Master erred in not attributing the fair market value of the marital residence
as income to wife. Husband cites Schmidt v. Krug, 425 Pa. Super. 136 (1993), in
which the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated:
The law provides that the party out of possession of the marital home
must be compensated in some manner for his or her rights and interests
in the property. See Gee v. Gee, 314 Pa.Super. 31,460 A.2d 358,
(1983). A prerequisite to the application of this rule of law is the finding
that one party is in exclusive possession of the marital home. Gruver v.
Gruver, 372 Pa.Super. 194, 539 A.2d 395 (1988).
Schmidt, like its cited cases of Gee and Gruver, were divorce cases involving
the equitable distribution of marital property where it is proper to attribute the rental
value of a marital home to a spouse in exclusive possession. There is no authority to
attribute such rental value in calculating spousal support. Although the provisions in
Rule 1910.16-2 for the calculation of net income are not all-inclusive, attributing the
rental value of a marital home to a spouse with exclusive possession does not fit into
the overall scheme for determining net income as described in the Rule. Accordingly,
the recommendations of the Support Master are accepted, and the following order is
entered.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
day of December, 2006, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The exception of Howard McAllister to the Support Master's Report, IS
-2-
74 SUPPORT 1991
DISMISSED.
(2) The interim order entered on October 11,2006, IS MADE FINAL.
By the Court,
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Jane Adams, Esquire
For Sunee McAllister
Robert J. Dailey, Esquire
For Howard McAllister
Michael Rundle, Esquire
Support Master
:sal
-3-
SUNEE MCALLISTER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
HOWARD MCALLISTER
74 SUPPORT 1991
IN RE: EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
day of December, 2006, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The exception of Howard McAllister to the Support Master's Report, IS
DISMISSED.
(2) The interim order entered on October 11,2006, IS MADE FINAL.
By the Court,
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Jane Adams, Esquire
For Sunee McAllister
Robert J. Dailey, Esquire
For Howard McAllister
Michael Rundle, Esquire
Support Master
:sal