Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1039 SUPPORTJODI I. McCUTCHEON, Plaintiff THOMAS M. McCUTCHEON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 011104076 NO. 01-1039 SUPPORT THOMAS M. McCUTCHEON, Plaintiff JODI I. McCUTCHEON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 467104094 NO. 01-1069 SUPPORT IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., August 2, 2002. The above-captioned cases involve claims by Jodi I. McCutcheon (wife/mother) for spousal support and child support and a claim by Thomas M. McCutcheon (husband/father) for child support. Both parties are proceeding pro se. The claims were heard by the support master. Following a hearing, the master issued a report recommending (a) denial of the claim for spousal support~ and recommending (b) disposition of the child support claims on the basis of certain findings as to the parties' net incomes and children's residences. The master, inter alia, calculated the mother's child support obligation to the father for the period commencing February 7, 2002, to be $345.00 per month. ~ The basis for this recommendation, which is not a subject of the exceptions herein, is contained in the Master's Report. See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed May 7, 2002. The wife/mother has filed exceptions to the master's report, as it relates to child support. These exceptions are as follows: 1-Support of $345.00 per month, too high for Jody McCutcheon to balance because of expense to her household obligations. 2-There is reason for justify deviation for support. 3-Husband grosses alot more money than wife, and his financial status is greater than wife's financial status. 4-Wasn't asked for expense form from the hearing master on behalf of the wife, for her expense obligations to her home. Asking for suspension of support over the summer for the wife, and possibly a decrease in support on her behalf as well.2 After a careful review of the master's report and record,3 the exceptions to the report will be dismissed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Based upon the evidence presented at the master's hearing, held on April 24, 2002, the facts in the present case, which are largely undisputed, may be summarized as follows: Jodi I. McCutcheon (hereinafter the mother) and Thomas M. McCutcheon (hereinafter the father) were married on February 14, 1998.4 They are 34 and 36 years old respectively.5 Two children have been bom of the marriage: Thomas M. McCutcheon, Jr. (d.o.b. December 4, 1988), and Dustin McCutcheon (d.o.b. April 19, 1991).6 2 Exceptions, filed May 16, 2002. The support master indicated in his report that if the mother exercised primary physical custody of the children in the summer she could file a petition for modification on that basis and that the issue of support in such an eventuality was not before him. Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed May 7, 2002, at 4 n.5. For this reason, the last sentence of the mother's exceptions misapprehends the extent of relief available to her on exceptions to the report. 3 Neither party submitted a brief on the issues presented by the exceptions to the master's report in accordance with the order of court dated May 21, 2002. See C.C.R.P. 210-7 ("Issues raised, but not briefed, shall be deemed abandoned."). 4 N.T. 3, 15, Hr'g., Apr. 24, 2002 (hereinafter N.T. ~. 5 N.T. 3, 15. 6N.T. 4. 2 The parties have lived separate and apart since May 2000.7 Neither has filed for divorce.8 Under a custody order dated February 6, 2002, during the school year both children reside primarily with the father, who has physical custody of them twelve overnights out of fourteen, and during the summer the custodial arrangement is reversed.9 A minor child by a prior relationship also resides with the father,l° The mother is employed as a messenger with the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.~ She has a gross monthly salary of $1,349.83.~2 In the absence of a divorce, she will presumably file her federal income tax return as "married filing separate.''~3 This gross income and filing status yields a net monthly income for child support purposes of $1,104.36.TM The father is employed as a proofreader with a court reporting company known as Commonwealth Reporting Company.~5 He has a gross monthly salary of $2,438.83.~6 He will presumably file his federal income tax return as "head of household.''~7 This gross income and filing status yields a net monthly income for child support purposes of $2,071.68.~8 7N.T. 4. 8 N.T. 18-19. 9 N.T. 5-6; Defendant's Exhibit 1, Hr'g., Apr. 24, 2002 (hereinafter Plaintiff's/Defendant's Exhibit ~. l0 N.T. 20. ix N.T. 10. ~2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. ~ The mother resides with a male friend. N.T. 8-9. 14 S~?e Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed May 7, 2002 (Exhibit "C."). The appropriate deductions for federal income tax, state income tax, etc., applicable to a given gross income and filing status are generated by a Domestic Relations Office computer program. 15 N.T. 19. 16 Defendant's Exhibit 2. ~7 N.T. 20; Defendant's Exhibit 2. ~8 See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed May 7, 2002 (Exhibit "C"). 3 The mother's employer provides medical and dental benefits for the mother, father and children who are the subject of this proceeding without charge.~9 No evidence was offered by the parties at the master's hearing of unusual needs or unusual fixed obligations, other support obligations of the mother, other income of the father's household, assets of the parties,2° the standard of living of the parties and the children, or similar factors. At the conclusion of the mother's presentation of evidence, the master engaged in the following colloquy with her to be sure that she was given a full opportunity for the submission of evidence: Q Is there anything else, ma'am, you wanted to tell me? A Other than that, the only other thing--the question that ! would have is, ! don't have a washer and dryer. Q Let me stop you there. If you're asking me questions about that, this is not the time for it. Do you want to tell me facts for the record? A Oh, no. I'm done pretty much.2~ Following the master's hearing, the Cumberland County Support Master filed a Support Master's Report and Recommendation, on May 7, 2002. For the period commencing February 7, 2002, the master recommended a basic child support obligation on the part of the mother of $345.00 per month.22 This recommendation was in accordance with the support guidelines and did not involve a deviation.23 The mother's exceptions subjudice relate to this aspect of the report.24 19 N.T. 12-13. 20 The mother mentioned that she did not have a washer and dryer. N.T. 14. :l N.T. 14. 22 Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed May 7, 2002. 23 See Support Master's Report and Recommendation, filed May 7, 2002 (Exhibit "C"). 24 Since it is this aspect of the report to which the mother's exceptions are directed, the court has not attempted a full summary of the facts and recommendations related to other matters. 4 DISCUSSION Statement of Law Review of exceptions to support master'; report. On a review of a support master's report, a trial court is to employ the same standard as is applicable to review of a divorce master's report. Goodman v. Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 544 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1988). The report should be accorded the "fullest consideration," particularly with respect to the credibility of witnesses. Id However, the report is advisory only, and when exceptions are filed the court must conduct its own review of the evidence to determine whether the master's recommendations to which exceptions are taken are proper. Id; Gomez v. Gomez, 11 Phila. Co. Rptr. 211,226-27 (1984). With respect to the issues raised by exceptions filed by a party to a master's report, "[i]t is the sole province and the responsibility of the [trial] court to set an award of support, however much it may choose to utilize a master's report." Goodman, 375 Pa. Super. at 507-08, 544 A.2d at 1035; see also Pa. R.C.P. 1910.12(f)-(h) (indicating that, if no exceptions are filed to certain issues in master's report and interim order, those issues are not presented for review). Adherence to guidelines. Both parents share a responsibility to provide support to their children to the extent that their respective incomes and earning capacities allow them to do so. Mooney v. Doutt, 766 A.2d 1271, 1273 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). "The amount of support to be awarded is based in large part upon the parties' monthly net income." Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2. A party's child support obligation is to be calculated in the first instance in accordance with guidelines provided in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1(b). Where such an obligation exists, the amount calculated in accordance with the guidelines is presumptively correct. Middleton/DPW v. Robinson, 728 A.2d 368, 373 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999); Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1(d). "[D]epartures below the guidelines are permitted only when the obligor can establish unique financial need,'." Young v. Muthersbaugh, 415 Pa. Super. 591,597, 609 A.2d 1381, 1384 (1992) (emphasis added). 5 In deciding whether to deviate from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, a court is to consider: (1) unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations; (2) other support obligations of the parties; (3) other income in the household; (4) ages of the children; (5) assets of the parties; (6) medical expenses not covered by insurance; (7) standard of living of the parties and their children; (8) in a spousal support or alimony pendente lite case, the period of time during which the parties lived together from the date of marriage to the date of final separation; and (9) other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b). Substantial or shared physical custody. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-4(c)(1), provides as follows: The support guidelines contemplate that the obligor has regular contact, including vacation time, with his or her children, and that he or she makes direct expenditures on behalf of the children. When, however, the children spend 40% or more of their time during the year with obligor, a rebuttable presumption exists that the obligor is entitled to a reduction in the basic support obligation to reflect this additional time .... For purposes of this provision, the time spent with the children shall be determined by the number of overnights they spend during the year with obligor. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c)(1). Duty of parties to present evidence in support of their positions. "Support [o]rders are created in an adversarial process .... "Ball v. Minnick, 414 Pa. Super. 242, 259, 606 A.2d 1181, 1190 (1992) (plurality opinion), aff'd, 538 Pa. 441, 648 A.2d 1192 (1994). It is the responsibility of both parties to "bring to the court the necessary data upon which the court establishes the support [o]rder." Id. at 262, 606 A.2d at 1192. 6 Application of Law to Facts In the present case, the obligation of $345.00 per month upon the mother for the support of two children, as recommended by the master, was in accordance with the evidence as to the parties' incomes and an application of the support guidelines to those incomes. The amount of custodial time of the mother did not warrant a reduction in this obligation under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-4(c)(1), nor was evidence presented which would have supported a deviation from the guidelines in the mother's favor under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-5(b). In the latter regard, it was the mother's responsibility, and not the master's, to proffer evidence supporting her positions on the issues which she perceived to exist when afforded the opportunity to do SO. For the foregoing reasons, the exceptions of the mother to the master's report in connection with (1) the recommended amount of support for her children for the period commencing February 7, 2002, (2) the absence of a recommended deviation from the guidelines with respect to this amount, (3) the failure of the recommended amount to accommodate the disparity in gross incomes beyond that provided for in the support guidelines, and (4) the failure of the master to elicit evidence not proffered at the hearing must be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order of court will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2002, after careful consideration of the exceptions to the support master's report filed May 7, 2002, filed by Jody I. McCutcheon, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed, and the order of court based upon the report dated May 7, 2002, including the supporting calculations attached thereto, is entered as a final order. 7 BY THE COURT, Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Support Master Jody I. McCutcheon 201 South Market Street # 1 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Pro Se Thomas M. McCutcheon 22 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Pro Se s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Courtesy Copy: Herschel Lock, Esq. 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 JODI I. McCUTCHEON, Plaintiff Vo THOMAS M. McCUTCHEON, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION PACSES NO. 011104076 NO. 01-1039 SUPPORT THOMAS M. McCUTCHEON, Plaintiff Vo JODI I. McCUTCHEON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION : PACSES NO. 467104094 NO. 01-1069 SUPPORT IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO SUPPORT MASTER'S REPORT BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2002, after careful consideration of the exceptions to the support master's report filed May 7, 2002, filed by Jody I. McCutcheon, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the exceptions are dismissed, and the order of court based upon the report dated May 7, 2002, including the supporting calculations attached thereto, is entered as a final order. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 10 Michael R. Rundle, Esq. Support Master Jody I. McCutcheon 201 South Market Street # 1 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Pro Se Thomas M. McCutcheon 22 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Pro Se Courtesy Copy: Herschel Lock, Esq. 3107 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110