B.S. v. S.P. ( 2018 )

J-A31037-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
B.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
S.P. :
:
Appellant : No. 394 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order December 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s):
No. DR--14-01312,
PACSES 141114817
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2018
Appellant, S.P. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Lehigh County denying in part and granting in part his
exceptions to the court’s March 14, 2016, order of support awarding child
support and alimony pendente lite (APL).1 Chief among Father’s several
claims on appeal is that the court erroneously granted the petition of Appellee,
B.S. (“Mother”), to modify a prior support order when she failed to
____________________________________________
1 From our review of Father’s appeal, we understand it to challenge the trial
court’s order only with respect to the child support obligations it assigns. To
the extent Father intended his appeal to challenge the trial court’s award of
APL, as well—and we do not discern such an intent—we lack jurisdiction to
consider such an issue. See Calibeo v. Calibeo, 663 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super.
1995) (order for either spousal support or alimony pendente lite is
interlocutory and not appealable until all economic claims have been
resolved).
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A31037-17
demonstrate a material and substantial change in circumstances had occurred
since entry of the order. We affirm.
The trial court aptly summarizes the factual and procedural history of
the case:
[Defendant/Appellant] Father, [S.P.], and [Plaintiff/Appellee]
Mother, [B.S.], were married in India on March 20, 2005. Father
is 41 years of age, born on October 1, 1975. Mother, [B.S.], is 33
years of age, born February 1, 1983. Together, they resided in
[the marital residence]. There are two children born to the
marriage, [a boy], age ten, and [a girl], age nine.
***
On August 8, 2014, Mother filed a Complaint for spousal and child
support. On August 18, 2014, Father was served with the
Complaint at the Domestic Relations Office. The following day,
Mother withdrew her Complaint for support.
On April 1, 2015, Mother filed a Complaint for child and spousal
support. Father was served with the Complaint on April 6, 2015.
A conference was held on May 18, 2015. . . . An Interim Order
was entered after a conference . . . in the amount of $1,436.99
per month for child support based upon the court’s determination
that Mother’s monthly net income is $4,590.99 or $1,067 weekly
and Father’s monthly net income is $4,698.31 or $1,093 weekly.
Mother’s spousal support complaint was dismissed as no award
was warranted based upon her earnings.
At that time, Mother worked as a Software Tester, a contract
employee, of Agreeya Solutions at Deloitte of Folsom, California;
the contract ended May 30, 2015. She has a Bachelor’s degree in
Computer Application. Mother pays $650 monthly for personal
health insurance for the entire family. Father was added June 1,
2015. Father is the sole owner and employee of Lehigh
Innovations, Inc. He provided his own income tax return but not
that of the business. Therefore, the Conference Officer attributed
a monthly earning capacity for him based upon his monthly
expenses of $5,984.00.
-2-
J-A31037-17
The parties were conflicted as to whether Father resided at the
marital residence. Mother was found to be more credible. No
agreement was reached; a hearing was scheduled.
On June 1, 2015, Father filed a Petition for Modification of an
Existing Support Order. He alleged that he was currently residing
in the marital residence and paying related expenses.
A hearing [took place] before Hearing Officer Betz . . . on July 29,
2015, . . . HO Betz . . . recommended an order for $914.00
monthly for child support, based upon Mother’s net monthly
income of $4,757.00 or $1,106 weekly and Father’s net monthly
income of $3,852.00 or $895 weekly.
At that time, Father was unemployed. His income was
corroborated with a 2014 Federal Tax Return, with $24,584
annual income, and an IRA distribution of $49,480.00, $33,480.00
of which was rolled over into another retirement account. Father
generates income from his employment as well as from the profits
derived from the operation of his corporation, a Sub S Company.
He did not report any information on his own 2014 Federal Tax
return as to the operation of the business nor did he provide a
Profit and Loss Schedule.
HO Betz stated that it was disturbing to him that Father testified
that he is “currently on an extension for 2014 to provide the
financial information associated with the operation of the
company.” Ultimately, largely due to the lack of corroborating
documentation as to the income or expenses of the corporation,
Father was assessed an earning capacity of $30.00 per hour with
a net monthly income of $3,852.00 or $895 weekly.
HO Betz concluded that Mother was entitled to spousal support.
Nevertheless, after completing the calculation for spousal support
that resulted in a negative number, he concluded that spousal
support was not financially warranted.
Although Mother testified that she provided for the health
insurance for the family at a substantial cost, she failed to provide
an insurance card or any documentation of same to confirm the
expense of the coverage. Therefore, the HO did not consider it as
part of the calculation.
-3-
J-A31037-17
[HO Betz authored a recommended support order on August 13,
2015, incorporating these findings].
[Mother filed] Support Exceptions [to the August 13, 2015,
recommended Order] on August 24, 2015, requesting credit for
the health insurance that she provided for the family. [She
withdrew] the exceptions . . . on September 3, 2015.
Mother’s Petition for Modification. On September 3, 2015, Mother
filed a Petition for Modification of the August 13, 2015, Order.
Paragraph 2 of her Petition reads: “Petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement because of the following material and substantial
change in circumstance: the Health Insurance Premium Amount,
$653.37—like before.”
A conference was held on November 17, 2015, before [the same
hearing officer as before]. At the conference, medical insurance
coverage was established at $653.37 and child care costs of
$279.30 weekly. At the time of the conference, Mother was
employed as a contractor. Mother’s income is based upon her pay
of $45 per hour at full time. At the time of the conference, Father
was unemployed and was attributed with an earning capacity as
established in the August 13, 2015, Order.
Mother’s Alimony Pendente Lite (APL). On February 3, 2016,
Mother filed a Praecipe for [APL] which was Count 1 of the
Counterclaim in the February 3, 2016, Answer and Counterclaim
in Divorce filed [in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County].
Hearings were held on January 12, 2016, and February 11, 2016.
On March 14, 2016, HO Betz recommended a [four-phase support
order encompassing Father’s varying support obligations effective
from September 3, 2015 to December 3, 2014, December 4, 2015
to December 31, 2015, January 1, 2016 to February 2, 2016, and
February 3, 2016 forward]. The four-phase order was due to the
multiple petitions, the different filing dates of the petitions, the
changing incomes of Mother and of Father, the changing expenses
of health insurance, child care, and, finally, the mortgage
deviation.
Trial Court Memorandum Decision, 12/20/16 at 1-5.
-4-
J-A31037-17
On April 4, 2016, Father filed his “Child Support and Alimony Pendente
Lite (APL) Exceptions[.]” By Order dated December 20, 2016, the trial court
reduced Father’s arrearages by $94.62—in acceptance of Father’s exception
to the amount of the health insurance expense that was attributable to the
children—but otherwise made final the interim Order of Support of March 14,
2016. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises the following issues for our consideration:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT A MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCE OCCURRED BETWEEN THE ENTRY OF
THE RECOMMENDED ORDER OF AUGUST 13, 2015,
AND THE FILING OF A SUBSEQUENT PETITION TO
MODIFY ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2015, WHICH PETITION
WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE EARLIER ORDER
BECOMING FINAL?
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING
THAT A MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRED WHERE THE ONLY
ALLEGED CHANGE NOTED WITHIN THE PETITION TO
MODIFY FILED ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2015, WAS THE
REQUEST TO INCLUDE HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS PAID BY APPELLEE WHICH ISSUE WAS
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED BY THE EARLIER ORDER
DATED AUGUST 13, 2015?
III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT
IMPUTED A MODIFIED INCOME TO
APPELLANT/FATHER THEREBY RESULTING IN AN
INCREASED CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WHEN
FATHER WAS ASSIGNED AN EARNING CAPACITY LESS
THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF
THE PETITION TO MODIFY, AND NO OTHER
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE WAS
ALLEGED?
-5-
J-A31037-17
IV. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING
A PRIOR SUMMARY REPORT WHICH WAS NOT MADE
PART OF THE COURT’S RECORD AS NEITHER PARTY
NOR THE COURT MOVED FOR THE ADMISSION OF
THAT DOCUMENT AT THE TIME OF THE MOST RECENT
PROCEEDING?
Appellant’s brief, at 7-8.
Our standard review of child support orders is well settled:
When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the
trial court's determination where the order cannot be sustained on
any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion
afforded the trial court absent an abuse of discretion or insufficient
evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is
not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the
court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised
is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the
product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been
abused. In addition, we note that the duty to support one's child
is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the
child's best interests.
Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768, 772 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Mencer v.
Ruch, 928 A.2d 294, 297 (Pa.Super. 2007)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michele A.
Varricchio, we conclude Father's issues merit no relief. We reach this
conclusion observing that the trial court opinion comprehensively discusses
and properly disposes of each question presented, see Trial Court Opinion,
filed May 31, 2017, at 1-20. As such, we affirm on the basis of this opinion.
In so doing, we particularly note the court’s cogent explanation of how
Mother’s petition to modify was timely and properly filed, id, at 4-7, and how
a material and substantial change in circumstances regarding Mother’s
-6-
J-A31037-17
payment of the family’s medical insurance supported both the hearing officer’s
recommended order and the court’s subsequent order granting Mother’s
modification petition. Id., at 7-10. We also agree Father may not prevail on
his assertion that the court improperly relied on evidence from a prior hearing
that was not made part of the record during the most recent hearing with HO
Betz. Id. at 16-20. In fact, evidence of Father’s continued failure to provide
documentation of his business-related income—in noncompliance with the
court’s order to do so—was admitted at the most recent hearing through
Father’s own acknowledgment, such that the court’s reference to his earlier
failure to present such court-ordered documentation was mere surplusage
that did not alter the court’s calculation of Father’s income. N.T. 2/11/16, at
69-70. Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal affords him no relief.
Order is AFFIRMED.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/22/18
-7-
J-A31037-17
-8-
Circulated 02/21 /2018 11 :44 AM
COl\IMON PLEAS
DOMESTIC,.,,..,_, ,._,,,.
: ..: · ...· ··f·
"': :-.:· · Piaintiff/Appellee ·· ) .. . · . ,. . . .. . . .
,, .. ·. ) .No. DRo114--013'12 · ,; , ·. ·
vs ... · ) ' .. '.' (::.. .• '
..
' '
· �ACSESNq�)41114�if2��
�·
' .•'' ' : ' ' b./,�;J·��o • fi·.: ·J:·I'I·.
) §J�. ·�.. ··', ·, . ·.· · .:
I ;-I ' ·
·z?i2@ �· ,.· r: .
. . , .. ' . ' ·. '" ...;:-;::;J�. "'-<.'. '' �· .
tn
'•:•I' '
�.a.:R.C.P.1925.(a) Statement .. r •
· ·· · · · ·. . � · · · · <: ,,:,;f"i'.I :,;.
. AND NOW, 1hls ?J1 daYorMay, 20)11 the underilgned �
:purs�t to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate. Procedure 1925(a.):
the:��;,t; · .· ··
·..
an:Decet.t1ber·il; . Court entered an Oider.d�ying
201<5; this P¥C
in part an:�rgranting .. k ',.
( . · .: · the
. ., '
Chi]dSuppori'andAJ/llioJly Pendent� Lite (,IPL).EL portiori of
�'
On ' ..
0
0
f ... • ' •
By:
' , , • I : I
' 0 ' • I
filed his Response to the.Rule to Show Cause.. . Order. :Of Court dated .
'
• 0 0 • ' ,I '
3;'4017, Appellant
. . ' '
' I I ' :
fyfatdh 6� 2017'. the Pe�ylvacia Superior Com�t' discharged tlie Rule t� Show Cause �d
. . . ' . ' . . .
•,,
,\:,
. .. 'i··\·).
I ·� I •
:, '.,':I
. ,·, ·.·.· 't'
Ordered that-;'only the portion of the_ 'order -�th regard to child s'upport �1 · be �f���.d to th�
p�et. as�;gned -� ��cide
_the' 111�� of��. n · This Court entered .an of Co:tµi OI1 appeai. :�;der
. · Mmch, 6: 201'7: ��cMlAppcll�j··�() file an Am,e�d�·co��e S'i�teme_n! of}&it� . .. .
,,'
''\I,'. 1 1 '1 ,'. ;.,
�ili.1� f�urteen days/of the Oi'de� �g irito' co�dera�oit �e !Yj��h-: .:
,, I •', ,, , • , , • ', • • ' , I,
>
Comp!��� ·;,..o�
' •
Appeal
' • I •,, ' ' I I ' '
.:_. '. . . . .. ·',
', ':
> 0 ' ' '
lyimla $iipepor'.C'ofu,t Order bf Court. A.ppell�t complied and filed his ..
,,
. 6, 20.17, Pennsy . . . ..
'',j • .... � • '' •
on March. 21 2011.
: > ," ,\ ', •,,
I : .: •·,, '
Amended ._Cori�lsp. Statement' of Matters Coritplahied �f on App_eal >
..
..
. . in-� �;n�ed° Concise. Sta�ment of Matte;g
.
C�m;lamed pf on AP,pea1_..
.
AppiII�t
.·:::·
. . . ..
... .: . �aises five allegatlo�·of errors foi the Corot's ccinsiruiatio�whl�h are ·repr�duced
·: . . .. ·. .. .···.·' . . . . . .
here ·: . . .
· ...
. �· '•
'
< .
1.
verbatim�'
• .. • • •
•, ..
. ; ', ' 1' •
. (l) The· Tri� . Qourt ·e�d:. in �dhlg that fi ·mate�.:�� substantial change r
�.
..
. clroumstances occurred between the · entry of. the· Recommended Order. on ·
Au@Sf 13,' 2015/. and "the :filing . ofa 'subsequent· P�titioii'°. to Mcic'Qfy · on
rs, earlier
t •.
Septembe� J •· 20 \Vhlch Petition was -. fiJ�d . prior to the 'Qrder .
1>.ecominis.:final.; . ··
(2) ?he Trial.Court erred .in concluding-that a :i:qatetial.arid substantial 'vhru;ige· in
oircmnsta!lce . occurred whe�. ¢e . only alleged change· . noted withpi. the .
Petition· to Mogify filed :September 3, 2015/ was' the addition of health
insurance . coverage for the· pardes' children \.vhio1i. issue: "specifically . was
addressed in.the earlier Court O.td�r dated A.ugusi'l3,.2015. . . . ..
(3:) ·Tbe Trlal .Court 'erred when 1t imputed -a ·modified. income· attributed jo ..
AppellantfFather ther�by ·re?ulting .lnen 4ie�e'ii�ed c�I(suppoii · oblig8:tfo:ri ..
when Fither was a_ssigned arr eatrµng �pacey less than;thiity .(3Q)° days prior' .
to th.e :fi.liri.g ··of. :t4e� Petition 'to: Modify, and. ·otheI'. substantial ohang� 'in . no
-oiroumstences Were ·a�ege� or·occurred; .. . .
(4) The Trial Court erred when:it Jailed to deviate· from �f support 4�ten¢ned _by ·
: the Chlld ·SUpJ?Ort ��d��es. aft�r proper oonside�ati(?� of �e· 'eviden��-·
produced by. App�II�tl:f'� in support of' the: factors eninnerated m
�a.ltC.P. 1919,'1�.:S(b); · · . ·.. ' . . . . . .. '. .. I
(5) Tpe T�ai Court ·erred·wheiocinsidering .a prior Suzµin� Report :which.was::-·
... not par( o(the' �oµrttf)\�_ord 'speqilicaIJ.y inft:�du� � thy time ?f.��--
I
Hearlng before Hearirig Officer Betz even if that information was known. to.
.. the Co�:at 1;be time of �e �e.�. ·. . . . . ·. .: , .: : ., . : . . . I
S�t:.,
I
I
Appell"!\!'.•.�
Concise (i�(5): On Dec�ber 21;i-016, this Ca\lrt.•n� a I
2
I
.,.
',' '
' ,• .:
'< -,·,
... . M�aruium Opinion in Sllpport of th0 December 2 l, 2016, brd�rof.9�u,(�i l fl;;;i�i
'·���s��� th� proce�urafhlstury in this mattfu �d the r�asonfu�·for,.tlie 66u't,t s resoJutio� of' '
1
... . .... : . �· . ' ,'
.' ' '. . .. . . . ' . ·: . :,. ·,.' . .. .
...... ,. Appellant'·s twenty-nme:�xceptioµs·fo t1eiriterln1ilidet�fM�ch 14;.2oi'6. antl'tlie'ciom:t. ·
' . · , ��rp�ra� �,iop¥). � support ordetv@ �t .':, · .. · ·
. ,, be �is�;ied
. .
onapp�,al. ���- th� �i·comif��: ·c6�i�r ;r�erly�e:���ni���:o�$�·. . .
,,". . .. · . .. ... : . . . ' . '.· · '• ·• :
.
. ·, .. Rules of ProC<.>.dun;,·GoverningActions for Suppo:rt;J1all.CJ>., ·19ioJ et seq.,: or ab115e�i
,• ,'' ' '.: ' . ,di�cretfo� m �a:
�ppl�g P1e'se.Jiui�s:· .:Mschai V, Nt�ahdl, '-87�rA.2d,81$ �· 8 l4' Super�: 2005)�
:. .:. >·.... : . C;;�;lla�fr:,i v�· .;;C...�l;gh. �·6b7'A',. ;� 735.'(Pi{ .19�2);B/;;.ietta:
. .
. .
�.··Earieita, 485,·A. .id:-752 . (Pa· ·.:' .
. ,' ' ,,
. ' .. ·,•
' ·: .,, . ' . :,. �.;
.... '·1985, '; ', .'
'
.. . . .: .
' ' '
,-
' � ':fu�er s,'r�port
..:·: :. ·.
antteco�eridation;' although' o�y: ;�i�·�ry, are to b�.w�eii tl,i�
1
••.... j.
:.: •
: ....
,, • ,, • :" • • • ' • • ••• '
• ' .: • ' • •
... ·. · .. . . �1es.t co�i�e�tt�on, part1cuiar1y �n .fue· question-of credibility of mtJ1ess�s, .because.th6.�astei
• • •
.. · .: has·��· o�p��;·.fu :obsetj,�·.a.nd:as��ss the -b�vior an� de��o� ofthe·partle���, 1'.�el'. f>" :
"·.·· :' 1'���1 9�;:A_�d.�69�
97)-74.(Pi'Sup�.'�9,07);'
.. Bowev�;·the.Co�-lS obligated t� '��e·� ,
· . :·: . . ·. ni�epend�nt·r�vi�·�fth;·[Mas�r�s] rep�·�.nci'r�commendaiions dete�ni�ie �ether.'.tii�{�: t� .
. ' ' � .·.:. . . ..... . '' ' ' " ·:.::;,
' . ·.· ·:,.:' '... . . ··. ... '\,. ..
•', ' ' '
,• ' ' ' '
'
,, '
.approp�/'. Kohl v. Kohl, 564·A.2d 222, 225 (Pa. Super, 1�89)�· Parties pursue only argument ·
'
. '' ' I
. .· . • '
. at the e � ceptio.
.
� ·��gs· and· are �ot·. �permitted to �ttoduce new evideace at that t#tt�; · Se; .
.. '.
P�.ltC.P.
.
·1�no:12(g);
. . ..
Trembuch. v; . Trembach, 615 A.2d 33.., ·36n.2 {Pa. Sup�r. 1992);
.
. '. .
:. Ct�nn�1gf,am·�. ,.CWtf!.ingham, 548 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super, 19&8),
· ·
to
�e�on Modify Ch�d Support filed before the'Ilecolµinended
Became Final , · . · .
on A:nw.ast 13t �015.
· ·
Or�.er
. '
. A:pp�lla,uis �sUssue raised on appe.al is that "the Trial Court erred In :fin�tbat a �rlil··.
and snbs�tiaj change in cu;cumstances occ�red between the ��try �{the Re.comin�cle4 On;i�� .
�g:of
o� August· 13; 201;,. and the � iiub�equent Petition to Modify on Sep�b.er 31 ·2-0; S.1 ...
. . . .·. ·.. . ' . . .. . . . . . '. ·: '•
. '
'.··
· . which Petltlon . waa· :fil� prior to th�·earliet Order be�ntlng final.» Appellants
' j
'co.�ci�e
'
,'
•
• • •
·���d,"
• • • •
• '
. . : ., . ' . : : . . . . . ' . . . . . •, . ' .. ··'r-•.: "'·.·. ..·:,•, •,· ..
·. ·,:, Stm�fL. At the ::tfm�.of l:!f�ent.o:q,Father•s exceptio� lnJbis tm11*e1\ F.atjlei;w� repres�p.��
·:., . 'b)r Atto��Y: breaµo 'and the folloWing e�crumg� t�ok pl�� about. the ·�i1fu�i oi�e
•
�O � .
•• • � • .' • t • • -,' l'i .. Ii' ' .> :. �· ,.': ..
PetJ.tfon to·-,���� . . ,: '.
· ·. Mx.
.
creazib:
. •, \v�v� we 're looking at.his·-
4
: .. " ·.(:-�.. \ ,,:, .. .
. ··.:',,•' •,
'' • ,, 'I
·: -, ";·.,,
•,'
,",
The' Court: . ,' . Betz chooses-:-- ' . "'. . . . , ·. . '. . :
Mn.Creazzo: . ·.�.;hls ·: moo.me· as . ·of. Sepfomoor when .: she filed: th.�
·.,�o�ficat!on. :Quite· frankly;}dou/t'lmpw :th.af.me·.'Yas. evon ·
· <, " :· . ' . . · p�ruiltted .to_r'file :'a 'modifioatfon iess·tbfin' 3�)' days 'tlirui' th�'
, ,. :·: · . ·preylou$.b�def.paµie9u£ .· : . . .
. . .. . . ·
.'· . . . , , ·:·. < . The Court: ... ·. :(i(th�i'argued ihJh� ex�ptlow? . .' . · ... . ·.. . .
, .:'· . ,: ".': ·. Mr. Cre�':,° · · tJ�fci�te�Y�. 'not, Ybur . Honor, I' just -�ought-· of tpat..
..... ,. . . S,oi:iy; . . . .. ': :. . . . . . . . .. . .. ·.
. .. · · ·.·:'· · . The C;urt··: . So it's waived. Master Betz Decides to reassess his earning
'. . ... . ·i· ' · :· .: · .' ·. · capiciif ..· . .
. ·. : . . �. Creazzo: Right. ;.:·� ·.· · · .: ·:. · . . . ...
: . . N9tes �,����opy �:t.)� .7/22/,20'16, �t24::io..23. Pursminfto Pa.lt.c.P;: i910.12((k ·
... ··· . ·.,��!'Snot �i�red b� �X.�ptior,w �; d.eemed waived unlese, prior to the en� of the fimil
.ord�r,.
. . · ...·. •.
l���e � -��t� _fu. file: ex�p�i�� .raising fuose matters�-� . Inter.pieifug:fu� ide��c�
' . . . .
p�o.visl��. �und � Pi°iP.P:. 1920.55 (relating to Eiciptions k> tb� Divorce Mast�dleport)j · .
app��� �ou�·bave h�ld that �lure to·.�e �xceptiori to the·m�ter�s-�ort �esults ip w�ver_of
I ' • •' '
those
.:
���s 'on appeal. S� S<1bastianelll y! Sebastianelli,
. .
876 A2d 4311 433 (Pa, Super,
2005)�'Since Husband was challenging the master's conclusion, and not seeking to e.nf��� the,
. . . .
. inaster 1.�
concluslon, Husbai14 should. have filed an exception � this case, �is failure to do so ·
results
.. . .
. of the. claim on appeal.'');-"MaArdlev. ·McArd!e,
in wal;yer
. .
.
.
679 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Super,.
. .
· 19.. 96); Kohl. v. Kohl, 5�4 A2d. �22.. 227 (P� Super. 1989). Thus, this .Court fro.els that ·App�llant ·
...first matter complained of on appeal;
wai,ved .his
· Nef�eless, sh?uld the-Appellatt{Court'find.that Appellanf.s firs� isstie ·i$ not waived,
··this eourt.:findsitmer1tiess for t11� ��now1nttensons·. A party see�·to m�4ify a support.
pro�p�Y �le;
41
o;de�;i ;�·:b�den ;·proyiiJi
. . ..
� -� ���ciitlon is •. .and. that:.�/she
. ..... ··:· .. · .. ,
·a.· .. ;�tia·
. modljica�b�-��tition/ Ki·ebs i!. Krebs, ·944, A2q 768, .774 (Pa. Super• 2005), relying oµMaddas·
1•
• ;, De�,
. .. . ·� : '
i;6 A.2d 234; 239 (PB.Sop�. ioo)j, flRp�al dep1,ef. 82} A:i� 1201 �� �993Ji � ·
. . . ,• . .
.5
' . P�C,$,A §, 1352( e\· The Comt notes that'23 Pa,C.s.A., §4352 affumis that, �'(a] petlUon
. . '' . ' ' '
:·��.�oatioµ
•
· ..: • • !
. ola suppdrt or�r��ay be filed at any mne and . shai(b�fill;l�ted if the teque�g '. ' .
' • ,', • . ,• • . • •• • •
·•••
· .. i . · : : . . ·:.- ·.. party de���aie(a ��b�tiat chang�. m.:ciic�c�s.�'. cemphasi� �dded). :::·
H¢re, the .p;rl��.: · · ·. ·. ·
··:. . ..••. ·•• :.
.... .-;···: : .: : -: •· ·: • :·· .• · '' · •. '., . :, :. <. ' . . . • · • ,, .
:... · · -. : · · · · . mt.erltn �rder base4 pn . th.� Hearing Officer's report was filed ofr August. 13 � .2015. · Pa;R'C.P. � ·
· .· .. / : ·....•· 19; o.: 12 (g) sti;te.i � ;:ifllo exc:e]JtiobS are ni� ·wltblri th� twoil\y�d� period, the infutlni ��der · . .••
.• at;
·.
'. ·, ',,
. . . . -, . . s� ·PO��ltu�· a final order}' If exceptions had not been filed in thls''.iriro:tei, · the mterl.J?. ot4�r
' ' • : I ·,' ' ' ' ' '• '' '• ". ' ; ••
2Di5. �
owe\fer�
. ' , ·. ·:·. ·... W�¥!d � � �� � � � order on � �
v ·. om · · al e esdaj,,°,September.·2�
Appellee fil�·. · .
: · .· : · .· .· . :.· .ex�ptio;� ;� �� 24,'. 20.f 5, and s�ry� .a copy on· Appeliant1 triggeririg a twerity�y ���� ·. ·
st
. ..
:.: Appe1fantt� �t:{��ce�tioris:.Pa.Rc'JJ i�h0.'12(f).
. : .. ·:.. ·.tor ... Toattwenfy..da�'perl,od would ha;e: ·
o�
': ' I •,'" '' '! ''
.: ·. : ..... '. · . expired o� w•s&y, 'sept�ber 13, 2015. M�an;hll�, Septembei-3. 2-0.151 Appelioo
iri���:�.her der �
·. '•, ' ·.. :wi�hdrew,�er·e���p�ons Petition to Modify� Existing Support � . and.filed
. . . .:·· . ' . .
'
; · h�r exception w� :based.up.on evidence that was not presented to the hefuing offi;oer at the .
. . . . . ' '
gen�tingthe Appellant.did not file any exqeptioiisto the .
hearing
' .. ' . . . . Augl;ist 1.3. 20.15 Order.
. . . ' ..
·. ,A.ugust 1�1 �015 Order. ... ;•.
. ' The Court finds that'under these cireumstarices it was noi error for the Hearing Offief;� to
'
, , •
• '
, 1 > , • , I , ,. 1
. · .: 001;1sid�r the.Appell�'s �.etition to MddiffanExistin� Support Ot4er.·even tjl�ugJ:i the ��U�t ..
. could have '�bly filed exc�ptiQUS to �e A� 13� 2ois Order for another ten day� :t;o·: .
';, . :' .:. Pn:v�fthe.Oid�r fr�in becotciitifl�al. Here; App�ant did n�tfifo .e�Cep'1i;h1s, �dA�pell�'s
. ·. .: ·.: . :ex��P.ti�t1? weteW?:�\\71l·s6:tiie "Couii:.cori?l�d�s.i;t·� r�oruili�e forth.e;Er�g0¢�.' to. ·
', 6��der th� � ��
t
6�der' finalized before App�ll� fil�.4 ��r Petitfo�':to'.�o� � ��i�;. ..
.,.s;�o� �r:d� sri s����e�.3, -201 s, �or�v��. �/ �t�t�
1��s��¥; ���gh i; .;id.$)/.··: :. ·
<. < :' �4;'.. s2,p��t11�k��·�e:a·peti�9� fb �o.�'.llif'��. port.at,iuiytinie
. :··. ·: .
�:��..
.�e';��oo�cl�s:;:. ·.
·.· .. .. :�:·
. . ' .. '·- . ' :
' ...
.. . . .'. . .'.' .: ·1, .
"\Yas n�{error to consider the. Wtte's Petitfori to Modify·and to-find a mkenru-and· .
ocot�� as
... : · thatit
. : . '
s�b��tjal ��gefo�
. .' '.
oiumstance had is'more fully:descn�ed b�low..
¥����i·�·�:�nb$��tfal Cli�:�·ge i� t1�cnnisbince . '. _' ·. ...
. · ': . . .· . .· ·.·. .. '.ik�;l�t �e� .��ges'th� ''the 'i�� ;Cciurt erred.in.cottd�ding that a mat�rial
. :.. :. :·' . . . ·..... :: '. •/ .
. ·. . :-. ·�./:·�· . : ·:. . . .
where the .: ocly 'alleged change noted.
.:
. /• .m
and bstantial . change'
: . . . . circumstance oeourred
. in' .
. �. tli�. ietitiqn. :to).Jodity. filed September ?; · 201s; wiis"the addition ·of health·
:': .'.. · ,imiw�;�·c·�vbr�ge �oi-.ili� .partiesf chll�� whlo4 issue··.�� spooifica1ly ·�dressed in·��- . ·
' · .. ·
. . . . . ./
'
.,,
. • '1 .. · -.: ·,earij� Couri:prdet'dated August.13, 2015.n Appeil�t's'Amend.Concise Stmt, �2.· At ".
> · . .':, . . . ;: .. ��·�·��,��i�g oft�e :��g ·��-J�� 16,2016, the·.Hee#ilg Offi��� inqu� into the·
. . ; . '.... . . ; . ..
.
. ··.· .'.'
. .
..
Mr;·Beti: · . In.�s·niatt�r,,it �·n1y UI1dersnmcliµg thit· we have (Pt?tlticm for.. . . ·.
1
,•,, .·
.
• v •
' . ' ..
h
1'�otµfi�tlori.fifod by£ I on Sep���ber.3; 2015, Wealso have a
.. :·,
.
:,;, . ..
;
., comp�t. fqr spousal support filed .by. o� October 23, ·
..' ' :20�6; We Jii¥v� � claim for.��ny pe�d��te llt{fiJ..� � by.
�
',
.,
. . o t
. • I .. , , : onNovember 20; 2015 .. , .Ma'am, when you filed your Petition for· . ·
and
;
Modificatioii'you 'indicated fu your·Petltion fo.r Modification I quote
. .. . "The health insutµnce'·prenilum.11m6unt $653:37' like b�fore." ·. ·
Ms, Sw:esh: 'Yes; sir, . . . .
. All right. So, that indicates to me that that was the amount that'was in·
. ···.
Mt. Betz'.
'
,· -. ·. . ·. . . existence at the time th.at-we were'!1ere previously.' . .
Yes:
·',,."
I
•
,, Ms. Suresh: · sir. t. .
..,• .. ' . Mr, Betz: ·. . Sot �hat� not changed. . .
Ms. Suresh: It 1;ialchanged ·. . . . . ·
· Mr. B.ep;: : pici it'.cluµ1ge_ as of Septe�ber 3rd;· �hen you filed your p�tltfo� �or
· · · : .modiflcation? · ·
Ms.' Sure.sh: ·.No,'it did nc>t.. ·
Mr. Betz:. When.: :\- ·.)a;t d ·
': �:
.......
. · ..
.·. :, . � � ��ere.�b�a·��terlaland�bs�tl�'c�go�circ��t th�:oi���f'
�cr���d:;;,d�re�eci 4e�ending��irthe �e'cti� incomes ofth�·�·arties, consisten{with
7�
·. ._.-:: :... ·· '. '• '�e
' ".� : _: ' '" � ·i�pp��'gajd:�liries' �d existing law, �� each paify'.s custodial"��·e with th� child 'at the' �ime .
ls'he;,d,�' ·�a.�C.;� 1910.19 (9).' H��) alth�>Ugh Appellaht's'P�t��9n .
:":,'.<·.: t��:�;JO��c�iqrzp�ti�on,
:, '
::··· •· . :· i.·\ · ., :.· . . .•. . .•.
. . .
:· .t: ... ·: ..to Moclify,.�Ex1stj:ag.$upport 6rder'was filed on SepJember 3, 20J5, the b.earlngs on said .
...
• ' I ' • • ' • '' I • • I '
. ·, .· :. ·. :, : ·. : �et#i�n, A�peµant'�.Cofuplain�.,f�r.Spo�sal Supp�rt filed· October 23, 2015,' Appellant�s claful :·
. ,•, ,! . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . ·.
''• . ..
� .· :.,.) ·. ·. : . for �o�/P.��de�te IJte filed November 20, 2ois, �4 Appell�'s Praeoipe for Afurioriy · ." . ·.
:.. · � ��
;·en en 'Lite
fil�d 'on ·F�bruary. s. 2016,\ er� not h�id until J�uary 12, 20.16.t and.'February 1 r,
1
. .: ·.
·.· . . . .. . ' . . .
. ..
2016 .
.. , . ·,
As. was stated in the 1.fem�randum Opinion of December 211 2016., 1$.e four phase .change
��·,A:�gu�t
i,3�·· io15· Or�et of.Support .ud��· to the �ul�ple � � the d1ffet-0�·filing
p tl1fo )
.. to. was
· -, ', -, �tes of th� f!�U�ODB, the cihariglng incomes of W�e and ofHusband,' the changing �xp'�es' 9f
','
health ����;
child care and, finally; the mortgage deviatlpn. � Mem. 'Op., p.5.. As i�· �ted In
P.a.ltC.P. i910.19 ({!), �[t]he existen�.of additlona:t'i:ncoJ:Q.e, ·fucome sources or asse�·identifie(l. :
: ' '' ' .. tbrou� autoriiifud ·m�thocis· o� otb:erwis; may also . collBfitirte a �teria.l'and sub�tia:I' �hange in '
' ' ,', ' ,, ' ' ' ' I •
• 0 ',' >' : > '
· ·c����.'n .·Ip.��� incl�de� ''�Qotil(;·dr;tjved fro� busin!arties.'lma benefiied'fro� the�. so3 A.2� at 1 i 94 .. The trial ·co�t is
. .
,j
. .. . . . .. .
', ...
'· ·
J, • ••• • • •• • • • • • •
' . . .
b�e
'• ,•
',. '. t� ���1er all tl,le �t,tinerit ciriuq1Stances ruid sour6es ofincome'and its declsionon'a
. ·.: · ..· : petitio!} to �ciditY a ·�pp6rt
o�de.r on the facts'as thby appear in f4e record . See 'Mackay��
: .. \. · ...
··Mac�,·
9�4··�.2d sif
(Pa. Super. 2009); Gri,rn;s 11, Grtmes, �-96A.2d'240 Sup�r. 1�91);:. (P;
: . ·. · _.· .':�;q;a v..
.. ·.· . .
Lq11:1p�··5j7 A'.2d '350 .cPa ·g�;r,·
. . '
Here from App�U�t's own testim(?ny �� . · · ·
.
i.98�). :
. .
•'
' . ; . . ·. . Exhibit g.. g, the Master tjonsidered Appellant? s travel and eatertainmcat expenses, including .
. .
',• . . . . . . .
·: .. ·... .. . .ahfute�·hotels, �; use, . and�eals li�e�at $50,695.00 for 2015. SeeN;T., .2111/20i6, at51;4 ...
..... • ! • • ••
: . . . . ' .. 59.:4. Furthe.;n,.ore, Appellant'
. ...
s' exhibits
.
revealed to th� H�a.ring Officerthat)�he depositcif
. . . .
. .. .
. ��ly$�9,00?�'fromD��mber 2015to Feb� 1016 into hispersonel bank account,
Summary
. .
Report, 3i10/20!'6;. p.5. -Based uponrhefbregoing and
·,
the reasoning
. set forth in the
. December 21,
. .
2017. Me�orandrim Opinion, the Court 4n� th� there was no error in findlng' �t
materialand substantial c�ge
. in circumstances had occurred sincethe. entry of the
. August 13�
',
..
:. 201.5 Ot��r of Support. See Samtt Samf.i; &47 A.2d fj91 (Pa. Super. 2001), v;
. .
. Modffi�d Income/Earning Cap.aeity Assigned to'Appellant
. Thirdly, Appel�ant ;alleges that, ''[tJhe· .Trial Co� erred when it imputed a modified
App�ll�t'Fafuer'th��by
i.tlc��e
. . attrib�.tQ . . . r.esulting man lncreased clrllisup;ort
. '
obligati�n.
when Father was assi�ed · � eaining ·cai>acity
: . .
than tllirty. (30) day!i' prior to. the. filing of th�.,·
.. . � .! . . � .
l�s· . . . . ' .. . .
P�titlon to Modify, ruid ii� 'other ·sub�tial .change in clrcumstaoces were aifog�· o; o�red: '� -.
.
Appell��'s,.
��d.bo�;�a�· '.�icit.;3: � discuss�· a�ve;
�hang�:.m-����1·.- ::i.
sev��-
oco��- be���·A�t-13.; ·;fo{5 and the ��
" .
gs . befoj:� �e:H�g · b �¢er· dn Jal\�
�.
. ' ,• '
10
' ,,:· . ·.··:: .
.:.:,· �· ; . ' . . .' '
' '
.February of 2,,0J6.: Moreovbr, · 4'Ii]tf Penrisylvani; child support awards ate· made in dorileHtk
..·./'. ': .·' �elations
. .
�tt��� In accorilimce'
.
with:
.
.�. �cific' statutory gmdelines.. ... The'. !,1\!idefules'_provide
. . .
-, e;�mely d�tail�a' �tt,Jctloru: for -0alculating.'spo��·-�d child support awar�fo based on the'
�b�igor·,�··n·�t.inc.�m�.f���: �all, 80.A.'3·� 1'204� 121;6-17 (Pa..
. . . . . . . .
ah. s our�e$;' .. :>�
.
Commamvealth v. .
The t� µicome is defined as in�nw
.:
'2 13) (�p�i� ��). fr��:.any
.. :. .. · ·. � .. . source hl: 23. p�
.
. . '
. . .
· : ·. · . . C.S:A §4320·. S�ci ilio·Pa.llC:.P. 19IO.i6�.i(a)�_· Norm.ally,·pursuantta the support guid�ibiesJ)t
· � . . : .party's m:�°:tblY gr�ss_.income· ii based. upon «�t least a �ix�month average of all of a· p�'a
·. ··· .. :: inCQ.rt1�/1
: .. ·. •' ·.
Pa.R.c.t·. 1910.16-2(a).
of Suppot� the Hearing Officer had assigned 'Appellant an �anung· .
'
.
. ;: : . . . .
. .
In the
. .
prior Order
,• .. . . . .
. . , :.· capacity pur�antto Pa. R.c:P. 1910J6.:.2(d)(4); However, at the hearings on the parties': ·.
. .
various· petitions, including the Petition to Modify Support, the Hearing Officer was presented
'
.' with new evidence
. about
.
the Appellant's business Income, the. business' payment of
. many of
. .' Appellant's personal, expenses, unex:pli:rined bank deposlts, and'the Hearing Officer's r.ealizatic;,n
· fuat."ruiy
. . difference. between the amount. he bill<;ld his customers for his services-and the anio:unt
. ·
' that he paid hunself fyom his \;usine$S WM not taken 'info consideration" in th� prior Order of '
· Support despite Appellant's testimony that he pa,i� h.i.nlself $3-0 an hour while the S-Corp
received $8� � hour for his work, · See Summ, Report, 3/1,Q/2016� at p.4. After.see.in_g-�t fi:le
. '
. fi.g�!,'S in App,ellant's bank acco�t Wete "wildly ,inoonsis��t'· �� his testimony' regardfng :Ws
' .' . ! ' • : ,: • '' '' , ' •' ' ' ',:·,,' ' I
' ' '
: .· current rate of compenstation, and his deteiminatlon that the Appellant lacked ciedfbility and
,, ' I, •:·
:, ,' • • • ' '• ' '• '
· transparenoy, the H�g.Offi��-concl�d¢-�at'it was app1;�p�ate t� reassess f4e.A�p�ll�fs .
'
. : ·. in���)ev�l
· · . ;efuu·� 9� ·?61/
bMbti upon �eg�oss-�c�me·���fumtr�iy�fro� pecember
'
S��: Repo�
.. .
3lfo��16� at p�S.
...
. . .. .. . '
14, io1i��; ...
. .
11
\ :. :
; . · :·
_:!11
Bogo'sian, the Pennsylvania Sriperi6; C�mrtfound.that ..
Chi!dresf v� . ·. '
.. • .. Al��mgh, thep�'f:lei��e·t�it Husb�&� Vaniiu��accqunts· w:� n�ruµanta1 ...
. . '.· . . property, B:tisba.nd.clahris·that :the'tria.1 court.treated these accounts' differently .
. $an�� ��r 11:om;naritllJ �sse!s, in pai,ti��ar, asserti�g'tlurttli�. assumpti:�ns made
. .·'
:- . :.: . . ;
.. · by the courtwere .P.61:s.upported by .e�denc� of record and tb.a(�e. val�ti�.m: .
. .. ,, ·. formula it employed Md,nc(pr�edent,i: e. •. did not follow. the formula' set forth in :.
. . · ... .. secdon 350 l(a.1);' To· support his: argqm�t; ·:aus�and.�lies .�n·;N"ey v, · Ney, � 17 .
. . . ·. . . . A.2'(86� (Pa. Stip_et,f007); contending that the' trial court considered evidence .
. . . . . . outside the record
wh�n kconcluded that Hosbruidrs post separation contributions
.' ' ..... · .: : . hadsuffered a 141.So/o"dec�e'm valu�.·Tn/vey,. the cour:us�d_infefue!.Seal'.Ches)o.
· · . . . : · .. , . .. �� in the _d,eterm.in�mi..of tpe:fathers Income'for support P.WJ>C?s�s. TJ;i� type of
i .. action was :p.ot takenpy.the court here, · Rather, ·th� court relied on the.evldenc«
. · ,'.
. . preseated; _A4$.tiQri£¥ly1·we:again point out tli�t Husbend could havei,rodoced
. . precise records showing th,e:exact amount oflosses and/or gains predicated upon
.· .
' . the·post--separati6n. po�bµtjons he made the. V'angu� "acooun�,: �ayfng . to
·. failed to 'do so, Husband cannot cor:µpl� thlrt the' court abused �ts discretion in .
. ·.: applyip.g ame�o� that wo:c4,d pro,duce·an·.equifuble resolution, See Busse v.
. · · · . . · Busse., 921 A.,id 1248; _1260 (Pa,Snper.2007) (stating that "the trial court has the . '
.. . . . autl?.CJrit{tt? 4iyid(? the' award as'th(requit{�s present in the particular case m�y
. require. "). �ving reviewed .tho reco:r.d 4i. reg¢ to this- claim, we conclude the
:·
· trlal coµrt �d.pot err in the manner it calculated the equitable distribution of the
vanguard accounts, 'th.us, ¥usband1s claim fails. . .
. 12A.3d448�_460-51 (Pa, Super. 2011). Hearing 0:fficet.Betz'svaluation method for.
_deter�g Appellant's inoome. for PUtJJ?�e� of chiid support .may have been somewl?at.un.�
1
•
. .:
this method was resorted to because of Appellant's .failure to provide docw:h�tatio� ..
bo�;e':'ety
that would accurately .demonstrate Appellant' s current jpcome lev�l. Summ, Report 3/1-0/2016t
atp.4-5.
. •, ·.·
'This Courrreviewed
. the-H�aring Officer'scalculation
.
of Appellant's.:in¢ome ici:v.�l_in .
its Me�or�durii Opinion and tb.e'Cojtrt.incorpo.i:� and·relle.s upon.theteasonlrig th�i'efu.. · · .
�om. Op. p, 1·8, 9-10, . Asffl chiiaWs, Appo1lantool. emple time to S'!PPIY thi Rearing Offi.c"! '
·i : •'Wl:th the. -�ppqrtµtg documentatkm fr}at would ba;;_ reli�ved th� H�g :Offlc�r of�� ���ity .
· _.:to. · resort
. .
·to.· using.
.
the deposi
.
� fu A,ppellaiit' s bfmk. nc�ount
. ,· . .
as. a way to calcu1at�:
....
APP�i1ane
. ..
s' .
.. ��- ..
· Tu�, th. ,�...: dourt. contends
,,
•'
�com�; 12. A.3d �t 46i.
.
. . . : a��dl��-
.that).t w� not-�iror #>.·:imp�� . . .
12
.. ,
.',·. ·�-·:. ;?'
': � . . ' ' :· : . '
. ,.",: -.,·, ..
and Appellar1t. s third
1
income
. . to AppelI�tat
.
thetime
.
of the March 14>·. 2016 Order
, . of Court
.
..
'•
', i
. : . �..
.· ..,. . .•. . . . from the.Standard
N�.Deviatio� .
', . •, . Aniount
.Guid.eline •, ,:- ..
. • • • ' • •. : ,·;,",j', ... • • • '' •••
• • :. . :.
,. ·. ·· _'.'� · . . . · .. F9urthly,. Father. argues that the· Trial Court erred when it failed to deviate· from
, .. , .. . : : ,"· . . .
-: · . .the support .
ciet�r.rqin� by· the Child. Support. Guidelines after proper consid���n of th�·
. . . ·.,:·.. . ·... ·.
·:.
I ' •, •'
e�dence produced h,Y Appellant/Father in support of the factors enumerated in PiRC.P.
·.j 910.• 16:-�(b-).' T.h�·�urt notes· at �e outset that the Hear�g Offic�· i� �� required to ·
' ,' y.
. ' • • I,', ,'.; •
. .
•
sp.e�ify iµ writing the reasons for deviating from the child support guidelines. if he .
determines.'
. . . . .· �cich of the factors as . . .
'that .a deviation is required arid ls n�t,. required 'to discus�
. ... ,•,
to why he 'd. id not .�t a deviation. The
: ..
-Penrisylvanla Superior Court has held;: .·
• ·• 1·. .
· · «[c]ontrary to Father's argument there isno required amount of detail for the trial court's
'1, ,, '
explanatlon,
. . All that is. needed is that enumerated factors. were . the
. considered and tl:µlt
'
deiiatfon is, based on those conslderations," E.R.L. ,,, c. K:L., 126 A.3d I 004, 1009 {Pa.
�uper. 2015).' Pursuant to Pa.R,Cl, 19.10.16�5,
.. · (a) Deviation, If.��. amount of support deviates from the. amount .of s.uppor.t ·
·.' . . detenajned by the guidelines; the trier of fact shall .specify, in writing or on.the
:record, the guideline .amount of support, and the reasons for1 and findip.gs 'of fact .
justifying, the amount of the .de'Viatl�n.:. . . . .
Note; The deyi.a.tion applies to tiie amo\mt of th� support obligation and not to the.
... amount of income. . . . .
. . •, (b} Facto.rs, In · deciding. wheftier to deviate fronr' th�. amount. 'of support
determined by the-'guideliues, the. tder. of fact .shall consider;!· (1) unusual needs
and unusual' fuf;ed obiigations;. (2) other
support obiigatio� .·of'the :P��es; 0)
otherfu�me inthe household; (4).:iges qfth� children; (S) ��i.�Iatlv�·:asse� �d
llabilities'"of the. parties;· .(6) med.i_cal expenses riot c6:ver��· .py insurance; {7) .
·s�da:rd µf il�g .Pf the p�� ·�d. their 'c}µldr(:ri; (�). iii .� spo1:2sal -sjipport. or ·
· alimony.pendente .lite case; the duration of the marriage from:t4e .date-0f .marriage· .
to the date .·Qf :final separati.o�;· and i (9) other relevant .and appropriate factors;.· ..
in�ludinii.the'b� i13:t�e� .of�� obild:or·childt:en, . . ... . .
.. ' ..
13