F.A.N. v. S.U. ( 2017 )

J-S60029-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
F.A.N. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
S.U. :
:
Appellant : No. 477 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): FD-15-000585
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017
Appellant, S.U. (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the February 21, 2017
Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that
ordered Mother to pay a monthly child support obligation of $804.38. After
careful review, we affirm.
Mother and Appellee, F.A.N. (“Father”), share legal and physical
custody of their three-year-old child, F.C.N.N. (“Child”). In October 2016,
Father filed a Complaint for Support seeking child support.1 On December
13, 2016, after both parties appeared at a support conference, the hearing
officer issued a child support Report and Recommendation, which
____________________________________________
1Father’s Complaint for Support displays a “filed” stamp date of October 28,
2016, but appears on the docket on October 26, 2016.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60029-17
recommended that Mother pay Father $893.75 in child support per month.2
Mother filed timely Exceptions. On February 21, 2007, the trial court issued
an Order sustaining Mother’s Exceptions in part, granting a deviation for
Mother’s monthly fixed student loan obligation, and reducing Mother’s
monthly child support obligation to $804.38.3
Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Mother raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Wheter [sic] the trial court failed to provide an on[-]the[-]
record or in[-]writing explanation as to how the net figures
were reached and what formula was used to reach the
support obligation and failure to consider the [Self-Support
Reserve (“SSR”)] of $931[.00]?
II. Whether the trial court failed to consider that [Mother] was
responsible for the “mortgage” at the marital residence
which also includes the utilities that must be paid for the
children to have a place to live?
III. Whether the trial court failed to consider that [Mother] had
to provide for 2 children that resides [sic] with Mother [for]
which she has 100% responsibility?
Mother’s Brief at 5 (some capitalization omitted).
Appellate review of a child support order is very narrow. We may
reverse a support order only if we find that the Order cannot be sustained on
____________________________________________
2 The Report and Recommendation set arrears at $1,963.80.
3 The 2/21/17 Order adjusted arrears to $1,761.59.
-2-
J-S60029-17
any valid ground. Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768, 772 (Pa. Super. 2008).
This Court will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court
“absent an abuse of the discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the
support order.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). “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.” Arbet v.
Arbet, 863 A.2d 34, 39 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation and quotation omitted).
Importantly, we acknowledge, “the duty to support one's child is absolute,
and the purpose of child support is to promote the child's best interests.”
Id. (citation and quotation omitted).
In her first issue on appeal, Mother avers that the trial court failed to
provide an explanation on the record as to how the child support figures
were determined and failed “to consider the SSR of $931[00.]” Mother’s
Brief at 9.
In support cases, “there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount
of an award for support which results from the application of the Support
Guidelines is correct.” Landis v. Landis, 691 A.2d 939, 941 (Pa. Super.
1997) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, “where the facts demonstrate that
this award is unjust or inappropriate, the trier of fact has the discretion to
rebut that presumption and deviate from the guidelines.” Id. at 941
(citations omitted). Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-5 provides, in pertinent part,
-3-
J-S60029-17
“[i]f the amount of support deviates from the amount of support determined
by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall specify, in writing or on the record,
the guideline amount of support, and the reasons for, and findings of fact
justifying, the amount of the deviation.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-5(a).
The SSR is based on the federal poverty level for one person.
Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-1 cmt. D (2010). The SSR is built into the Rule
1910.16-3 child support schedule and adjusts the basic support obligation to
prevent the obligor's net income from falling below the SSR, or $931.00 per
month. Id. See also Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-3 cmt. (2013) (Explaining that
the basic child support schedule has been amended to reflect an increase in
the SSR to $931.00.).
Instantly, the hearing officer issued a Report and Recommendation,
which stated, “[t]he guideline is recommended” and advised that Mother pay
Father child support in the amount of $893.75 per month based on the
parties’ incomes and the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines
(“Guidelines”). Hearing Summary, dated 12/22/16. Upon consideration of
Mother’s Exceptions, the trial court issued an order granting Mother a
“deviation under [Rule] 1910.16-5(b)(1) for her monthly fixed student loan
obligation of $721.00” and reduced Mother’s monthly support obligation
from $893.75 to $804.38 retroactive to October 26, 2016. Order, 2/21/17.
The trial court specified in writing the reasons for the deviation in
compliance with Rule 1910.16-5 and, thus, we find no abuse of discretion.
See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(a).
-4-
J-S60029-17
As to Mother’s claim that the trial court failed to consider the SSR of
$931.00, Mother fails to cite any authority to support this contention, and,
thus we find this claim waived. See Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d
362, 371-72 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (“When an appellant fails to develop his
issue in an argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the issue is
waived.”). Even if Mother had properly developed the issue, it would
warrant no relief. The trial court observed that the SSR is “simply not
applicable in this matter” because Mother had a gross income of over
$100,000.00. Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/17, at 3. The record supports this
finding. Accordingly, this issue is meritless.
Mother next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to grant a
downward deviation in her monthly child support obligation because Mother
occupies the martial residence and is responsible for paying the mortgage
and utility bills. Mother’s Brief at 16. Mother acknowledges that pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1910.16-6(e), the court may order a downward deviation if the
mortgage payment exceeds 25% of the obligor’s monthly net income. Id.
Mother concedes that her mortgage payment is $823.00 per month, which
does not exceed 25% of the trial court’s monthly net income assessment of
$6,254.00 per month. Id. at 11, 17. Mother nevertheless argues that she
qualifies for a deviation because her mortgage and household utility bills
combined exceed 25% of her monthly net income. Id. at 11, 17. Mother’s
argument lacks merit.
-5-
J-S60029-17
Rule 1910.16-6 states, in pertinent part, that “the term ‘mortgage’
shall include first mortgages, real estate taxes and homeowners'
insurance[.]” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-6(e). The comment to the Rule
clarifies that “the inclusion of second mortgages, home equity loans and
other obligations secured by the marital residence is within the discretion of
the trier of fact based upon the circumstances of the case.” Pa.R.C.P. No.
1910.16-6(e) cmt. (2005).
The trial court opined:
Clearly, the Guidelines attribute the customary meaning to
the term “mortgage.” That meaning does not include
utilities and car payments or any other unsecured
obligations or expenses incurred after separation, as
Mother suggests.
Trial Ct. Op., 4/26/17, at 4. We agree and conclude that Mother’s argument
lacks merit.
In her final issue, Mother avers that the trial court failed to consider
that Mother has to provide for two children from a previous relationship that
reside with her full-time. Mother’s Brief at 18. Mother argues that she is
entitled to a “multiple family” downward deviation. Id. at 18-20. We
disagree.
The “multiple family” deviation rules provide, in pertinent part,
“[w]hen the total of the obligor's basic support obligations exceeds 50% of
his or her monthly net income, the court may consider a proportional
reduction of these obligations.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-7(b). For purposes
-6-
J-S60029-17
of Rule 1910.16-7, the trial court should calculate obligor’s basic support
obligation using only the basic guideline amounts of support as determined
by the Guidelines, without including additional expenses that the court may
add to this basic amount. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-7(c).
Upon consideration of a multiple family deviation, the trial court
concluded: “this downward deviation does not apply when an obligor’s
support obligations are less than 50% of net income . . . Mother is simply
not entitled to this deviation.” Trial Ct. Op., 4/26/17, at 5. A review of the
record supports the trial court’s conclusions. Mother’s monthly net income is
$6,254.00; to qualify for a multiple family deviation her basic child support
obligation would have to exceed $3,127.00 per month, which it does not.
In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
ordered Mother to pay a monthly child support obligation of $804.38 to
Father. Accordingly, we affirm.4
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
4 In light of our disposition, Mother’s “Petition Requesting to Assign a Panel”
is denied as moot.
-7-
J-S60029-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/2017
-8-