S.C.C. v. D.A.C. ( 2017 )

J-A30029-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
S.C.C., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
D.A.C.,
Appellee No. 754 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered April 27, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 2014-5-0491
BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2017
Appellant, S.C.C. (hereinafter “Mother”), appeals from the order
entered on April 27, 2016, modifying child and spousal support obligations of
D.A.C. (hereinafter “Father”). Upon review, we quash as interlocutory the
appeal as it relates to spousal support, affirm the trial court’s upward
adjustment of Father’s income, and remand for the recalculation of child
support.
The trial court set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows:
Mother and [Father] are the parents of one biological son
and two adopted children. Father pays child support and
also owes Mother spousal support. During the fall of 2015,
both parties sought modification. Father also filed a
[c]omplaint for [s]upport against Mother because of a
recent change in custody. At a hearing on February 11,
2016, all of these issues were addressed. Mother timely
filed [e]xceptions. The Domestic Relations Master
J-A30029-16
(hereinafter [“the Master”]) determined the following
relevant findings. Mother works at Edward Jones, where
she earns $14[.00] per hour. Father runs his own business,
ProTouch, and keeps records with bank statements.
Father’s total deposits for 2015 equaled $162,866.32 and
did not match his business deposits. Therefore, the
[Master] calculated Father’s business deposits and
determined that $127,276.48 was his gross annual income.
She noted that future hearings would require complete and
accurate financial records, not just bank statements. The
[Master] issued a three-tier[ed] [o]rder. From October 21,
2015 to December 31, 2015, Father owed $2,257.70 per
month; from January 1, 2016, to February 3, 2016, Father’s
obligation rose to $2,742.18; and after February 3, [2016,]
the order took into account split custody and Father’s
obligation fell to $1,962.96.
Mother filed [e]xceptions to the [Master’s] [r]eport and
[r]ecommendations on March 3, 2016. Oral argument on
Mother’s [e]xceptions was heard by [the trial court] on April
26, 2016. By [o]rder of [c]ourt dated April 27, 2016, [the
trial court] denied Mother’s [e]xceptions, and adjusted
Father’s gross income upwards to $130,027.85.
Mother filed her [n]otice of [a]ppeal and [c]oncise
[s]tatement of [e]rrors [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal, on May
10, 2016. [The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on June 6, 2016.]
Trial Court Opinion, 6/6/2016, at 1-2 (record citations and footnote
omitted).
On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an error of law
and/or abused its discretion in failing to calculate
[Father’s] child support and spousal support obligations
using gross income for [Father] for 2015 of $162,866.32,
per [Father’s] own testimony and two (2) exhibits
[Father] himself submitted during the February 11, 2016
hearing before the [] Master, all of which confirmed that
[Father’s] income for 2015 as $162,886.32.
-2-
J-A30029-16
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an error of law
and/or abused its discretion in failing to calculate
[Father’s] child support and spousal support obligations
using annual gross income for [Father] higher than the
amount set forth by the [] Master, $127,276.48, despite
the fact that even [Father] acknowledged that his gross
income for 2015 was higher than $127,276.48.
3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an error of law
and/or abused its discretion in failing to calculate
[Father’s] child support and spousal support obligations
using annual gross income higher for [Father] than the
amount set forth by the [] Master, $127,276.48, despite
the fact that the [t]rial [c]ourt made a specific finding in
the April 26, 2016 [o]rder that [Father’s] income was not
correctly calculated by the [] Master, and that [Father’s]
income for 2015 was in fact higher than the amount
calculated by the [] Master.
Mother’s Brief at 8.
“Before addressing the above issues, we must first determine the
appealability of the [] support order because questions concerning
appealability of an order go to the jurisdiction of [this Court] to hear the
appeal and may be raised sua sponte.” Capuano v. Capuano, 823 A.2d
995, 998 (Pa. Super. 2003). Where the trial court enters an allocated order
of child support and spousal support, the child support portion of the order is
appealable before the entry of a divorce decree. See id. “[M]atters
pertaining to spousal support are interlocutory and unappealable prior to the
entry of a divorce decree.” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 762 A.2d 766, 769 (Pa.
Super. 2000). Here, at oral argument, the parties stipulated that a divorce
decree is forthcoming, but has not yet been entered in this case. Thus, we
lack jurisdiction to entertain Mother’s spousal support claims. Accordingly,
-3-
J-A30029-16
we quash the appeal pertaining to spousal support as interlocutory. As
such, we confine our appellate review to Mother’s claims related to child
support.
Mother’s three issues regarding child support are interrelated, so we
will examine them together. Father is self-employed. Mother’s Brief at 10,
13. At the support hearing, Father produced bank statements as evidence of
his income, and twice testified, that his 2015 gross business receipts totaled
$162,886.32. Id. at 13. Mother avers Father did not offer “evidence to
suggest that his income should be lower than the amount he had estimated
and set forth on his exhibits and in his own testimony[.]” Id. Mother
argues the Master noted Father’s inadequate record-keeping methods and
recalculated Father’s 2015 income “as best as could be determined” to an
amount of $127,276.48, despite Father’s evidence of his own income for
2015. Id. at 14. Mother claims that even if the Master believed Father’s
estimate of his own income for 2015 was too high, Father should be held to
his own calculations, which set his income at $162,886.32. Id. As such,
Mother argues that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in adopting
the Master’s recommendations. Mother further argues the trial court erred
by determining that Father’s 2015 income should reflect an increased sum of
$130,027.85, rather than the Master’s $127,276.48 calculation. Id. at 15-
17. Lastly, Mother contends that because the trial court agreed to an
upward departure from the Master’s calculations of Father’s 2015 income,
-4-
J-A30029-16
the trial court erred by then failing to recalculate the monthly child support
obligation to reflect that increase. Id. at 16-17.
Our standard of review in child support matters is well settled:
Appellate review of support matters is governed by an
abuse of discretion standard. 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. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error
of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is
overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is
manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,
prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of
record. The principal goal in child support matters is to
serve the best interests of the children through the
provision of reasonable expenses.
J.P.D. v. W.E.D., 114 A.3d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2015).
Moreover, this Court has previously determined:
The report of the master is entitled to great consideration in
that [s]he has heard and seen the witnesses, and it should
not be lightly disregarded.
It is advisory only, however, and the reviewing court is not
bound by it and it does not come to the court with any
preponderate weight or authority which must be overcome.
The reviewing court must consider the evidence, its weight
and the credibility of the witnesses, de novo. The Master's
report is not controlling, either on the lower court or on the
appellate court.
Rothrock v. Rothrock, 765 A.2d 400, 404 (Pa. Super. 2000) (internal
citations and original brackets omitted).
Here, the trial court determined that the Master erred in calculating
Father’s 2015 income because she relied upon Father’s handwritten
statement of his business expenses, instead of Father’s bank records. Trial
-5-
J-A30029-16
Court Opinion, 6/6/2016, at 5. Upon review of the record, we agree and
discern no abuse of discretion. At the support hearing, Father presented a
handwritten statement of his business deposits, business expenses, and
income taxes. The Master relied upon this document in making her income
determination. While Father’s documentation did claim his total business
deposits totaled $162,886.32 in 2015, this amount did not account for
business expenses. Thus, the Master factored Father’s business expenses
into its calculation and arrived at an annual income of $127,276.48. The
trial court later determined that Father’s bank statements, which Father also
entered into evidence at the support hearing, better reflected his business
expenses and recalculated Father’s 2015 income as $130,027.85. In
viewing all the evidence de novo, we discern no abuse of discretion.
However, when the trial court agreed to an upward departure from the
Master’s income finding, it also adopted the Master’s monthly child support
computation. This was in error. Here, the trial court determined that
Father’s 2015 income was roughly $2,800.00 more than found by the
Master. Thus, the amount of monthly child support payments must be
modified to account for this additional income. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s determination that Father’s 2015 income was $130,027.85, but
remand the case for recalculation of monthly child support.
Spousal support appeal quashed. Child support order affirmed in part,
vacated in part, and remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-6-
J-A30029-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/14/2017
-7-