S.L.W. v. S.R.W. ( 2014 )

J-A07008-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
S.L.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
S.R.W.
Appellant No. 1520 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order July 23, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Civil Division at No(s): 04-DR-158
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J. , DONOHUE, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2014
entered in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm in part,
and vacate and remand in part.
The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural
history of this case as follows:
Father is a small business owner, operating the business
known as Herr Ridge, Inc. for thirty-five years. The
business consists of a restaurant and a school bus
company. Mother[, Appellee,] works at Sportsman
Liquidation and has been employed there for four and one-
Income Tax Return lists gross receipts of $1,631,446,
gross profit of $1,144,453, and total income of
U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return states a negative
taxable income value. For 2011, Father paid himself a
salary from his business of $23,538.54, including
$17,313.76 compensation and $6,224.78 for insurance.
J-A07008-14
For tax year 2012, Father paid himself $12,000
compensat
gross monthly income is $2,346.43 with a net monthly
income of $1,879.78.
On March 24, 2004, Mother filed a Complaint for Support,
S.L.W., born [September 1998]. A support conference
was scheduled for April 14, 2004. By Order of Court dated
Support without prejudice because Mother withdrew the
action and indicated in an Affidavit of Dismissal that the
parties were reconciling.
On July 6, 2004, Mother again filed a Complaint for
Support, requesting that the prior support complaint be
child. A support conference was scheduled for July 19,
2004. By Order of Court dated July 15, 2004, the support
conference was continued for ninety days pending
settlement of the parties. The Order of Court indicated
that if the parties reached a settlement outside of
Domestic Relations or if Mother did not make a request to
proceed with such action during this time, the Complaint
would be dismissed and case closed after ninety days. By
Order of Court dated November 24, 2004, this [c]ourt
prejudice because Mother did not request that Domestic
Relations address the Complaint.
On February 23, 2005, Mother filed a Complaint for
Support. A support conference was scheduled for March
15, 2005. An Interim Support Order was entered on
March 9, 2005, where F
at $570.00 per month for child support.
consent, Attorney Henry O. Heiser, III, Esquire was
granted permission to withdraw as counsel for Mother.
By Order of Court dated September 30, 2005, a support
modification conference was scheduled for October 24,
2005. Both parties appeared at the support modification
conference and both parties submitted materials analyzing
-2-
J-A07008-14
onference officer
and held Father to $24,000 gross per year as taxable
income and $108,223 per year as non-taxable income
which included add-backs for rental income and two
depreciation deductions. By Order of Court dated
November 23, 2005, a Modified Support Order was
per month, consisting of $1,165.00 in child support and
$100 in arrears.
On December 8, 2005, Father filed a Demand for Hearing,
alleging that the conference officer made several errors in
calculating the support order. By Order of Court dated
December 8, 2005, a de novo hearing was scheduled for
January 26, 2006. On December 9, 2005, Father filed a
Petition for Stay, requesting this [c]ourt to enter a stay
over the November 23, 2005 support order. A hearing on
y
Order of Court dated December 30, 2005, the January 26,
2006 de novo hearing was rescheduled for January 31,
2006. By Order of Court dated January 27, 2006, the de
novo hearing was rescheduled for March 6, 2006. By
Order of Court dated March 3, 2006, the de novo hearing
was rescheduled for May 4, 2006. By Orders of Court
dated May 1, 2006 and May 2, 2006, the de novo hearing
was rescheduled for August 3, 2006.
By Praecipe filed May 25, 2006, Attorney Kollas withdrew
his appearance for Father and Martha Baum Walker,
Esquire, entered her appearance for Father.
The de novo hearing was held on August 3, 2006. By
Order of Court dated August 16, 2006, this [c]ourt directed
the Adams County Domestic Relations Office to prepare a
PACSES generated child support order effective to
obligation being reduced from $1,165 per month to $960
per month, plus $50 per month for arrears. This [c]ourt
$9,071.72, and noted in the August 16, 2006 Order that
-3-
J-A07008-14
rather than year 2005 tax rates. The PACSES generated
support order memorializing this [c]
filed on August 17, 2006.
On August 31, 2006, a Petition for Contempt was filed,
alleging that Father had failed to comply with the support
order. By Order of Court dated August 31, 2006, a
contempt hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2006.
On September 11, 2006, Mother filed a Petition for
Modification of an Existing Support Order, requesting a
review and increase in support due to Father acquiring a
new bus route since the last order had been established.
By Order of Court dated September 11, 2006, a support
modification conference was scheduled for October 4,
2006. By Order of Court dated September 14, 2006, the
conference was rescheduled to October 25, 2006. By
Order of Court dated September 21, 2006, this [c]ourt
schedule
for November 8, 2006. By separate Order of Court dated
September 21, 2006, Father was ordered to appear for a
hearing on contempt on November 8, 2006, to be held
contemporaneously with the hearing on Mothe
On September 13, 2006, Father filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and a Motion for Stay of Enforcement. By
Order of Court dated September 21, 2006, hearings on
be held contemporaneously with the hearings previously
scheduled.
contempt hearing was scheduled for December 6, 2006.
By separate Order of Court dated November 8, 2006, this
n for
Modification to December 6, 2006. By Order of Court
dated December 7, 2006, the Petition for Contempt
against Father was dismissed because Father had purged
the contempt.
On December 6, 2006, this [c]ourt held the de novo
hearing. At the hearing, the parties reached an interim
agreement for support, with Father being responsible for
$667 per month for current child support and $200 per
-4-
J-A07008-14
month arrears, totaling $867 per month. This agreement
was memorialized in an Order of Court dated December 7,
2006.
for Modification of an Existing Support Order, requesting a
decrease in support due to alleged reduction in income.
Office on January 15, 2008. On January 14, 2008, an
Order of Court was entered scheduling a conference on
2008, Attorney Walker filed her Praecipe for Withdrawal of
Appearance. By Order of Court dated February 7, 2008,
the February 11, 2008 conference was continued for ninety
days pending a possible settlement. The Order indicated
that if no settlement was reached during that time, the
conference would be rescheduled.
By Order of Court dated June 30, 2008, the parties having
reached an agreement in regards to child support which
included the dismissal of the Order for Support with all
credits and arrears waived by the parties, this [c]ourt
dismissed the action without prejudice and with no arrears
or credits.
For the period of time from June 30, 2008 until November
21, 2012, the parties operated under their private
agreement regarding child support with no involvement
from Domestic Relations or this [c]ourt.
On November 21, 2012, Mother filed a new Complaint for
case. By Order of Court dated November 21, 2012, a
conference was scheduled for December 20, 2012. By
Order of Court dated December 10, 2012, the conference
was rescheduled to January 10, 2013. On January 10,
2013, the support conference was held.
By Order of Court dated January 31, 2013, a support order
was entered requiring Father to pay $668 per month in
child support and $67 per month in arrears, totaling $735
per month. The conference officer determined that
Father provided health insurance for the child. The
-5-
J-A07008-14
conference officer averaged the results of two separate
conferen
bankruptcy filings, the United States Bankruptcy Court
Official Form 6-Summary of Schedules (hereinafter
Current Income
stated his income in both the Summary of Schedules and
Schedule I as $10,047.16 per month. The conference
listed wages, $24,000 rent add-back and $37,544
depreciation expense for tax year 2011, totaling $85,082
in income. The conference officer determined the
guideline support amounts for both income calculations,
$701 and $635 respectively, and averaged them to
determine a recommended support amount of $668 per
month. The conference officer noted in the Order that the
recommended support amount was close to the $667 per
month support amount as agreed to by the parties the last
time the case has been open through Domestic Relations.
On February 11, 2013, Father filed a Demand for Hearing
De Novo
correctly, that Father was not credited for arrears
remitted, and that Mother had more income than as
determined by the conference officer. By Order of Court
dated February 11, 2013, a de novo hearing was
scheduled for March 6, 2013. By Order of Court dated
March 7, 2013, the de novo hearing was rescheduled for
April 3, 2013. By Orders of Court dated April 3, 2013 and
April 4, 2013, the de novo hearing was continued to June
6, 2013.
On May 20, 2013, a Petition for Contempt was filed
alleging that Father had failed to pay support as ordered.
By Order of Court dated May 20, 2013, a hearing on the
contempt was scheduled for June 26, 2013.
The de novo hearing was held on June 6, 2013. Both
parties testified. After the hearing, this [c]ourt entered an
Order of Court dated June 6, 2013, providing each party
until Friday, June 21, 2013 to file a memorandum on any
relevant matter regarding the case, directing Mother to
-6-
J-A07008-14
deliver to the Domestic Relations Office a copy of her 2012
federal income tax return as filed, including all schedules,
no later than June 7, 2013, and stating that this [c]ourt
would decide the appropriate amount of support to be paid
and also decide the issue of which party is entitled to the
dependency exemption for the child, effective with
calendar year 2012. By Order of Court dated June 7,
2013, an additional hearing was scheduled for July 31,
2013.
On June 18, 2013, Fa
income was $25,159.00, or $2,096.00 per month,
consisting of $12,000.00 in wages, $11,411.00 in real
estate depreciation and $1,748.00 in real estate profit.
Father alleged that his income for 2012 was less than his
2011 income, and stated that there should be no support
month. Father also argued that he should be able to claim
the child as a dependent each year because he pays
$305.00 per month in health insurance for the child, all of
of her support.
On June 17, 2013, Domestic Relations received a Motion
for Continuance from Father, asking this [c]ourt to
continue the contempt hearing scheduled for June 26,
2013. By Order of Court dated June 20, 2013, the
contempt hearing was continued to July 31, 2013.
On July 23, 2013, this [c]ourt entered its Order of Court
regarding child support. This [c]ourt determined that
listed wages, $24,000 rent add-back, and $37,544
2011 personal and corporate federal income tax returns,
-2. This [c]ourt
monthly support obligation effective November 19, 2012,
the date that Mother filed her Complaint for Support,
through March 31, 2013, is $635 per month plus $100 per
incom
support obligation would increase on April 1, 2013 from
-7-
J-A07008-14
$635 per month to $768 per month based on an income of
$103,605, consisting of $18,480 listed wages, $24,332
rent add-back, and $60,793 depreciation. This [c]ourt
exercised its discretion to deviate from the recommended
support obligation effective April 1, 2013 would remain at
$635 plus $100 arrears per month, for a monthly total of
$735 per month in support. This [c]ourt also determined
that effective for the 2012 calendar year, Mother is entitled
to the dependency exemption for the child in even-
numbered tax years, and Father is entitled to the
dependency exemption for the child in odd-numbered tax
years. By Order of Court dated July 30, 2013, the PACSES
generated child support order was entered.
After hearing, and by Order of Court dated July 31, 2013,
Father acknowledged contempt and sentencing was
deferred to September 25, 2013. By Orders of Court
sentencing hearing was continued to October 2, 2013.
On August 22, 2013, Father timely filed his Notice of
Appeal, appealing this [c]o
Court. By Order of Court dated August 22, 2013, this
[c]ourt directed Father to file and serve on this Judge a
concise statement of [errors] complained of on appeal. On
September 9, 2013, Father timely filed his Statement of
[Errors] Complained of on Appeal.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed on October 11, 2013, at 1-9) (internal footnotes
and citations to the record omitted).
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT MAKE AN ERROR OF LAW/ABUSE
OF DISCRETION IN CONSIDERING AS INCOME FOR
[FATHER] THE DEPRECIATION OF ASSETS HELD BY HERR
RIDGE, INC., WHICH CONSIST OF EQUIPMENT,
MACHINES, AND SUPPLIES USED BY THE BUSINESS,
WHERE (A) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THOSE CASH
FLOWS COULD HAVE INSTEAD BEEN DISPERSED TO
FATHER, (B) FATHER SHOWED THE EXPENDITURES WERE
NECESSARY FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE
-8-
J-A07008-14
BUSINESS, AND (C) THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AFTER
THE DESIGNATED DEPRECIATION PERIOD WILL BE DE
MINIMUS?
DID THE TRIAL COURT MAKE AN ERROR OF LAW/ABUSE
OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ASSIGN THE DEPENDENCY
EXEMPTION TO FATHER EVERY YEAR WHERE FATHER PAYS
THE MAJORITY OF THE LUDING
MEDICAL INSURANCE?
The well-settled standard of review in a child support case provides:
When evaluating a support order, this Court may only
cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We 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. 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
interests.
Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284, 291 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc) (quoting
Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294, 297 (Pa.Super. 2007)).
In his first issue, Father argues an analysis under Labar v. Labar, 557
Pa. 54, 731 A.2d 1252 (1999) is required to ascertain the true nature and
to examine whether Father had sheltered cash flow that should be attributed
to his income. Rather, Father alleges the court improperly included the
depr
-9-
J-A07008-14
assets have significant value at the end of their life. Father contends he
provided the court with specific documentation to show the nature of the
equipment depreciated, but the court ignored his testimony regarding the
difficult to construe that the buses retain significant value after their
depreciation period of five years because, after seven years, the buses have
little value to Herr Ridge, Inc. and eventually will be worth only scrap value.
Father maintains including the depreciation for buses as income available to
Father was error because the court cannot attribute as income funds which
are not actually available to or received by Father, and there has been no
evidence or analysis of whether the depreciation at issue represented
sheltered assets.
of $635 per month. Specifically, Father asserts Mother had primary custody
in 2006, whereas now Mother and Fathe
income in 2005 was $141,403.00 as compared to his total income of only
$85,083.00 in 2011. Father concludes the depreciation should be not
are constrained to vacate and remand for further proceedings.
- 10 -
J-A07008-14
-2. Pennsylvania Rule
of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2 provides:
Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of
Net Income
* * *
(a) Monthly Gross Income. Monthly gross income is
ordinarily based upon at least a six-month average of all of
support law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302, and includes income
from any source. The statute lists many types of income
including, but not limited to:
(1) wages, salaries, bonuses, fees and commissions;
(2) net income from business or dealings in property;
(3) interest, rents, royalties, and dividends;
(4) pensions and all forms of retirement;
(5) income from an interest in an estate or trust;
(6) Social Security disability benefits, Social Security
retirement benefits, temporary and permanent disability
compensation and unemployment
compensation;
(7) alimony if, in the discretion of the trier of fact,
inclusion of part or all of it is appropriate; and
* * *
(8) other entitlements to money or lump sum awards,
without regard to source, including lottery winnings,
income tax refunds, insurance compensation or
settlements; awards and verdicts; and any form of
payment due to and collectible by an individual regardless
of source.
* * *
- 11 -
J-A07008-14
(c) Monthly Net Income.
(1) Unless otherwise provided in these rules, the court
shall deduct only the following items from monthly gross
income to arrive at net income:
(A) federal, state, and local income taxes;
(B) unemployment compensation taxes and Local
Services Taxes (LST);
(C) F.I.C.A. payments (Social Security, Medicare
and Self-Employment taxes) and non-voluntary
retirement payments;
(D) mandatory union dues; and
(E) alimony paid to the other party.
(2) In computing a spousal support or alimony pendente
lite obligation, the court shall deduct from the obl
monthly net income all of his or her child support
obligations and any amounts of spousal support, alimony
pendente lite or alimony being paid to former spouses.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a), (c). Income is defined as:
compensation for services, including, but not limited to,
wages, salaries, bonuses, fees, compensation in kind,
commissions and similar items; income derived from
business; gains derived from dealings in property;
interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; income
from life insurance and endowment contracts; all forms of
retirement; pensions; income from discharge of
indebtedness; distributive share of partnership gross
income; income in respect of a decedent; income from an
interest in an estate or trust; military retirement benefits;
railroad employment retirement benefits; social security
benefits; temporary and permanent disability benefits;
other entitlements to money or lump sum awards, without
regard to source, including lottery winnings; income tax
refunds; insurance compensation or settlements; awards
- 12 -
J-A07008-14
or verdicts; and any form of payment due to and
collectible by an individual regardless of source.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302.
his children, a trial
perquisites, and the true nature and extent of his property and financial
resources. Labar, supra at 59, 731 A.2d at 1254 (citing Commonwealth
ex rel. Gitman v. Gitman, 428 Pa. 387, 237 A.2d 181 (1967)).
[I]n computing income available for support when the
payor owns his own business, income must reflect actual
available financial resources and not the often times
fictional financial picture which develops as the result of
depreciation deductions taken aga
permitted by the federal income tax laws. Otherwise put,
taxed income.
Heisey v. Heisey, 633 A.2d 211, 212 (Pa.Super. 1993) (quoting McAuliffe
v. McAuliffe, 613 A.2d 20, 22 (Pa.Super. 1992)) (emphasis in original).
Id. (citing Coffey v. Coffey, 575
A.2d 587 (Pa.Super. 1990)).
income tax law without proof of actual loss, will not automatically be
deducted from gross income for purposes of determining awards of alimony
and equitable di Cunningham v. Cunningham, 548 A.2d 611,
- 13 -
J-A07008-14
612 (Pa.Super. 1988) (quoting Commonwealth ex rel. Hagerty v. Eyster,
429 A.2d 665, 668-
should be deducted from gross income only where they reflect an actual
Id. at 613. Thus, a calculation of disposable income for purposes of support
will include federal tax deductions, unless the obligor proves the tax
deductions (depreciation)
gross personal income. Labar, supra at 60, 731 A.2d at 1255.
income from the support obligation calculation by improperly retaining cash
flows within the corporation rather than disbursing them to the
Id.Id.
Depreciation is an accounting mechanism which allocates
the original cost of an asset to the periods in which the
asset is used. Depreciation does not result in income.
Rather, when depreciation expense is claimed, taxable
income is decreased by the amount so claimed, resulting in
se in
income.
The presence of a depreciation deduction (on a federal
income tax return) or a depreciation expense (on
consolidated financial statements) simply signals that a
corporation has made capital expenditures, the costs of
which it seeks to allocate to the periods in which the assets
underlying the capital expenditures are being used. Only
by asserting that the capital expenditures, for which
depreciation deductions are currently being claimed, were
made with cash flows that should have instead been
- 14 -
J-A07008-14
disbursed to the shareholders, can it be argued that a
corporation is improperly sheltering cash flows.
Id. at 61-62, 731 A.2d at 1255-56 (emphasis in original).
In situations where the support obligee contends that the
in a closely held corporation is
an appraisal of the true nature and extent of the support
aisal can
in the corporation, or it can take the form of an allegation
that the corporation has sheltered cash flows by not
making disbursements to its shareholders. When it is
alleged that the corporation has sheltered cash flows, the
sources of those cash flows must be identified[,] i.e., it
must be shown that the cash flows could have been
disbursed to shareholders. In cases where cash flows
which could have been disbursed to shareholders have
instead been disbursed for business expenses, the
corporation must show that the expenditures were
necessary for the continued operation and smooth running
of the business in order to refute an allegation that the
corporation has sheltered cash flows.
Id. at 63-
whether the depreciation and depletion expenses reflected an actual
any such marginal income created through tax savings was reinvested in the
Id. at 64-65, 731 A.2d at
her they
separately and the trial
- 15 -
J-A07008-14
Id. at 65, 731 A.2d
at 1257-58 (emphasis in original).
Instantly, in its opinion, the trial court explained it did not make a
Labar
return. (See Trial Court Opinion at 15.) Nevertheless, the court recognized:
the depreciation, and Father did not provide the
conference officer or this [c]ourt with any specific
documentation indicating the nature of the equipment
being depreciated. Father did provide to the conference
officer a Form 4562 Depreciation and Amortization 2011,
which was also admitted as an exhibit at the de novo
hearing. The Form 4562, in Line 6(a) Description of
incomplete.
business has made capital expenditures it wishes to
allocate to that year. See Labar, [supra at 66,] 731 A.2d
at 1258. It is not clear from the record if Father
actually made these capital expenditures or whether
the listed depreciation expense is sheltered cash
flow. Father alleges that the depreciation is for
equipment and rolling stock, including the school buses
Father owns as part of his business. Father testified that
the depreciation listed on his tax returns came from
testified that the depreciable life of the school buses and
vans would be five to seven years. Father testified that
the typical lifespan of that equipment was five to seven
years, and at most ten years. When asked by his counsel
if school buses were similar to real estate regarding
depreciation, Fath
- 16 -
J-A07008-14
Generally, after equipment is fully depreciated, it has little
or no value and a reduced basis, known as the scrap or
salvage value. On the other hand, real estate retains its
intrinsic value after depreciation, and often increases in
able to get use and value from his school buses after they
have been fully depreciated. According to Father, a school
bus on a five year depreciation schedule can be operated
for up to ten years, giving Father a useful life of his
equipment up to double the length of time it takes to
depreciate the equipment. Assuming that the depreciation
expense is not representative of sheltered cash flow, and
that the equipment being depreciated by Father is all
school bus to up to ten years indicates that the school
buses have intrinsic value at the end of their depreciable
life.
depreciation, even if not representative of sheltered
support purposes because the assets Father alleges
to be depreciating have significant value at the end
of their depreciated life.
(Trial Court Opinion at 15-16) (internal citations to the record omitted)
(emphasis added). Moreover, the court recognized the possible necessity for
remand in this case, based on Labar. (See id. at 20.) On this record, we
proceedings to allow the c Labar,
with a detailed analysis capable of review.
In his second issue, Father argues he should have been granted the
child dependency tax exemption for every year, rather than every other
year. Father contends he presented evidence in the form of federal tax
returns completed with and without the dependency tax exemption, which
- 17 -
J-A07008-14
proved Father would receive an additional $3,782.00 in tax refund if he
claimed the child yearly as a dependent. Father alleges Mother did not
refute his claims or assert that her use of the dependency exemption would
result in a similar benefit because Mother grosses only about $28,000.00
annually. Father avers that, even if an analysis of the tax return benefits
ordered support payments
should make the evidence on this issue weigh more heavily in his favor.
insurance. Father argues that, while Mother also incurs monthly nurturing
and child-raising expenses, Father carries a higher proportional share of the
her concludes the court should have awarded him
the federal child dependency tax exemption every year. We cannot agree.
Rule 1910.16-2(f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of
Net Income
(f) Dependency Tax Exemption. In order to maximize
the total income available to the parties and children, the
court may, as justice and fairness require, award the
- 18 -
J-A07008-14
federal child dependency tax exemption to the non-
custodial parent, or to either parent in cases of equally
shared custody, and order the other party to execute the
waiver required by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A.
§ 152(e). The tax consequences resulting from an award
of the child dependency exemption must be considered in
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-
s in the best position to determine
May v. May, 837 A.2d 566, 570 (Pa.Super. 2003)
Id.Nev
Id.Instantly, the trial court explained its decision as follows:
The parties follow a shared equal physical custody
schedule. The record indicates that both parents provide
dical insurance. Father
testified that he pays $300 or $305 dollars per month for
of her school lunches. Mother testified that she pays for all
undergarments and personal hygiene products. Mother
dance activity, as well as clothing and equipment for the
dance activity. Mother testified that she pays for the
even if the child is attending the birthday party while
- 19 -
J-A07008-14
Father has custody. Mother testified that she supplies all
the child is with Father, but testified that the child packs
her lunch when with Mother. Father testified that he
have washed. Father testified that he would be happy to
buys shoes for the child, and pointed to one specific
example of a recent shoe purchase. Father testified that
he buys the child coats, clothes and personal hygiene
products.
The record indicates that both parties provide for their
health insurance, it
custody time. Given the testimony and the record in this
d care
expenses are approximately equal.
(Trial Court Opinion at 21-
reason to disturb it on the grounds alleged. Based on the foregoing, we
affirm the order in part regarding the dependency exemption, but vacate
that part of the order awarding child support of $635.00 plus $100.00 in
arrears per month, and remand for further proceedings.
Order affirmed in part and vacated in part; case remanded for further
proceedings. Jurisdiction is relinquished.
- 20 -
J-A07008-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/5/2014
- 21 -