Molinaro, J. v. Molinaro, M. ( 2018 )

J-A09027-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JACQUELYN MOLINARO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL A. MOLINARO, :
:
Appellant : No. 1578 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order September 28, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Court at No.: FD13-004963-017
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and MURRAY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2018
Appellant, Michael A. Molinaro (“Father”) appeals from the September
28, 2017 Order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas that, inter
alia, denied Father’s Exceptions alleging that a hearing officer miscalculated
his income and ordered him to pay child support to Appellee, Jacquelyn
Molinaro (“Mother”).1 Because the trial court has agreed that it erred in
calculating Father’s income, we vacate the September 28, 2017 Order and
remand.
The parties are familiar with the procedural and factual history of this
case, and we need not restate it in detail here. In sum, Father and Mother
were married on March 28, 2009 and divorced on March 31, 2016. They are
____________________________________________
1Although the Order is dated September 22, 2017, it does not appear on the
docket until September 28, 2017. We have changed the caption accordingly.
J-A09027-18
parents to two minor children. Father initiated a custody case on November
18, 2013, seeking primary or shared custody.
In June 2014, the parties reached an interim agreement for Father to
pay a total of $2,800 in monthly support: $1,277 in child support, and $1,523
in spousal support/alimony pendente lite. Pursuant to the agreement, Mother
and Father shared physical and legal custody. On July 22, 2014, the trial court
entered a formal Order imposing the above obligations during the pendency
of the support and divorce proceedings.
On April 13, 2016, the trial court issued an Order that required Father
to pay a monthly child support obligation of $1,190.56, plus arrearages. On
February 16, 2017, Father filed a Petition to Modify Support.
On May 1, 2017, after a hearing, the Hearing Officer recommended that
the trial court (1) deny Father’s Petition to Modify Support, and (2) order
Father to pay a monthly child support obligation of $1,273.77, plus
arrearages. On May 12, 2017, Father filed Exceptions to the Findings of the
Hearing Officer based on the recalculation of his income. The trial court heard
oral argument on the matter on September 7, 2017.
In an Order dated September 22, 2017, and docketed on September 28,
2017, the trial court denied Father’s Exceptions, affirmed and adopted the
Hearing Officer’s Recommendations, and ordered Father to pay the monthly
child support obligation of $1,273.77, plus arrearages.
-2-
J-A09027-18
Father timely appealed. Both Father and trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Father raises the following issue on appeal:
Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion and committed
clear error in calculating Appellant’s income for support purposes.
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Our scope of review is limited when reviewing a support order entered
in a custody proceeding. Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d 403, 406 (Pa. Super.
2008). We may reverse a child support order only if we find that the order
cannot be sustained on any valid ground. McClain v. McClain, 872 A.2d 856,
860 (Pa. Super. 2005).
“A trial court’s decision regarding the modification of a child support
award will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion, namely, an
unreasonable exercise of judgment or a misapplication of the law.” Plunkard
v. McConnell, 962 A.2d 1227, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008). Importantly, we
acknowledge that “the duty to support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose
of child support is to promote the child’s best interests.” McClain, 872 A.2d
at 860 (citation and quotation omitted).
A party may file a petition for modification of a support order at any
time and a trial court should grant the modification if the petitioning party
demonstrates a material and substantial change in their circumstances that
warrants a modification. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 4352(a); Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.19.
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating a material and substantial
-3-
J-A09027-18
change, and “the determination of whether such change has occurred in the
circumstances of the moving party rests within the trial court’s discretion.”
Plunkard, supra at 1229.
In child support proceedings, the fact-finder is free to weigh the
evidence presented and assess its credibility. Green v. Green, 783 A.2d 788,
791 (Pa. Super. 2001). Moreover, we are bound by the trial court’s credibility
determinations. Wade v. Huston, 877 A.2d 464, 465 (Pa. Super. 2005).
Here, after providing a detailed recitation of the Hearing Officer’s
calculations and the facts relevant to Father’s income, the trial court opined
that it had miscalculated Father’s income due to the Hearing Officer’s error.
See Trial Court Opinion, dated 12/11/17, at 2-3 (unpaginated). Thus, the
trial court “recommend[ed] that the September 22, 2017 Order be vacated
and the matter be remanded for recalculation of the support owed in light of
Father’s incorrectly calculated monthly income and previously considered
deductions.” Trial Court Opinion at 3.
After reviewing the certified record, we agree with the trial court’s
assessment. We, thus, vacate the September 28, 2017 Order, and remand
for further proceedings.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-A09027-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/30/2018
-5-