J.L.B. v. G.G. ( 2015 )

J.A19032/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J. L. B., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
G. G., :
:
Appellant : No. 1908 WDA 2013
Appeal from the Order November 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Domestic Relations No(s).: 132 DR 2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2015
Appellant, G. G. (“Father”), appeals from the order1 entered in the
Washington County Court of Common Pleas determining the amount of child
support he is to pay Appellee, J. L. B. (“Mother”) for the support of the
parties’ one child (“Child”).2 Father contends the court erred in ordering him
to pay 10.75% of his net quarterly bonuses to child support. We reverse
and remand.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Father purports to appeal from the orders entered on October 15, 2013
and November 6, 2013. However, the court’s November 6th order granted
reconsideration and the appeal lies properly from that order. We have
amended the caption accordingly.
2
We redacted the parties’ names and amended the caption to protect the
child’s identity.
J. A19032/14
On February 19, 2013, Mother filed a complaint for support of Child. A
hearing was held on June 20, 2013. On July 4, 2013, the hearing officer
recommended that Father pay $3,304.83 per month in support, allocated as
$3,104.83 for current support and $200 for arrears. Findings of Hearing
Officer, 7/4/13, at 3. Father filed exceptions. The trial court granted
Father’s exceptions and found that “[e]ffective February 19, 2013, [Father]
shall pay $2,447 per month in child support. Effective August 9, 2013,
[Father] shall pay $2,463 per month in child support.” Order, 10/15/13, at
1. The court also found that Father “shall pay 13% of his quarterly bonuses
to [Mother] for . . . child support after a 30.22% tax rate is applied to the
gross amount.” Id. The court “explain[ed] that Father grosses $25,200 per
month in w-2 wages (this was his w-2 wage in 2012 as well.)” Id.
Father filed a petition for reconsideration. On November 6, 2013, the
court granted reconsideration and entered an order which provided, inter
alia, as follows:
[A]fter reconsidering the October 15, 2013 [order] at
[Father’s] request, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and
DECREED that 10.75% of [Father’s] quarterly bonuses,
after a 30.22% tax rate is applied to the gross amount,
shall be paid to [M]other for the support of [Child].
Further, this bonus is to be paid . . . directly between the
parties since the amount cannot be readily calculated. . . .
By way of further explanation, this [c]ourt modified the
percentage to 10.75% because this is the average of the
13% and the 8.5% pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3.1. At
the presentation of the motion for reconsideration, both
parties brought it to the [c]ourt’s attention that the parties’
combined net monthly incomes exceeded the $30,000 net
-2-
J. A19032/14
per month threshold after [F]ather received his third
quarter bonus. That being said, it would be unfair to
[F]ather to pay a percentage exceeding 8.5% at that
juncture. In fact, it would be punitive. But, until that
threshold is met, the [c]ourt finds it reasonable for
[F]ather to pay the 13% as noted in its order dated
October 15, 2013. Approximately 1/2 of [F]ather’s bonus
is received after the threshold is achieved. Accordingly,
averaging 13% and 8.5% seems to be most reasonable.
* * *
Regarding whether to apply the bonus percentage to
the basic guideline amount of $1845 or to $2447 (which
includes contributions toward childcare and medical
insurance), it is appropriate to use $2447. Childcare and
medical insurance are monthly recurring expenses for
[Child], just as those that are contemplated by the basic
child support guideline amount.
Order, 11/6/13, at 1, 2.
This timely appeal followed.3 Father was not ordered to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Father raises the following issue for our review: “Whether the trial
court erred in setting child support for one child at 10.75% of his net
quarterly bonus.” Father’s Brief at 5. Father contends
the percentage of child support should have been based on
the basic child support obligation rather than the support
3
Father filed his notice of appeal on December 6, 2013. “Where a timely
order of reconsideration is entered under this paragraph, the time for filing a
notice of appeal or petition for review begins to run anew after the entry of
the decision on reconsideration, whether or not that decision amounts to a
reaffirmation of the prior determination of the trial court or other
government unit.” Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). Therefore, the instant appeal is
timely. See id.
-3-
J. A19032/14
obligation taking into account additional fixed expenses.
This would be in the range of 8.5% to 10%. Father
respectfully avers that these two percentages should be
averaged and the percentage should be 9.25% [of his
bonuses] rather than the 10.75% ordered by the court.
Id. at 14.
As a prefatory matter, we consider whether this issue is waived. The
only reference to legal authority in Father’s four page argument section is a
single citation, devoid of explanation, to Rule 1910.16-4. Id. at 12. The
“failure to develop an argument with citation to, and analysis of, relevant
authority waives that issue on review.” Harris v. Toys “R” Us-Penn, Inc.,
880 A.2d 1270, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2005). However, “[i]n Pennsylvania, child
support awards are made in domestic relations matters in accordance with
specific statutory guidelines . . . . The guidelines provide extremely
detailed instructions for calculating spousal and child support awards
based on the obligor’s net income from all sources . . . .”
Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204, 1216-17 (Pa. 2013) (emphases
added). Thus, in the instant case, we decline to find the issue waived.
Our scope of review when considering an appeal from a
child support order is as follows:
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 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
-4-
J. A19032/14
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.
Morgan v. Morgan, 99 A.3d 554, 556-57 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
Child support is governed by statute. Section 4322 of the Domestic
Relations Code provides:
(a) Statewide guideline.─Child and spousal
support shall be awarded pursuant to a Statewide
guideline as established by general rule by the Supreme
Court, so that persons similarly situated shall be treated
similarly. The guideline shall be based upon the
reasonable needs of the child or spouse seeking support
and the ability of the obligor to provide support. In
determining the reasonable needs of the child or spouse
seeking support and the ability of the obligor to provide
support, the guideline shall place primary emphasis on the
net incomes . . . of the parties . . . .
23 Pa.C.S. § 4322(a) (emphases added).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-1 provides: “[T]he
support guidelines set forth the amount of support which a spouse or parent
should pay on the basis of both parties’ net monthly incomes as defined
in Rule 1910.16-2 and the number of persons being supported.” Pa.R.C.P.
1910.16-1(a) (emphasis added). The rule further provides:
(b) Amount of Support. The amount of support (child
support, spousal support or alimony pendente lite) to be
awarded pursuant to the procedures under Rules 1910.11
and 1910.12 shall be determined in accordance with
the support guidelines which consist of the
-5-
J. A19032/14
guidelines expressed as the child support schedule
set forth in Rule 1910.16-3, the formula set forth in
Rule 1910.16-4 and the operation of the guidelines
as set forth in these rules.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1(b) (emphasis added).
Rule 1910.16–2(a)(2) provides:
Generally, the amount of support to be awarded is
based upon the parties’ monthly net income.
(a) Monthly Gross Income. Monthly gross income
is ordinarily based upon at least a six-month average of
all of a party’s income. The term “income” is
defined by the 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[.]
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a)(2) (emphases added). The Domestic Relations
Code’s definition of “income” includes bonuses. 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302.
Rule 1910.16-2(c) provides:
(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.
-6-
J. A19032/14
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(c)(1)(A)-(E).
Rule 1910.16-3 provides the basic child support schedule where the
parties’ combined net monthly income is $30,000 or below. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.
16-3. Where the parties’ combined monthly net income is above $30,000,
Rule 1910.16-3.1, governing “high income cases,” applies:
(a) Child Support Formula. When the parties’
combined monthly net income is above $30,000, the
following three-step process shall be applied to calculate
the parties’ respective child support obligations. The
amount of support calculated pursuant to this three-step
process shall in no event be less than the amount of
support that would have been awarded if the parties’
combined net monthly income were $30,000. That
amount shall be a presumptive minimum.
(1) First, the following formula shall be applied as
a preliminary analysis in calculating the amount of basic
child support to be apportioned between the parties
according to their respective incomes:
One child:
$2,801 +8.5% of combined net income above
$30,000 per month.
* * *
(2) And second, the trier of fact shall apply Part II
and Part III of the formula at Rule 1910.16-4(a), making
any applicable adjustments for substantial or shared
custody pursuant to Rule 1910.16-4(c) and allocations of
additional expenses pursuant to Rule 1910.16-6;
(3) Then, third, the trier of fact shall consider the
factors in Rule 1910.16-5 in making a final child support
award and shall make findings of fact on the record or in
writing. After considering all of the factors in Rule
1910.16-5, the trier of fact may adjust the amount
-7-
J. A19032/14
calculated pursuant to subdivisions (1) and (2) above
upward or downward, subject to the presumptive
minimum.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3(a)(1)-(3) (emphasis added).
“. . . Rule 1910.16-3.1 is intended to bring all child support cases
under the guidelines and treat similarly situated parties similarly. Thus,
high income child support cases no longer will be decided pursuant to
Melzer v. Wisberger, [ ] 480 A.2d 991 ([Pa.] 1984).” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-
3.1, cmt. (emphasis added).
“Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16–4(a), the trial court [is] required to
combine Husband’s and Wife’s total monthly income as a preliminary
step to establish the basic child support obligation.” Love v. Love, 33 A.3d
1268, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2011).
“If it has been determined that there is an obligation to pay support,
there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the award
determined from the guidelines is the correct amount of support to be
awarded.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1(d). The calculation of net monthly income
pursuant to the support guidelines is required even where the court deviates
from that amount. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(a). “The deviation applies to the
amount of the support obligation and not to the amount of income.”
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(a), Note (emphasis added).
In the case sub judice, we find the court erred in excluding Father’s
bonuses from his gross income, in contravention of Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a).
-8-
J. A19032/14
The court was required to follow the support guidelines. See 23 Pa.C.S. §
4322(a). “Income” is statutorily defined as including bonuses. 23 Pa.C.S. §
4302. Based upon the gross income, the trial court was required to
calculate the parties’ net income available for support. See Pa.R.C.P.
1910.16-2(c)(1)(A)-(E).
Accordingly, we find the court abused its discretion. See Morgan, 99
A.3d at 556-57. We reverse and remand for the trial court to determine
Father’s child support obligation consistent with this memorandum.
Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/13/2015
-9-