J-A28009-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

GREGG SCHOLL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

MARGARET SCHOLL

Appellee No. 923 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County

Domestic Relations at No(s): CID: 613115096

 No. DR-6915

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and PLATT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 07, 2017

“Reasonable child care expenses paid by either parent, if necessary to 

maintain employment or appropriate education in pursuit of income, shall be 

allocated between the parties in proportion to their net incomes and added 

to his and her basic support obligation.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a). The issue 

presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when 

it required Appellant, Greg Scholl (“Father”), to contribute towards the costs 

of a nanny utilized by Appellee, Margaret Scholl (“Mother”). Father argues 

that Mother’s retention of a nanny is unreasonable and unnecessary. 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A28009-16

- 2 -

The trial court’s order entered on February 22, 2016, sets forth the 

parties’ support obligations. As Father correctly notes, “Nowhere in the trial 

court’s order or in the court’s opinion does the court identify the exact 

amount of the child care expense that the court determined to be 

‘reasonable and necessary.’” Appellant’s Brief, at 10. The order does not 

mention the nanny or set any amount for the nanny’s salary or expenses. 

The order, dated February 16, 2016, sets forth the parties’ monthly net 

salaries and support obligations for three distinct periods: February 1, 2015 

through May 31, 2015; June 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015; and from 

September 1, 2015 on. 

In his brief, Father calculates two different annual expenses for the 

nanny: $29,133.96, for February 1, 2015 through May 31, 2015, and 

$29,477.04, beginning on June 1, 2015. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11, nn. 2-

3. The trial court’s opinion,1in summarizing the deposition testimony, notes 

that “the parties paid the nanny $30,928.00” in 2013. Trial Court Opinion, 

filed 5/12/16, at 5. And that “In 2014, the nanny received $20,800 in 

wages, and Defendant paid the 7.65% for social security wages and ‘several 

hundred dollars’ for unemployment” and paid “approximately $540.00 per 

month for the nanny’s health insurance.” Id. The court notes, “All of the 

____________________________________________

1

“[A] trial court opinion is not part of the evidentiary record and cannot be 

used to add to or contradict evidence in the case....” Commonwealth v. 

Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 709 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis omitted).
J-A28009-16

- 3 -

current expenses for the nanny were the same as when the parties were 

married and living together.” Id. But there is no concrete number attributed 

to that statement. And, as noted, the figures varied during the previous 

years. The opinion then goes on to explain its reasons as to why Mother’s 

use of the nanny is reasonable. See id., at 6-7, 11. But that analysis is 

utterly devoid of any discussion of the expense associated with the nanny or 

what each party is financially obligated to pay for the nanny. 

With no specific finding in the order (or even in the record) as to the 

expense of retaining the nanny, we are simply unable to determine whether 

the nanny constitutes a reasonable child care expense under Rule 1910.16-

6(a). The order, as entered, cannot sustain a finding that the nanny is a 

reasonable child care expense.2

____________________________________________

2

In the order, the trial court set forth specific dates and corresponding 

monthly net incomes for Father and Mother. See Order, filed 2/22/16, at 1-

2. The order also states, “Calculations appended.” Id., at 2. The calculations 

attached to the order are three pages of guideline calculation worksheets, 

each dated February 12, 2016.

 The monthly net incomes set forth in the order vary widely from the 

monthly net incomes calculated in the attached guideline calculation 

worksheets. For example, for the three-month period from June 1, 2015 

until August 31, 2015, the monthly net income set forth in the order for 

Father is $5,062.00, but in the attached guideline calculation his monthly net 

income is $6,843.38. Mother’s net monthly income for this same threemonth period is $15,959.00 in the order, but in the attached guideline 

calculation her monthly net income is $13,583.76. The same figures for both 

parties appear in the order and attached guideline calculation worksheets for 

the period beginning September 1, 2015. The incompatible figures are 

inexplicable, but neither party on appeal takes issue with their 

incompatibility.
J-A28009-16

- 4 -

Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for proceedings 

consistent with this memorandum. On remand, the trial court, if it again 

finds the expense is reasonable, shall also allocate the expense of retaining 

the nanny between the parties in proportion to their net incomes. See 

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a), Example. 

Order vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

decision. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/7/2017