J-A05021-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

BARBARA SCHADER, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

RANDOLPH SCHADER,

Appellee No. 1645 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order entered April 30, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,

Domestic Relations, at No(s): 2011-01137

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, and ALLEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED MARCH 09, 2015

Barbara Schader (“Wife”) appeals from the trial court’s final order of 

support entered against Randolph Schader (“Husband”). We affirm. 

The trial court summarized the pertinent facts as follows:

The parties were married on October 12, 1985, and 

have four (4) emancipated children. [Wife] filed a 

Complaint in Divorce and a Complaint in Custody on June 

24, 1994; thereafter the parties reconciled. On August 17, 

2007, the parties formally separated. [Wife] completed 

the ninth grade (9th) and thereafter received her General 

Education (GED) High School Equivalency Degree and 

during the marriage, [Wife] was the primary caregiver to 

the parties’ four children.

[Husband] is a High School graduate, who completed 

college at St. Louis Washington University before going to 

Dental School at Temple University. [Husband] was 

licensed as a dentist during the marriage. During the 

marriage, [Husband] bought property located at 248 South 

21st Street, Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia in 1993, with 

a loan from his father and as such the property was 

originally titled solely in [Husband’s] name and the parties 
J-A05021-15

- 2 -

renovated the building to accommodate [Husband’s] 

dentistry practice. [Husband] sold his general dentistry 

practice located at 248 South 21st Street, Rittenhouse 

Square, Philadelphia in 2005 and retained the building, 

which he continues to rent out. [Husband] receives rent 

from the dental office in the amount of $3,700 a month, 

the second floor apartment in the amount of $2,090 a 

month and the third floor apartment in the amount of 

$1,600 a month.

After the separation of the parties, [Wife] was in a 

severe auto accident on May 9, 2008, wherein she 

sustained numerous serious and disabling injuries which 

resulted in her having several operations. [Wife] requires 

significant medical care to this day. There was a 

stipulation between the parties that [Wife] has no earning 

capacity.

It is important for the calculations of Support in this 

matter to note that this Court’s Final Order of Equitable 

Distribution was entered on May 30, 2013 and thereafter 

this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part [the parties’] Motions for Reconsideration entered 

June 19, 2013. This Court also notes that [a] divorce 

decree was issued on August 26, 2013 by The Honorable 

Nathaniel C. Nichols and as such the parties were formally 

divorced on that date.

[Husband] filed a Petition to Modify APL/Support on July 

13, 2013. Thereafter, a Master issued an Order on 

September 4, 2013, effective July 22, 2013, for 

APL/Support in the amount of $3,759.60 plus 35% of the 

mortgage, for an additional $1017.45, with a total 

APL/Support obligation of $4,777.05 per month plus 

$477.57 toward arrears, thus a total monthly obligation of 

$5,254.75. This Court noted that as of April 7, 2014, the 

support arrears are $21,068.62[.] [Wife] thereafter filed a 

timely appeal from the Master’s Order.

This Court also notes that [Husband], as required by 

the Court’s Final Equitable Distribution Order of May 30, 

2013, is to pay [Wife’s] existing medical, dental and 

prescription insurance coverage and/or make full payments 

of the COBRA for [Wife’s] medical insurance for the full 

term of the COBRA that is available to [Wife].
J-A05021-15

- 3 -

Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/14, at 3-5 (citation and footnotes omitted).1

The trial court held a de novo hearing on April 10, 2014. After 

considering all of the testimony and the parties’ exhibits, the trial court 

recalculated the applicable support guidelines and issued its final support 

order on April 30, 2014. Wife filed an original and amended motion for 

reconsideration. On May 22, the trial court denied Wife’s reconsideration 

motion. This timely appeal followed. Both Wife and the trial court have 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Wife raises the following issues:

A. Did the [trial court] incorrectly rely on [Husband’s] 

evidence and testimony related to his income, including 

[Husband’s] employment and inheritance, as [Husband] 

was ordered to produce the documents regarding the 

Schader Estates by Order dated March 1, 2013 and as 

there were no 2013 personal income tax returns, nor any 

estate tax returns or documents provided to the [trial 

court]?

B. Did the [trial court] fail to consider the aforesaid tax 

returns and estate account documents which the [trial 

court] ordered [Husband] to produce by Order dated 

March 1, 2013 when the [trial court] calculated 

[Husband’s] spousal support obligations from October 1, 

2013 to the present?

C. Did the [trial court] fail to consider that [Husband has] 

a significant inheritance and access to trust accounts and 

____________________________________________

1 Wife filed a timely appeal to this Court from the trial court’s final equitable 

distribution order. That appeal does not impact our decision in the present 

appeal. See Schader v. Schader, No. 2492 EDA 2013.
J-A05021-15

- 4 -

the income generated by them and such should have been 

considered income for support purposes?

Wife’s Brief at 3.

Our standard of review is well settled:

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 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. 

Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188, 1192-93 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

Because Wife’s first two issues involve Husband’s alleged failure to 

comply with a discovery order, we address them together. Our review of the 

record supports Husband’s assertion that the trial court did not enter a 

discovery order in this support action. Husband’s Brief at 8. Rather, as 

asserted by Husband, the discovery order was issued approximately one 

year earlier at the parties’ equitable distribution docket. Id. Thus, we need 

not consider Wife’s first two issues further. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/14, 

infra.

In her remaining issue, Wife asserts that the trial court abused its 

discretion when determining Husband’s income available for support because 

it failed to consider the fact that Husband received a significant inheritance, 

and had access to trust accounts and the income generated from them.
J-A05021-15

- 5 -

Pennsylvania’s Domestic Relations Code defines “income” as follows:

 “Income.” Includes 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; workers’ compensation; 

unemployment compensation; other entitlements to 

money or lump sum awards, without regard to source, 

including lottery winnings, income tax refunds; insurance 

compensation or settlements; awards or verdicts; and any 

form of payment due to and collectible by an individual 

regardless of the source.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302. 

Our Supreme Court has held that, “although the corpus of an 

inheritance is not included in a payor’s income available for support, it may 

be considered when adjusting a support obligation pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 

1910.16-5.” Humphreys v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 291, 288 (Pa. 2002); see 

also Maher v. Maher, 835 A.2d 1281, 1286-87 (Pa. 2003) (holding 

inheritance received by support payee is not income available for support).

Wife acknowledges that the corpus of Husband’s inheritance and trust 

is not income for purposes of support. See Wife’s Brief at 15-17. 

Nevertheless, she contends “[g]iven the trial court’s finding as to 

[Husband’s] ability to access money from the trust funds, the trial court 
J-A05021-15

- 6 -

should have considered these amounts in establishing the appropriate 

support obligation of [Husband].” Wife’s Brief at 19. Our review of the 

record does not support Wife’s contention.

The trial court rejected Wife’s claim regarding its calculation of 

Husband’s income, and offered its detailed reasoning as follows:

This Court did not incorrectly rely on the evidence and 

testimony presented by the parties during the Hearing held 

on April 10, 2014. This Court notes that the Hearing on 

this Support matter was first scheduled in January of 2014 

and then in March of 2014 and those Hearings were 

continued at the request of [Wife’s] counsel. This Court 

notes that the Hearings were not continued due to a 

request for continued discovery or failure to comply with 

discovery requests. This Court notes that at no time prior 

to or during the Hearing did [Wife] argue that [Husband’s] 

2013 tax returns were necessary such that a continuance 

of the Hearing should be granted. This Court notes that 

[Wife] never requested a continuance of the April 10, 2014 

Hearing nor asserted during the Hearing that the 2013 tax 

returns of [Husband] were vital to the case during the 

Hearing. Even if [Wife] had requested a continuance for 

[Husband’s] 2013 tax returns, this Court would not have 

granted such a request, as this Court was able to 

determine [Husband’s] current income (or income at the 

time of the April 10, 2014 Hearing) based upon the 

credible testimony and overwhelming and extensive 

evidence presented during the April 10, 2014 Hearing.

This Court had previously, in the Final Equitable 

Distribution Order, determined that [Husband’s] two 

employment positions in 2012 provided him with a [yearly] 

gross income of approximately $194,200; in paragraph 16 

on page 25 said Order found [Husband] had a minimum 

[yearly] earning capacity of $160,000. At that time, the 

Court had been provided with [Husband’s] 2012 tax 

return, as this Court was provided with the tax return for 

2012 at the April 10, 2014 Hearing.
J-A05021-15

- 7 -

This Court notes that at the time of the April 10, 2014 

Hearing, [Husband] provided credible testimony that he 

did not have a 2013 tax return prepared to submit to 

[Wife] as the tax deadline of April 15, 2014 had not 

passed. [Husband] provided credible testimony of his 

employment status and his earnings from October of 2013 

until the date of the Support Hearing. [Husband] also 

presented as evidence his 1099 Form. Additionally, the 

Office Manager at Newtown [Orthodontics], Lisandra 

Maisonet, presented credible evidence of [Husband’s] 

employment with Newtown as well as his earnings with 

Newtown.

This Court notes that based upon the credible testimony 

and evidence of [Husband], which was accepted by this 

Court, [Husband] currently earns approximately $23,600 a 

month in gross earnings. This gross monthly figure is 

based upon his 33% percent [sic] of his production (less 

lab fee) which [Husband] is paid by Newtown in addition to 

the $2,600 a month [Husband] is paid by Liberty Dental. 

Therefore, this Court was able to determine that from April 

of 2014 until at least December 31, 2014, [Husband’s 

gross income has increased to an average of $283,000 

yearly, which is almost double the earning capacity this 

Court set in the Final Equitable Distribution Order and 

almost $89,000 over what [Husband’s] 2012 tax return 

showed he earned.

***

Initially, this Court notes that there was insufficient 

evidence presented at the [Hearing] regarding [Husband’s] 

distributions from the trust and inheritance he received 

from his father and his mother’s estates. [Husband] 

candidly admitted that he was able to take yearly 

distributions, which is only distributions of the interest 

generated, which would generally be received on 

December 31, 2013. [Husband] credibly testified that he 

has not invaded the [principal] of the trust account and 

has only received distributions from the interest 

generated.

***

This Court did consider [Husband’s] distribution from 

his inheritance and trust when calculating [Husband’s] 
J-A05021-15

- 8 -

earning capacity, for the time period when [Husband] was

solely employed with Liberty Dental and was receiving 

unemployment as his position with Einstein [Medical 

Center] had been terminated, from July 12, [2012] until 

September 30, 2013.

When issuing the Final Support Order, this Court did 

consider the inheritance received by [Husband] in 

calculating [Wife’s] spousal support; however, this Court 

determined that the inheritance should not be calculated 

as part of [Husband’s] monthly income. This Court notes 

that [Husband’s] credible testimony was that he was able 

to receive a distribution from his inheritance and trust; 

however, there was not testimony that this is [Husband’s] 

consistent practice or that he receives a consistent 

amount. This Court notes that [Husband’s] testimony was 

that he received a distribution in a lump sum on or about 

December 31, 2013, there is no guarantee of the amount 

of distribution or the date of distribution.

Additionally, this Court determined that even with 

[Wife] at a zero earning capacity and with [Husband] now 

making almost double what the Court had previously 

ascribed as his earning capacity, there was no reason to 

depart from the [support] guidelines and include the one 

time distribution of interest as part of [Husband’s] income. 

This Court notes that the parties’ children are 

emancipated, [Husband] continues to pay the mortgage on 

the marital residence, over and above the spousal support 

award, for the residence in which [Wife] currently resides, 

[Husband] continues to pay the COBRA payments for 

[Wife’s] medical benefits and [Wife] receives alimony from 

[Husband]. Based upon the spousal support award of 

nearly $6,400 a month, plus all the other “benefits” listed 

above, this Court determined that there was no reason to 

deviate from the guidelines and to consider [Husband’s] 

inheritance as part of his income in determining the 

spousal support award.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/14, at 16-22.

The above explanation refutes Wife’s claim that the trial court failed to 

consider Husband’s inheritance and access to his trust accounts. We cannot 
J-A05021-15

- 9 -

disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations regarding Husband’s 

testimony. See Doherty v. Doherty, 859 A.2d 811, 812 (Pa. Super. 2004) 

(explaining that matters of credibility are solely within the province of the 

trial court as fact finder). Moreover, our review of the record supports the 

reasons given by the trial court for refusing to deviate from the applicable 

support guidelines based upon Husband’s inheritance and trust income.

In sum, because Wife’s claims are without merit, we affirm the trial 

court’s final order of support.

Order affirmed.

Judge Gantman joins memorandum.

Judge Shogan files a concur in result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/9/2015