Opinion ID: 2365160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Perquisites

Text: In Commonwealth ex rel. Gitman v. Gitman, 428 Pa. 387, 237 A.2d 181 (1967), this Court held that in determining a husband-father's financial obligation to his wife and children, a court must make a thorough appraisal of the husband-father's actual earnings and perquisites, and the true nature and extent of his property and financial resources. Labar v. Labar, 557 Pa. 54, 731 A.2d 1252 (1999). Personal perquisites, such as entertainment and personal automobile expenses paid by a party's business must be included in income. Heisey v. Heisey, 430 Pa.Super. 16, 633 A.2d 211, 212 (1993). In the instant matter, the trial court identified perquisites provided by Husband's employer including automobiles, car phones, fuel expenses and automobile insurance. It declined to include the value of the perquisites when calculating Husband's income because both parties benefit from them. Significantly, the court's Order directing Husband to pay Wife $13,000 per month also requires that he pay through his company for Wife's car insurance, car phone, fuel and automobile repair bills. The court declined Wife's request for $18,336.00 per year for a new car because Husband's company provides her with a vehicle. At an on the record proceeding on June 10, 1998, the trial court made clear that if Husband's company were to cease providing benefits to the spouses of partners, this would be a proper basis for a petition to modify by Wife, and that under such circumstances it would consider adding back into Husband's income the value of Husband's individual perquisites. Reproduced Record at 195a-196a. [5] In light of the fact that the trial court clearly distinguished perquisites that benefit both parties from those that solely benefit the obligor, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not requiring that the perquisites in the instant matter be included as income. The trial court also determined that the value of medical insurance provided to Husband and his family by Husband's employer should not be included in his income. We recognize that in Calabrese v. Calabrese, 452 Pa.Super. 497, 682 A.2d 393, 396 (1996), allocatur denied, 547 Pa. 722, 689 A.2d 230 (1997), the Superior Court rejected the obligor-father's argument that medical benefits paid by his employer benefited the entire family, and therefore should not be included as income. The Superior Court noted that because the Domestic Relations Code provides that a court may order an obligor to pay health insurance premiums for his or her spouse or children, this sum is properly included in the calculations of Husband's income. Id. at 397. We disagree. Section 4324 of the Domestic Relations Code provides that in addition to periodic support payments, the court shall order an obligor to provide health care coverage to a spouse where such coverage is available at no cost or at a reasonable cost as a benefit of employment. Section 4326(b) extends a similar obligation from a noncustodial parent to a child. Because the obligation to provide medical insurance to a spouse and child is in addition to the support obligation, it would be inequitable to include the value of the medical insurance benefit when calculating Husband's income available for support. Accordingly, to the extent that Calabrese holds otherwise, we specifically reject the reasoning of that decision of the Superior Court. Therefore, the trial court properly excluded the value of the medical insurance benefit that Husband receives from his employer.