Opinion ID: 2316731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Master's Recommendation

Text: On August 24, 1988, the Mother filed a modification petition for the purpose of increasing the Father's monthly child support payments. The parties initially appeared before a Master of the Family Court. The parties agreed that any calculation of the Father's child support obligation must be made pursuant to the Melson Formula. Not only was this provided for in the stipulated order but, even in the absence of such an agreement, the Melson Formula is applicable as a rebuttable presumption for the purpose of determining child support in Delaware. Dalton v. Clanton, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1197 (1989). The Melson Formula determines the appropriate child support obligation based, in part, upon the respective net incomes of the parties. In calculating net income, the Melson Formula permits deductions for all legitimate business expenses. The Master acknowledged that accelerated depreciation is generally considered a legitimate business expense. However, the Master also recognized that since the Melson Formula operates as a rebuttable presumption, if the mathematical result which is the product of the Melson Formula is inequitable, the presumption is rebutted. Id. at 1211. In this case, the Melson Formula calculation ( including accelerated depreciation as a legitimate business expense) would have resulted in a substantial reduction of the Father's existing child support payments, despite John's undisputed ordinary and extraordinary needs. The Master determined that the presumptive applicability of the mathematical result produced by the Melson Formula had been rebutted by the equities presented. The Master attributed the inequitable result to the inclusion of accelerated depreciation in the Melson Formula as a legitimate business expense. The Master concluded that it was equitable, for the purposes of calculating the Father's child support obligation, to correlate the Father's net income with his net disposable income or cash flow, i.e., $4,765.92 per month. This figure was based upon the net income reported on the Father's personal tax returns, allowing all federal tax deductions, but excluding any accelerated depreciation expense. The Master recommended that the Father be ordered to pay child support of $1352.29 per month retroactive to November 1, 1987. (Appendix I). The Master also recommended that the Father be ordered to pay the Mother's attorney's fees and costs. The Father filed for a review de novo of the Master's recommendations by a judge of the Family Court. 10 Del.C. § 913(c).