Court Opinion

ID: 9945315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 18:10:39.950637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.697595
License: Public Domain

J-A21012-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 ALICIA M. PEREIRA                        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 JEFFREY P. LEITE                         :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 679 EDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 15, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic
                      Relations at No(s): DR-0061519,
                             PACSES: 395117648

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                       FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2024

      Jeffrey P. Leite (Father) appeals from the order modifying the parties’

child support. Father argues that the trial court erred in calculating Father’s

earning capacity, erred in calculating the costs of childcare, and erred by

terminating the September 12, 2022 de novo hearing in order to remand the

matter for further proceedings before a conference officer. We affirm.

      We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court’s

opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 5/5/23, at 1-8. Briefly, on June 12, 2019, Alicia

M. Pereira (Mother) filed a complaint for child support. The trial court entered

a support order by agreement on February 17, 2020. Father subsequently

filed various petitions to modify his child support obligation, which the trial

court granted. On January 27, 2022, the Domestic Relations Section filed a

petition to review the existing support order because Father was no longer
J-A21012-23

receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The parties appeared for a

support modification conference on March 21, 2022. Subsequently, on April

11, 2022, the trial court entered an interim support order which calculated

Father’s net earning capacity as $7,719 per month and set Father’s monthly

support obligation at $2,886.00.

      Father filed a timely demand for a de novo hearing, and the trial court

held a hearing on September 12, 2022. At the hearing, Father testified that

his 2021 tax return reflected his total income from his former employment at

which he received a salary plus sales commissions. N.T., 9/12/22, at 13, 20-

24. Father stated that after his employment was terminated, he looked for a

new position until December of 2021. Id. at 25. Around that time, Father

formed a new company with a business partner, and Father works for that

new company full-time. Id. at 26. As of the date of the hearing, Father’s

company had not yet generated any revenue and Father did not receive any

compensation from his company.       Id. at 28-29.    Father also testified that

when he and Mother were living together, they had hired an au pair to provide

childcare. Id. at 13. At that time, none of the children were old enough to

be in school full-time, but presently all three children attend school full-time.

Id. at 12-14.

      Mother testified that she did not have an au pair working for her between

July 2020 and November 2021. Id. at 48. Mother explained that her previous

au pair’s contract ended in July 2020, and the new au pair that she had hired

through an agency could not travel to the United States until November 2021

                                      -2-
J-A21012-23

due to travel restrictions.   Id. at 40, 49.     During that time, the parties’

youngest child was in enrolled in daycare. Id. at 48. Mother could not recall

if she informed Father about the arrival of the new au pair. Id. at 50.

      The trial court decided to remand this case back to a conference officer

to make new support calculations based on the updated evidence of the

parties’ income (i.e., a new tax return). See id. at 51-52; see also Trial Ct.

Order, 10/5/22. Following that conference, the trial court entered a support

order on October 14, 2022, which calculated Father’s net earning capacity as

$13,067 per month and set Father’s monthly support obligation at $3,402.00.

      Father again filed a timely demand for a de novo hearing. The trial court

held a hearing on November 21, 2022.          Mother had been present in the

courthouse, but she left before the hearing began and did not return. The

trial court heard oral argument, but neither party presented additional

evidence.

      On February 15, 2023, the trial court entered an order adopting the

October 14, 2022 support order as a final order. Father filed a timely notice

of appeal. Father and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Father raises three issues for our review, which we reorder as follows:

      1. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion as it failed to
         allow a full de novo hearing on . . . September 12, 2022, as it
         remanded the matter to the domestic relations conference
         officer who subsequently entered a final order in violation of
         Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11?

      2. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in the calculation
         of [Father’s] income for the purpose of the entry of the child
         support order?

                                      -3-
J-A21012-23

      3. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in the calculation
         of the childcare costs, and in particular, including the costs
         associated with an au pair as part of the order?

Father’s Brief at 5 (some formatting altered).

                       Failure to Hold a Full Hearing

      In his first issue, Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to

hold a full de novo hearing on September 12, 2022. Id. at 31-36. Specifically,

Father claims that the trial court interrupted Father’s cross-examination of

Mother for a sidebar discussion with counsel. Id. at 32-33. Following that

sidebar discussion, which was not transcribed, the trial court ended the

hearing and remanded the matter to a conference officer to recalculate the

parties’ income. Id. at 33 (citing N.T., 9/12/22, at 51). Father notes that

Mother failed to appear for the subsequent de novo hearing on November 21,

2022, and the hearing was conducted in her absence.           Id. at 34.   Father

concludes that the trial court erred by ending the September 12, 2022 hearing

before Father completed his cross-examination of Mother because he was not

able to cross-examine her at the November 21, 2022 hearing.

      Mother responds that Father waived this issue because Father consented

to the trial court’s remand of this matter to a conference officer for further

proceedings. Mother’s Brief at 13 (citing N.T. 9/12/22, at 51-52).

      Before addressing the merits of this issue, we must determine whether

Father has preserved this claim for review. This Court may raise this issue of

waiver sua sponte.    See Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa.

Super. 2007). “The issue of waiver presents a question of law, and, as such,

                                      -4-
J-A21012-23

our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Trigg

v. Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260, 269 (Pa. 2020)

(citation omitted).

      “In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make

a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of the proceedings

before the trial court. Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental

error will result in waiver of that issue.” Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d

474, 475-76 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted and formatting altered); see

also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are

waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”). Additionally, if a

party raised an issue before the trial court, but subsequently abandoned that

issue, it is waived on appeal. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202

A.3d 749, 765 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding that the defendant waived his

claim that the Commonwealth violated his right to a speedy trial guaranteed

by the federal and state constitutions because although the defendant raised

that issue in a pre-trial motion, he subsequently abandoned it and only

pursued a claim that the Commonwealth had violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 600).

Lastly, this Court has explained that “[a] party who has acquiesced in an order

or judgment will not later be heard to challenge it.” Miller v. Miller, 744 A.2d

778, 783 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted).

      Here, during the September 12, 2022 hearing, the trial court had the

following exchange with the parties’ attorneys:

      THE COURT: Can I see counsel up front[?]

                                     -5-
J-A21012-23

       (Sidebar discussion held off the record.)

       THE COURT: All right. Counsel and I interrupted what was about
       to happen here because my understanding with the updated --
       with the updated tax return that was filed, it’s going to be
       necessary for this matter to go back before the conference officer
       for a recalculation based upon the new income information.

       And with that I think the issues regarding income and whether
       there should be any changes, if any, relevant to the current order
       or relevance to what the order should be is going to be reviewed
       when this matter is brought back.

       So I think the only real main issue right now that this court has to
       work on or work at is the issue regarding that additional care;
       specifically with the au pair.

       Counsel, does everybody understand and agree with that?

       [Father’s counsel]: I agree. If we’re going back, there is no point
       in hearing either side’s income at this point.

       [Mother’s counsel]: I agree with that, Judge.

N.T., 9/12/22, at 51-52 (some formatting altered).

       The record reflects that Father consented to the trial court’s decision to

remand the matter for another support conference and that he did not object

to the trial court’s decision. See id. Therefore, Father has waived this issue

on appeal.      See Miller, 744 A.2d at 783; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a);

Thompson, 963 A.2d at 475-76. Accordingly, Father is not entitled to relief

on this claim.1

____________________________________________

1 We note that in his brief, Father also argues that the trial court erred by
failing to require that Mother attend the November 21, 2022 hearing and by
not sanctioning her for her unexcused absence. Father’s Brief at 36. Father
also contends that the trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1910.11(i),
which requires the court to enter a final support order within sixty days of the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A21012-23

                   Calculation of Father’s Earning Capacity

       In his second issue, Father argues that the trial court erred by

calculating Father’s support obligation based on his 2021 income tax return

and failed to properly assess Father’s earning capacity. Father’s Brief at 19-

24; Father’s Reply Brief at 3-5.          Specifically, Father contends that it was

undisputed that Father lost his job in April of 2021 because of the COVID-19

pandemic, but the conference officer and the trial court calculated Father’s

income for support purposes using his 2021 tax return which reflects Father’s

salary before his employment was terminated. Father’s Brief at 20-21. Father

claims that the trial court failed to adjust Father’s income following the

termination of his employment as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(2)(i).

Id. at 21; Father’s Reply Brief at 3-5. Father additionally argues that the trial

court failed to consider all of factors set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)(ii)

when assessing Father’s earning capacity. Father’s Brief at 21-23.

       Mother responds that that it was proper for the trial court to assess an

earning capacity for Father based on his prior salary because Father did not

“pursue and secure [new] employment commensurate with his ability,

training, and earnings history, [and] instead voluntarily chose to become a

partner in a ‘startup business’ in December of 2021,” which as of the

September 12, 2022 hearing had not generated any income. Mother’s Brief
____________________________________________

date Father filed his written demand for a de novo hearing. Id. at 35-36.
Father failed to raise these issues before the trial court or in his Rule 1925(b)
statement; therefore, they are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii).

                                           -7-
J-A21012-23

at 5-6.     Additionally, Mother contends that Father “failed to provide any

credible testimony or other evidence that he could no longer earn income

consistent with his 2021 federal income tax return[.]” Id. at 6 (formatting

altered).

      Our standard of review 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 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.

Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786, 788 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation

omitted).

      Additionally, this Court has explained that

      this Court must accept findings of the trial court that are
      supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not
      include making independent factual determinations. In addition,
      with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this
      Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the
      proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first[]hand.

      When the trial court sits as fact finder, the weight to be assigned
      the testimony of the witnesses is within its exclusive province, as
      are credibility determinations, and the court is free to choose to
      believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. This Court is
      not free to usurp the trial court’s duty as the finder of fact.

Mackay v. Mackay, 984 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations omitted

and formatting altered).

                                       -8-
J-A21012-23

      We further note that an award of support, once in effect, may be
      modified via petition at any time, provided that the petitioning
      party demonstrates a material and substantial change in their
      circumstances warranting a modification. See 23 Pa.C.S. §
      4352(a); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.19.            The burden of
      demonstrating a “material and substantial change” rests with the
      moving party, and the determination of whether such change has
      occurred in the circumstances of the moving party rests within the
      trial court’s discretion.

Summers, 35 A.3d at 788-89 (some citations omitted and formatting

altered).

      It is well-established that

      a person’s support obligation is determined primarily by the
      parties’ actual financial resources and their earning capacity.
      Although a person’s actual earnings usually reflect his [or her]
      earning capacity, where there is a divergence, the obligation is
      determined more by earning capacity than actual earnings.
      Earning capacity is defined as the amount that a person
      realistically could earn under the circumstances, considering his
      [or her] age, health, mental and physical condition, training, and
      earnings history.

Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294, 299 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

      However, “[w]here a parent is fired for cause, . . . the court can consider

reducing the parent’s child support obligation under Rule 1910.16[-2](d)(1) if

the parent establishes that he or she attempted to mitigate lost income.”

Grigoruk v. Grigoruk, 912 A.2d 311, 313 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation

omitted); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(2)(i) (stating that “[t]he trier-of-

fact shall adjust a party’s monthly net income for substantial continuing

involuntary decreases in income due to an employment situation over which

                                      -9-
J-A21012-23

the party has no control, including, but not limited to, illness, lay-off,

termination, or job elimination”).

      Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-2 further provides, in relevant part:

      (4) Earning Capacity.

         (i) When a party willfully fails to obtain or maintain appropriate
         employment, the trier-of-fact may impute to the party an
         income equal to the party’s earning capacity.

                                     *     *      *

         (ii) Factors. In determining a party’s earning capacity, the
         trier-of-fact shall consider the party’s:

            (A) child care responsibilities and expenses;

            (B) assets;

            (C) residence;

            (D) employment and earnings history;

            (E) job skills;

            (F) educational attainment;

            (G) literacy;

            (H) age;

            (I) health;

            (J) criminal record and other employment barriers;

            (K) record of seeking work;

            (L) local job market, including the availability of employers
            who are willing to hire the party;

            (M) local community prevailing earnings level; and

            (N) other relevant factors.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4).

                                         - 10 -
J-A21012-23

        Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the trial

court’s opinion, we affirm based on the trial court’s analysis of this issue. See

Trial Ct. Op. at 10-13.2 Specifically, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by using Father’s 2021 tax return to calculate his income

because Father failed to mitigate his lost income and instead stopped looking

for a job and started a new business which, as of the September 12, 2022

hearing, had not provided Father with any income. See Mencer, 928 A.2d at

299; Grigoruk, 912 A.2d at 313. We also note that Father failed to present

any evidence related to the Rule 1910.16-2(d)(4)(ii) factors to support his

request to modify his child support obligation. See Summers, 35 A.3d at

788-89 (explaining that the party requesting modification has the burden of

proof    to   demonstrate      “a   material   and   substantial   change   in   their

circumstances warranting a modification” (citations omitted)). Therefore, we

____________________________________________

2 The trial court observed that at the September 12, 2022 hearing, Father’s

counsel indicated that he did not have any objections to the earning capacity
that the conference officer assigned to him. See Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13 (citing
N.T., 9/12/22, at 5). We disagree with the trial court to the extent the trial
court suggests that Father acquiesced to earning capacity assigned to him in
the February 15, 2023 order. Father’s counsel was referring to the April 11,
2022 interim support order. See N.T., 9/12/22, at 3-5; see also N.T.,
11/21/22, at 12 (Father’s counsel indicates that he agrees with Father’s
earning capacity as calculated in the April 11, 2022 order). After the trial
court remanded the matter for another support conference, the conference
officer assessed an earning capacity for Father that was higher than the one
assessed in the April 11, 2022 order. Compare Support Guideline Calculation
Form, 10/14/22, at 1 with Support Guideline Calculation Form, 4/11/22, at
1.

                                          - 11 -
J-A21012-23

discern no abuse discretion, and Father is not entitled to relief on this claim.

See id. at 788; Mackay, 984 A.2d at 533.

                     Calculation of Childcare Expenses

      In his final issue, Father argues that the trial court erred by including au

pair costs in the support order. Father’s Brief at 25-30; Father’s Reply Brief

at 6-7. Specifically, Father contends that Mother did not present any evidence

that Mother needs the au pair (or any other form of childcare) to maintain

appropriate employment. Father’s Brief at 26, 28. Father also claims that

costs are not reasonable because Children are all attending school full-time,

and Mother is employed full-time. Id. at 27, 29; Father’s Reply Brief at 6-7.

Lastly, Father contends that the trial court failed to consider that Mother failed

to notify Father that she was hiring an au pair in November 2021 and failed

to promptly provide Father with documentation of the expenses associated

with the au pair as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a). Father’s Brief at 28-

29.

      Before addressing the merits of this issue, we must determine whether

Father has preserved this claim for review. See Tucker, 939 A.2d at 346

(explaining that this Court may raise this issue of waiver sua sponte).

      During the September 12, 2022 hearing, Father argued that Mother’s

hiring of an au pair in November 2021 was not necessary to provide childcare.

See N.T., 9/12/22, at 5-6, 46-47. Subsequently, at the November 21, 2022

hearing, Father’s counsel stated “I have no problem with childcare expenses

from August 24, 2022 moving forward.” N.T., 11/21/22, at 12-13; see also

                                     - 12 -
J-A21012-23

id. at 14 (Father’s counsel confirmed that by “childcare expenses” he was

meant the cost of the au pair).3

       Here, Father agreed with the au pair costs going forward (subject to a

petition to modify based on change circumstances).             See id. at 12-14.

Therefore, Father abandoned his claims that the au pair was not a necessary

childcare expense. Accordingly, Father has waived this issue on appeal. See

Leaner, 202 A.3d at 765 n.3; Miller, 744 A.2d at 783; see also Pa.R.A.P.

302(a). Also, to the extent that Father argues that the trial court failed to

consider Mother’s violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a), Father waived that

issue because he did not raise it before the trial court. See Thompson, 963

A.2d at 475-76; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

       For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

       Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 2/27/2024
____________________________________________

3 We note that the notes of testimony from the November 21, 2022 hearing

are not included as part of the certified record, but they are included as part
of Father’s reproduced record. Mother did not object to the accuracy of these
notes of testimony. Because “their veracity is not in dispute, we rely on the
copy contained within the reproduced record.” See C.L. v. M.P., 255 A.3d
514, 518 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc) (citation omitted).

                                          - 13 -
Circulated 01/31/2024 10:46 AM