Court Opinion

ID: 9363802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 18:07:11.270592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.387088
License: Public Domain

J-S32031-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    LYSLE SAYLES                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    MARYANNE I. GRAHAM                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 527 MDA 2022

                 Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Domestic Relations at
                             No(s): DRO 126697,
                    No. 01519 SA 2021, PACSES 446301233

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                          FILED: JANUARY 17, 2023

        Maryanne I. Graham (Mother) appeals from the order, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of York County, requiring Mother to pay monthly child

support in the amount of $732.32.1 After review, we vacate and remand.

        Mother and Lysle Sayles (Father)2 are the parents of one minor child

(Child) (born April 2007). On December 20, 2021, Father filed a complaint in

support for Child. On January 19, 2022, a support conference was held before

a master and, on January 25, 2022, the Honorable Maria Musti Cook entered

____________________________________________

1 Based on Mother’s monthly net income of $3,689.74 and Father’s monthly
net income of $2,706.49, Mother was ordered to pay $732.32 per month
($666.32/month for child support plus $66.00/month on arrears, effective
December 20, 2021). The order also provided that arrears of $1,918.04 as of
March 3, 2022 are due in full immediately. See Order, 3/3/22.

2   The parties were never married.
J-S32031-22

a support order based on Mother’s monthly net income of $2,383.09 and

Father’s monthly net income of $2,706.49.

      Both parties filed demands for a de novo hearing, which was held before

the Honorable Andrea Marceca Strong on March 3, 2022.            Following the

hearing, Judge Strong entered a final order of support. That order was based

on Father’s monthly net income of $2,706.49, as Judge Cook had determined,

and Mother’s monthly net income of $3,689.74, an increase of $1,306.65 from

Judge Cook’s determination. See supra n.1.

      Mother filed a timely appeal on March 30, 2022. Both Mother and the

trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Mother raises the following issues for our review:

      1. Did the trial court err in calculating an earning capacity for
         [Mother], rather than [Mother’s] actual earnings, as [she]
         produced evidence regarding her actual earnings and neither
         party alleged that [Mother] had willfully failed to obtain or
         maintain appropriate employment, per Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2?

      2. Did the trial court err in failing to consider [Mother’s] recent
         paystubs or most recent tax returns in its decision?

      3. Did the trial court err in including only [Father’s] 2021 W2
         income of $37,900.00 in its calculation, when [his] tax returns
         produced at the de novo hearing indicated that [Father] also
         earned business income and had a total adjusted gross income
         of $51,037.00?

Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

      The standard governing our review of a child support order is follows:

      [T]his 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

                                     -2-
J-S32031-22

     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.
     In addition, we note that the duty to support one’s child is
     absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child’s
     best interests.

M.E.W. v. W.L.W., 240 A.3d 626, 634 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

Furthermore, 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. [T]his 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 and

quotation marks omitted).

     “The principal goal in child support matters is to serve the best interests

of the children through the provision of reasonable expenses.”          E.R.L. v.

C.K.L., 126 A.3d 1004, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and quotation marks

omitted). Generally, a court determines child support using the support

guidelines. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1 to 1910.16-7 (subsequently amended

eff. Jan. 1, 2022). “[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that the guideline

calculated support obligation is the correct support obligation.”       Pa.R.C.P.

                                      -3-
J-S32031-22

1910.16-1(d); see also Ileiwat v. Labadi, 233 A.3d 853, 861 (Pa. Super.

2020). Cf. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1(d)(1) (“The presumption is rebutted if the

trier-of-fact concludes in a written finding or states on the record that the

guidelines support amount is unjust or inappropriate.”).

      Mother first argues that the court erred in calculating an earning

capacity for her, without touching “on the requisite factors that the court must

consider prior to imputing an earning capacity.” Appellant’s Brief, at 7. See

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)(i) (pertaining to willful failure to obtain or maintain

appropriate employment). Judge Strong states in her Rule 1925(a) opinion

that “[Mother] is correct to note that, in entering its decision, the [c]ourt

stated it determined that [Mother] has an earning capacity of $56,000 per

year.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/27/22, at 5. However, the court stated that it

“misspoke when entering the [o]rder,” and “should have said that

[Mother] has an actual monthly net income of $4,666[,] for a yearly

net income of $56,000.” Id. at 5, citing N.T. Support Hearing, 3/3/22, at

21 (emphasis added).

      Mother is the owner of a beauty salon. At the support hearing, Mother

testified that she earns income by “splitting revenue between her business

and her employees fifty-fifty and paying herself at a rate of eight dollars per

hours.” Trial Court Opinion, supra at 2, citing N.T. Support Hearing, supra

at 7-9. The court, however, found Mother’s testimony was not credible. Trial

Court Opinion, supra at 2. Instead, the court relied on Mother’s W-2 form

from 2020 to determine monthly net income, which indicated she paid herself

                                      -4-
J-S32031-22

$23,805.00 during that year. See Trial Court Opinion, supra at 2-3, citing

N.T. Support Hearing, supra at 9. This figure would yield a monthly net

income of $1,983.75. It is unclear why the court stated in its opinion that

it should have stated that Mother had an “actual monthly net income of

$4,666 for a yearly net income of $56,000.” Trial Court Opinion, supra at 5,

citing N.T. Support Hearing, supra at 21 (emphasis added). Adding to this

confusion, even though the court stated that it “misspoke when entering the

[o]rder,” and should have said Mother has an “actual monthly net income of

$4,666,” id., the final order of support was based on Mother’s monthly net

income of $3,689.74.      See Order, 3/3/22.

      The trial court, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, directs this Court to the

March 3, 2022 transcript of proceedings, which, along with the remaining

record before us, is somewhat light on detail. The record before us contains

no calculations made pursuant to the child support guidelines. There is no

indication the court performed the guideline calculation to determine what the

presumptive minimum amount of child support should be, see Pa.R.C.P.

1910.16-2(e)(2), nor is there any indication that the support guidelines do not

apply.

      In Ileiwat v. Labadi, 233 A.3d 853, 860-61 (Pa. Super. 2020), we

stated:

      In Ball v. Minnick, [] 648 A.2d 1192 (Pa. 1994), our Supreme
      Court broadly stated that “the amount of support, whether it be
      child support, spousal support or [APL], shall be determined in
      accordance with the support guidelines,” which included the
      formula, grids, and deviation factors provided in the rules. Id. at

                                     -5-
J-S32031-22

       1195. “The rules make clear that the amount of support as
       determined from the support guidelines is presumed to be the
       appropriate amount of support and that any deviation must be”
       determined through application of the rules, which set forth “the
       only factors that a trier of fact may consider in determining
       whether to deviate.” Id. at 1195-96. The Court expounded:

          The presumption is strong that the appropriate amount of
          support in each case is the amount as determined from the
          support guidelines. However, where the facts demonstrate
          the inappropriateness of such an award, the trier of fact may
          deviate therefrom. This flexibility is not, however, intended
          to provide the trier of fact with unfettered discretion to, in
          each case, deviate from the recommended amount of
          support. Deviation will be permitted only where special
          needs and/or circumstances are present such as to render
          an award in the amount of the guideline figure unjust or
          inappropriate.

Id. at 1196.3 See also Landis v. Landis, 691 A.2d 939, 941 (Pa. Super.

1997) (in support cases, “there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount

of an award for support which results from the application of the Support

Guidelines is correct.”) (citations omitted).

       Here, the trial court has not included a breakdown of the support

calculation. Moreover, the          court makes no mention of the custody

____________________________________________

3 In Pennsylvania, child support awards are calculated “in accordance with
specific statutory guidelines, using a complex system that accounts for the
obligor’s capacity to pay and the reasonable needs of the particular children.”
Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204, 1216 (Pa. 2013). See 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4322(a). “As a general rule, the amount of support to be awarded is based
upon the parties’ monthly net income over at least a six-month average.”
Sichelstiel v. Sichelstiel, 272 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022), citing
Pa.R.C.P. 1910-16-2. The Domestic Relations Code defines the term “income”
and includes income from any source. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a); see also 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 4302.

                                           -6-
J-S32031-22

apportionment between the parties.4            The trial court is clearly free to find

Mother’s testimony not credible;5 however, the court is required to articulate

a clear basis for its calculation of the support obligation.       The record before

us is insufficient to sustain the support order. M.E.W., supra. Accordingly,

we vacate the order and remand to the trial court for recalculation.

       Order vacated. Case Remanded. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

____________________________________________

4 At the hearing, counsel for Father stated that Father “has 100 percent
custody of this child.” N.T. Support Hearing, supra at 19. The court,
however, made no determination regarding custody apportionment. The 2021
Explanatory Comment to Rule 1910.16-3 (Support Guidelines. Basic Child
Support Schedule), states:

       Previously, the Basic Child Support Schedule incorporated a 30%
       child custody presumption, which created approximately a 5%
       decrease in the basic child support obligation across all combined
       monthly net incomes regardless of the actual custody schedule.
       The new Basic Child Support Schedule reflects the actual expenses
       of an intact family living in a single household at the various
       combined monthly net incomes and the number of children with
       no shared custody adjustment.

       To the extent the parties share physical custody with the obligor
       having 40% or more of the annual overnights as set forth in
       Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-4(c), the formula in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-
       4(a)(1)(Part D) or (a)(2)(Part II) should be used to calculate the
       appropriate shared custody adjustment.

Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3 - Explanatory Comment (2021) (emphasis added).

5 There is no allegation that Mother is deliberately hiding or lowering her
income, but the trial court cannot impose a negative inference on no record.
In sum, the court cannot create an earnings calculation when the record does
not support it.

                                           -7-
J-S32031-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/17/2023

                          -8-