Court Opinion

ID: 9705877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:24:58.519339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:17.036635
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
Appellant husband appeals an Order entered May 31, 1988 which approved and affirmed recommendations of a hearing officer and dismissed his exceptions to a proposed Order of support. The support Order directs him to pay support in the amount of $1,025 per month for support of appellee spouse and $1,935 per month for support of the parties’ four minor children. While the majority affirms the trial court on all aspects of the appeal, I would modify the support award and disallow as income the $373 appellant contributes to a pension plan. I also believe the trial court accorded too much emphasis to the “meager” amount wife said was necessary to support her children, and erred in ordering support payments for her in an amount over twice what she testified her needs to be.
In its Opinion, the trial court explains the factual and procedural history surrounding the appeal:
On July 10, 1987, Wife/Mother filed a “Complaint for Support” with the Domestic Relations Section of this Court. On September 8, 1987, a hearing was held on the *235complaint before Hearing Officer Klein. The Hearing Officer determined the net monthly income of Wife/Mother to be $790.00 and the net monthly income of Husband/Father to be $5773.00. The hearing Officer then determined that Wife/Mother was entitled to support in the sum of $1025.00 per month and directed Husband/Father to pay $1935.00 per month for support of the four children.
The Hearing Officer’s recommendation was to be effective on July 10, 1987. Husband/Father filed exceptions and both parties filed briefs. Oral argument was heard on the exceptions.
Slip Op., Melody, J., 6/1/88, p. 1. The Order in question was entered and husband timely filed the appeal.
As noted in the majority Opinion, husband contends the court erred in eight respects: 1) concluding wife was entitled to support for herself because her conduct was such as to deprive her entitlement; 2) failing to attribute “unused” earning capacity to wife because she is a registered nurse and refuses to consider jobs where she could earn more money; 3) finding the net income of husband was $5,773 per month where that is not the true amount of his income; 4) attributing one-third of the retained cash of husband’s three person physical therapy partnership to him as income; 5) awarding support in excess of the reasonable needs of the wife and children; 6) awarding support in excess of husband’s take-home earnings; 7) awarding a confiscatory amount ($2,960) of support; and 8) awarding spousal support in excess of one-third of his income.
The appellate scope of review of an Order regarding a petition for support is narrow; we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, and we are limited to a determination of whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding spousal support. See Motley v. Motley, 283 Pa.Super. 397, 424 A.2d 524 (1981); Commonwealth ex rel. McQuiddy v. McQuiddy, 238 Pa.Super. 390, 358 A.2d 102 (1976).
*236With this in mind, I first address wife’s entitlement to spousal support. “Support, child or spousal, assures a reasonable living allowance to the party requiring support.” Laughlin v. Laughlin, 372 Pa.Super. 24, 28, 538 A.2d 927, 929 (1988). The obligation to support the dependent spouse continues until it is shown that the conduct of the dependent spouse provides a ground for divorce; the conduct claimed to nullify the obligation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Roach v. Roach, 337 Pa.Super. 440, 487 A.2d 27 (1985).
I agree with the trial court’s assessment of the matter. Husband did not allege any specific conduct of wife which would constitute a ground for a fault divorce under 23 P.S. § 201(a), and the only subsection which is arguably applicable is 201(a)(6). That subsection provides to the injured and innocent spouse a ground for divorce whenever it shall be judged that the other spouse shall have offered such indignities to the innocent and injured spouse as to render his or her condition intolerable and life burdensome. The trial court found here that husband had not shown grounds which would be sufficient to grant a fault divorce. In Beaver v. Beaver, 313 Pa.Super. 512, 460 A.2d 305 (1983), we said the moving party must prove indignities as well as that he or she is the injured and innocent spouse. We explained:
[Ijndignities may consist of vulgarities, unmerited reproach, habitual contumely, studied neglect, intentional incivility, manifest disdain, abusive language, or malignant ridicule. Obviously, several of the factors listed above must coalesce to justify a finding of indignities, although taken separately, no single incident or factor would be sufficient.
Id., 313 Pa.Superior Ct. at 516, 460 A.2d at 307 (citations omitted). Moreover, the spouse claiming to be innocent and injured must not provoke the other’s indignities, unless the other spouse’s retaliation is excessive. Id. After a thorough review of the record and testimony before us, I see no *237error in the court’s finding that husband had failed to sustain his burden of proof.
As to husband’s second contention, I agree with the trial court and am not persuaded by appellant’s argument that net income of $19 per hour should have been imputed to wife because she refuses to seek employment as a registered nurse at that rate of pay. Wife testified she works 20 hours per week at a rate of $8 per hour as an office nurse plus an additional 5 hours per week at a rate of $10.75 teaching a class in childbirth (N.T. 9/8/87, pp. 80-81, 85). She further testified that while she was aware she could earn $18 to $20 per hour as an OB/GYN nurse, she had not looked into hospital nursing because the hours would interfere with her care of the children, whereas her current job permits her to be present for the children in the morning when they leave for school and allows her flexibility in her schedule to accommodate the children’s activities (N.T. at 83, 85). In view of Sutliff v. Sutliff, 339 Pa.Super. 523, 489 A.2d 764 (1985), I see no error on the part of the trial court in concluding wife is entitled to support payments by husband because her working hours are limited for legitimate reasons related to the care of her children.
Next, husband urges the court should have found $2,673.35 per month to be his income, and he argues the court erred in attributing to him net monthly income of $5,773. The trial court made its calculation in the following manner:
The Husband/Father’s accountant testified without contradiction that his net monthly income for 1987 would be $5400.00 per month. (N.T. 23). He also testified that there was a $5,730 contribution to a retirement plan being made for the year. The Hearing Officer divided by twelve (12) months the $5,730.00 to arrive at the figure of $477.50 per month for the retirement plan. He then subtracted $104.50 to allow for taxes. The resulting net monthly figure for this retirement plan was $373.00. The Hearing Officer added this $373.00 per month to the *238$5,400.00 per month to arrive at a total net figure of $5,773.00 per month.
Slip Op. at 5.
Appellant argues the court improperly used a net income figure of $5,400 (plus the retirement contribution) because it is not the amount he will receive since the partnership is retaining income for expansion, but it is the figure upon which his taxes are calculated. Instead, he contends the court should have used as his income a $1,000 weekly draw from the three-way partnership, less $440 withheld for taxes, resulting in a total net income of $560 per week. Moreover, husband says a 44 per cent tax would be imposed on his weekly tax-deferred retirement if the money were to actually be received, so that the court should have attributed a retirement figure of $61.71 per week after taxes to him.1 He calculates this by allocating the $5,730 over 52 weeks, for a total of $110.19 per week, less 44 per cent, $48.48 in taxes, resulting in an additional $61.71. He urges this figure, added to his weekly draw of $560 per week, should have led the court to conclude he receives $621.71 per week or $2,673.35 per month, in income.
While the accountant who serves the partnership and the parties testified on direct examination that husband receives a $1,000 weekly draw, of which he must set aside $440 for tax purposes (N.T. at 6, 9-10), he also testified on cross-examination that husband’s projected net income for 1987 would be $65,000, or $5,400 per month. On redirect, the accountant attempted to explain that appellant would not be receiving $5,400 per month from the business because “[tjhere are debt obligations which the partnership must pay, which they incurred at the inception of the partnership, and they are not deductible for tax purposes. Plus there is also the reserve of funds necessary for the construction of the new physical plant.” (N.T. at 26-7.)
*239My careful review of the record and exhibits which include exhibit PI, the statement by appellant’s personal and the partnership’s C.P.A., convinces me the trial judge was correct in finding appellant failed to prove the monthly net income of $5,400 was substantially reduced by payment into a reserve fund, payment on partnership debts and taxes. Those accounts establish that the net income of the partnership through the first seven months of 1986 was $122,710, whereas for 1987 it was $289,090. Total partnership withdrawals for the first seven months of 1987 were $120,538 or projected for the full year, $68,880 per partner. At the same time working capital, after the draw, increased by $109,000 for an end balance of $155,000 for the seven month period. During the same period, funds applied to acquire fixed assets and to reduce long term debt amounted to $9,453 for seven months, or as projected to twelve months would amount to $16,205. The accountant testified Mr. King’s anticipated gross income in 1987 was $89,190 (H.T. 9/8/87, p. 22-23), resulting in net income after taxes and social security of $65,000. This is the figure from which the court derived the husband’s net income available for support consideration. I find no error by the trial court in finding the net income of the appellant to be in excess of $5,400 per month. As discussed infra however, I would disallow the $878 per month added which was a reasonable payment to a pension plan.
Appellee/mother, in her budget submission, documented a total need for herself and the four children of $2,310 per month, which was uncontested by the husband. The court, applying the Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), guidelines and referring to the Chester County guidelines, made an award of $1,025 for the spouse and $1,985 for the children for a total award of $2,960. The trial court used as a basis for its computation of the husband’s ability to pay a monthly net income of $5,773 per month, which included $5,730 for the year ($477.50 per month) contributed to the husband’s pension plan less taxes. I believe the trial judge erred in disallowing this amount as *240a necessary deduction from gross income. A reasonable pension plan, beyond social security contributions, would appear to be a prudent and desirable expenditure in today’s world. Such an investment is to be considered deferred compensation if paid by an employer and is subject to some form of distribution as marital property at the time of divorce. There is no reason that this fund should not be treated in a similar manner. Thus $373 ($477.50, contribution per month less $104.50 in taxes) should be subtracted from the $5,773 monthly net to bring us to a net income of $5,400 per month. Since the pension plan is not excessive and it cannot be imputed to the husband that he has sequestered an inordinate amount of money for that purpose, to reduce the amount available for support it should be allowed. In a rapidly changing economic environment in which less reliance can be had on government programs for retirement, and the present thrust is toward encouraging individual efforts to provide for security upon retirement, this cannot be ignored.2
Also, I find the trial court sua sponte attributed too much weight in holding the wife’s expenses to be “meager” when this apparent effect was due to a majority of the household expenses being attributable to the four children.3 While this is a formula consideration, it serves to minimize the amount the wife needs to expend out of her own funds for housing, utilities and other amenities for the same quantity and quality of these necessities which would be a much higher ratio if there were fewer children. Thus I believe the apportionment must be adjusted to fit these two considerations.
*241Applying these considerations to the Melzer formula, I derive the following:
Amount available for support from mother, whose needs are set at $460
Net monthly income $790
Needs of mother - 460
Available for support $330
Amount available for support from the father whose needs are set at $1,175.46
Net monthly income $5,400.00
Needs of father - 1,175.46
Available for support $4,224.54
The Melzer calculation,4 to determine appellant’s total support obligation, therefore, produces the following:
F.A.I. $4,224.54 x 1,850 (childrens’
M.A.I. + F.A.I. $330 + $4,224.54 needs) = $1,715.95.
This figure is only a $4.55 deviation from that calculated by the trial court using the Melzer formula (Slip Op. at 8), although it is $219 per month less than the award by the hearing officer and ultimately the trial court.
The Melzer calculation,5 to determine mother’s support obligation, is as follows:
M.A.I. _$330_ X 1,850 (childrens’
M.A.I. + F.A.I. $330 + $4,224.54 needs) = $134.12.
I do not find justification for the award of the wife of $1,025 per month. She set her own need at $460 per month which is admittedly low, but as explained above, is absorbed *242in part by the sharing of the home and expenses for the children, largely paid by the husband.
Looking to the standard applied to support for a spouse and applying the one-third rule to the $2,508.59 which would be left to husband after paying his share for child support, a reasonable and probably maximum amount payable for spousal support would be $836. Adding $836 to the $195.88 remaining after appellee’s contribution of $134.12 to child support, the total amount of the mother’s spousal share would be $1,031.88. This would leave appellant with $1,672.59. Such an arrangement would not be confiscatory.
In view of the fact that I believe virtually all of the findings and assumptions by the trial judge are correct, except as I would modify following my review of the record, I would affirm the Order except as noted above, with the wife to receive spousal support in the amount of $836 and the children to receive child support in the amount of $1,715.95 per month, for a total support Order of $2,551.95 per month. While it is customary to remand for reconsideration by the trial court when the Order entered is not affirmed, where as here the change is based on figures documented on the record and requires only a substitution of those figures for those used by the court, judicial efficiency and economy suggest that I would enter the Order as I believe it should be modified.

. He apparently derives this 44 per cent tax figure from his accountant’s testimony that husband must reserve $440 out of every $1,000 for tax purposes.

. The majority does not discuss this matter, relying on the master’s factual conclusions.

. Wife testified the household food expense is only $100 per month because she cares for a large garden and cans and freezes most of the vegetables and fruit used by the family throughout the year (N.T. at 77). When the trial court derives a legal conclusion based on an improper factual determination, as established by the record, an appellate court may correct such a finding. The majority ignores this fundamental principle of appellate review and its reliance on the trial court’s incorrect assumptions defeats the purpose of review and works an injustice on the party seeking relief.

. Father’s available income = F.A.I.
Mother’s available income = M.A.I.

. Ibid.