Court Opinion

ID: 9909021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 15:05:24.00209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:44.397942
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-1174

                              KEDISHA A. PINNOCK

                                       vs.

                                HORACE PINNOCK.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       In this divorce action, the parties entered into a partial

 separation agreement that resolved all issues "other than the

 determination of [the husband's] child support obligation and

 the calculation of [the husband's] child support arrears."                The

 parties also "agree[d] that child support shall be calculated

 pursuant to the child support guidelines," and there was little

 dispute regarding the information to be used in applying those

 guidelines.     After a brief trial held on representations of

 counsel, a Probate and Family Court judge set child support at

 $150 per week, and she incorporated that order into a judgment

 of divorce nisi. 1     The wife appeals, contending that the judge

 erred in calculating the amount of child support the husband

 1 The husband was also required to pay an additional $47 per week
 until an arrearage of $14,310 in child support was paid off.
should pay.   We remand this matter to the judge for

reconsideration and explication of her ruling.

     Background.   In calculating child support pursuant to the

child support guidelines, the judge was required to determine

the husband's gross income.   See Child Support Guidelines § I.

The husband earns his income as a driver working for various

ride share and delivery services such as Uber and DoorDash.

Because the husband was self-employed, to establish his gross

income, he is allowed to deduct from his gross receipts those

expenses that are "ordinary and necessary" to the production of

his income.   See Child Support Guidelines § I.C.

     The parties stipulated that the husband's average weekly

gross receipts for the period from January 1, 2022, to July 17,

2022, were $1,009.91.   The parties also agreed that the husband

could deduct from that figure at least some of his automobile

and cell phone expenses given that he used his car and cell

phone to earn income.   His total weekly car and cell phone

expenses were $352.34 per week.   Because it appears uncontested

that the husband used his car and cell phone for both business

and personal use, this raised the question of how the expenses

for those items should be apportioned between those uses.     In

their stipulation, the parties expressly left to the judge for

resolution at trial "the applications of any reductions against

                                  2
[the husband's] gross receipts based on the payments [for car

and cell phone expenses enumerated in the stipulation]."

     At the hearing, the wife's counsel pointed out that the

husband owned only one car, and that the separation agreement

itself indicated that the husband would need to make some

personal use of that car. 2   Counsel also represented that the

husband owned a cell phone prior to becoming an Uber driver and

that the phone was not just used for business.     Ultimately,

wife's counsel took the position that the husband should be

allowed to deduct only half of such expenses in calculating his

gross income.   It does not appear from the record that the

wife's proposed split of those expenses was based on any actual

calculation of the relative percentages of the husband's

business and personal use of the phone or car.

     Through his counsel, the husband did not contest the wife's

claim that he made some personal use of his car and cell phone.

Nevertheless, the husband did not directly engage the question

of whether/how such expenses should be apportioned.     The primary

focus of the husband's arguments related to his overall

financial status and attendant ability to pay. 3   Describing the

2 For example, wife's counsel made uncontested representations
that the husband "drives his car to pick up and drop off the
children, for parenting time, to school, [and] to bring the
children and himself to trips to visit his family in New York."
3 The husband also asserted that he incurred some additional

expenses that should count as related to his business, such as

                                  3
husband as financially "under water" and "drowning," counsel

suggested that unless the judge implemented a "deviation

downward" from the presumptive figure generated by the child

support guidelines, the husband would "have to go on public

assistance."

     The judge found the husband's income to be $658 per week.

She did not explain how she arrived at that figure but, as the

wife points out, that is the precise figure that results from

allowing the husband to deduct 100 percent of his documented car

and cell phone expenses from his gross receipts.       Thus, the wife

takes the position that the judge implicitly ruled that the

husband was entitled to deduct all of his car and cell phone

expenses even though he made some personal use of them.

     Inputting the $658 figure into the child support guidelines

would generate a presumptive child support award of $197 per

week.   As the judge noted, that figure would amount to 30

percent of the husband's income.       The judge did not set child

support at the presumptive amount of $197, but instead made a

downward deviation based on her concern about the husband's

ability to pay.   The judge's only explanation was her statement

"that the Husband is able to pay 23% of his gross income of $658

the food he purchased while on the road. We agree with the wife
that the husband's seeking to raise those additional expenses is
not consistent with how the parties jointly framed the remaining
issues in the stipulation.

                                   4
per week toward the support of the parties' two minor children

after consideration of his reasonable expenses and the needs of

his children."      On this basis, she ordered the husband to pay

child support of $150 per week (23% of $658).      Until he paid off

his current arrearage, however, the husband would be required to

pay the full $197 per week.

     Discussion.     The wife makes two different arguments.

First, she argues that the judge erred in calculating the

husband's gross income by giving him 100 percent credit for his

car and cell phone expenses as "ordinary and necessary" business

expenses, even though it was uncontested that he made some

personal use of them.      Second, she argues that the judge erred

in making a downward deviation from the presumptive figure

generated by the guidelines.      We begin by addressing the second

argument first.

     The child support guidelines allow a judge to deviate from

the presumptive figures based on a list of particular

considerations. 4    See Child Support Guidelines § IV.A, B.   To

4 The wife argues that the husband in fact waived any request for
a downward deviation by agreeing in the stipulation that child
support would be "calculated pursuant to the child support
guidelines." Under her interpretation, the term "guidelines"
used in the stipulation refers to the formulae through which
presumptive child support is to be determined. Although this
argument is not without some force, it founders on the fact that
the term "guidelines" is commonly used in two different senses:
that is, to refer to both the specific formulae used to
determine presumptive child support, and the overall policy

                                    5
effect a deviation, however, the judge must "make specific

written findings" that using the presumptive "amount would be

unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances; the specific

facts of the case which justify departure from the guidelines

and that such departure is consistent with the best interests of

the child."   G. L. c. 119A, § 13 (c).     See Wasson v. Wasson, 81

Mass. App. Ct. 574, 577 (2012).

     As relevant here, a judge may deviate from the presumptive

amount of child support "where application of the

guidelines . . . leaves a parent without the ability to self

support."   Child Support Guidelines § IV.B.10.     The judge did

not support her decision to deviate with an adequate explanation

of how payment of the presumptive amount would preclude the

husband from supporting himself.       To be sure, the judge did note

the husband's ability to pay by stating her view that he "is

able to pay 23% of his gross income."      However, that statement

is not a specific finding about the effect that paying the

presumptive amount would have on the husband's ability to self-

document comprising the child support guidelines as a whole
(which include both the specific formulae and the ability to
deviate from them). In light of this, we do not view the
husband's agreeing to the stipulation as an unambiguous waiver
of his ability to argue for a deviation. In addition, we note
that when the husband made his ability to pay arguments at the
hearing, the wife sought to counter such arguments on the
merits; she did not argue that the husband had waived them by
executing the stipulation.

                                   6
support, and it can be interpreted as an expression of a policy

view that no one should be required to pay more than 23 percent

of his or her income in child support.      Accordingly, we conclude

that a remand is necessary.

     While leaving the child support obligation set forth in the

judgment of divorce nisi in place for the time being, we remand

the issue of child support for the judge to reconsider whether a

deviation from the child support guidelines is justified and, if

so, for the judge to make appropriate findings.      That leaves the

question whether the judge properly determined the husband's

gross income in the first place.       Without resolving whether the

judge abused her discretion by giving the husband full credit

for all of his car and cell phone expenses, on remand the judge

should reconsider how to apportion such expenses for purposes of

determining the husband's gross income.      We leave it to the

discretion of the judge whether to hear new evidence or to

resolve the matter on the existing record.

     Conclusion.   So much of paragraph 2 of the judgment of

divorce nisi as requires the husband to pay child support of

$150 per week is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.      The

judgment is affirmed in all other respects, including the

husband's obligation to pay $47 per week toward arrears.      During

the pendency of the remand, the husband shall pay temporary

                                   7
child support of $150 per week, in addition to his weekly

arrearage payment, unless the judge orders otherwise.

                                      So ordered.

                                      By the Court (Vuono, Milkey &
                                        Hand, JJ. 5),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    December 12, 2023.

5   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  8