Ball v. Minnick

• Decision Date: 08 April 1992
• Citation: 414 Pa.Super. 242,606 A.2d 1181
• Parties: Teresa BALL, Appellant, v. Thomas MINNICK.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 1181

606 A.2d 1181

414 Pa.Super. 242

Teresa BALL, Appellant, v. Thomas MINNICK.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 12, 1991.

Filed April 8, 1992.

Donald R. Shroyer, Greensburg, for appellant.

William D. Garvin, McKeesport, for appellee.

DEL SOLE, Judge, concurring:

I join the Concurring Opinion of my colleague, Judge Phyllis Beck. However, I believe it is necessary to further answer the argument that the Melzer formula has viability in support cases that fall within the Support Guideline ranges.

Melzer begins by requiring that the "reasonable expenses of raising the children involved, based upon the particular circumstances--the needs, the custom, and the financial status--of the parties" must be determined. 505 Pa. at 471, 480 A.2d at 995. Next the ability of the parents to support the children must be determined, based upon the reasonable living expenses of the parent. After these findings are made, the court then applies the formula set forth Melzer.

In my view, the legislatively mandated guidelines, are designed to comply with Melzer. Inherently, they determine the reasonable needs of the children and the reasonable living expenses of the parent. This determination is developed from the Income Shares Model used in their creation. Thus the findings and calculations required by Melzer are no longer necessary in cases that fall within the guidelines.

In cases where evidence is presented that establishes a particular need of the child that warrants additional financial support, or where a need of the non-custodial parent beyond normal living expenses is present, a court may depart from the guideline amount. In those cases, the court must make a specific finding setting forth the factors that warrant departure, or the reason why the suggested departure is not warranted.

In the case before us, I would remand for the entry of the guideline amount. I cannot assume, as do some of my colleagues, that the needs of these children are being met by the award entered by the trial court simply because the custodial family is destitute. Rather, I believe that the guideline amount would help provide additional benefits for these children, exactly what the guidelines were intended to accomplish.

Therefore, to the extent that there are cases which view the application of Melzer as still viable in guideline cases, they should be expressly overruled. Trial courts should apply the guideline amount, departing only where it is determined that particular needs of a child require a greater award, or where particular needs of the non-custodial parent limits the ability to meet the guideline amount. The language in the comment accompanying Pa.Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-1 at B(1) is particularly enlightening. "A party will not be rewarded for making unnecessary expenditures for his or her own benefit by having his or her support obligation reduced. Neither will a party be penalized for living frugally by receiving less support."

Therefore, I would remand this case to the trial court with directions to impose an award based on the application of the guidelines.

Before WIEAND, McEWEN, OLSZEWSKI, DEL SOLE, BECK, TAMILIA, POPOVICH, JOHNSON and HUDOCK, JJ.

TAMILIA, Judge:

Appellant, Teresa Ball, takes this appeal from the March 9, 1990 Order directing appellee, Thomas Minnick, to pay, inter alia, total support in the amount of $400 per month for his two children. This Order followed a de novo hearing before the Honorable John E. Blahovec of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. The relevant facts of this case, as stated by the trial court, are as follows.

Plaintiff resides with her husband, their child and the two children of the parties who are the subject of the current support order. Plaintiff has been employed as a waitress, and has a minimum wage earning capacity. She is currently off work after having surgery, but plans to return to work in the near future. Her present husband is not employed and no explanation of his status was presented at trial. It is axiomatic that he has a duty to contribute to the support of his wife and child. The total monthly budget of Plaintiff's household is $850.00 per month. The parties children constitute forty per cent of that household, and the sum of $340.00 per month reflects their reasonable needs. The Court has concluded that the reasonable needs of the children are about $400.00 per month.

Defendant earns $1,705.00 per month. He resides with his wife and her two children from a prior union. Application of the support guidelines at $1,705.00 per month for defendant and $400.00 per month earning capacity for plaintiff suggests an Order of $513.00 per month.

(Slip Op., Blahovec, J., 3/27/90, p. 1.)

On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in determining appellee's child support obligation. Appellant also argues more broadly that the Melzer ¹ formula and the mandatory uniform support guidelines are inconsistent with each other, and that, by their very nature, the support guidelines supersede the Melzer formula for calculating support payments.

This Court's standard of review for support awards is a narrow one based upon abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion in these matters requires more than mere error of judgment, it requires rather an overriding or misapplication of the law or a manifestly unreasonable exercise of judgment. Caplan v. Caplan, 400 Pa.Super. 352, 583 A.2d 823 (1990).

The issue as stated by appellant is whether the court failed to correctly determine the father's child support obligation.

In this case the Court en banc is called upon to determine whether the guidelines are applicable in the face of evidence establishing that the needs of the children are less than the amount provided by the guidelines and the excess would benefit other members of the household for whom the husband has no legal responsibility.

We must determine whether the presumption established by the guidelines is absolute or subject to judicial discretion based on evidence that permits application of the Melzer formula or other rationale established through caselaw over the years.

Our consideration of this matter is aided by recently decided cases which have considered the issue of the binding effect of the guidelines and whether they have superseded totally Melzer and the exercise of judicial discretion.

At the outset, it is clear that no case since the inception of the guidelines has overruled Melzer and several cases directly or by implication have held that the Melzer formula remains a viable concept in determining the apportionment of support obligation for children. It goes without saying that as an intermediate appellate court, we have neither the authority nor inclination to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court.

Secondly, no majority decision in this Court or the Supreme Court has held the guidelines supersede all previous case law or the discretion of the trial court in establishing a reasonable support Order. Historically, guidelines and formulas were repudiated specifically by appellate decisions on the theory each case was unique and only a trial judge, upon review of all of the evidence concerning the needs of the spouse and/or child and the ability of the legally responsible party to pay, could determine the amount of the Order which had to be fair and reasonable and not confiscatory.

A brief historical review of the caselaw and statutory law in Pennsylvania may help in understanding why trial judges have such broad discretion and short of a total rejection of the historical evolution of support law, we may not attribute to the rules committee such a dramatic and fundamental change.

It has always been a fundamental rule of common law that the husband owes a duty to make reasonable provisions for the support of his wife in conformity with his means and the station in life of the parties. Commonwealth v. Berfield, 160 Pa.Super. 438, 51 A.2d 523 (1947). The law was changed as a result of the Support Law of 1937, as amended, 62 P.S. § 1971 et seq. (repealed as to procedure and governed by Pa.R.C.P. 1910.1 et seq.), providing that "[t]he husband, wife, child ..., father and mother of every indigent person ... shall ... assist such indigent person ... as the court ... shall order or direct." The equal rights amendment and a finding by the Supreme Court that spouses had an equal obligation for support of each other when in need even as to in rem proceedings pursuant to the Act of 1907, 48 P.S. § 131 et seq., made this duty equal to both spouses. See Commonwealth ex rel. Stein v. Stein, 487 Pa. 1, 406 A.2d 1381 (1979). A father at common law also has the primary duty to support his dependent children. In re Harlands Account, 5 Rawles 323; In re Schwabs Account, 355 Pa. 534, 50 A.2d 504 (1947); Commonwealth ex rel. Bortz v. Norris, 184 Pa.Super. 594, 135 A.2d 771 (1957). ² The duty remained unchanged until the Supreme Court determined because of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in Pennsylvania in 1971, Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, § 28, the Constitution required that the duty to support must be shared equally by both parents. See Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974).

Procedurally there were civil, summary, quasi criminal and criminal procedures to enforce the duties. The civil remedies began with the Act of 1907, 48 P.S. §§ 131-141 (repealed, now contained in 23 Pa.C.S. § 4321), which provided for the civil enforcement of support, 48 P.S. 132 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 3703), 48 P.S. 136 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 4348), 48 P.S. 137 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 4361), 48 P.S. 138 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 4362), 48 P.S. 139 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 4363), 48 P.S. 140 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 4364), 48 P.S. 141 (now 23 Pa.C.S. § 4365). 23 Pa.C.S. § 4366, Other enforcement remedies preserved, provides that other existing remedies to enforce support orders, including but not limited to the right of plaintiff to institute proceedings against real or...