Ball v. Minnick
| Decision Date | 24 October 1994 |
| Citation | 648 A.2d 1192,538 Pa. 441 |
| Parties | Teresa BALL, Appellant, v. Thomas MINNICK, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
William L. Garvin, McKeesport, Stanley I. Selkowitz, Pleasant Hills, for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY and MONTEMURO, JJ.
This case presents us with the opportunity to elucidate the scope of our current support guidelines contained in Rule 1910.16-1 et seq. of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. More specifically, we must determine whether the trial court correctly ordered child support in an amount lower than the guideline figure suggests. For reasons other than those relied upon by the learned Superior Court, we agree that the order of the trial court must be reversed. Accordingly, we affirm, in part, the Order of the Superior Court.
In October, 1989, appellant, Teresa Ball, filed a petition for modification of child support with respect to her and appellee's two children, both of whom were, at that time, living with appellant. An Order requiring appellee to pay $500.00 per month was entered upon recommendation of a Domestic Relations Hearing Officer. Believing that the award was too high, appellee sought a de novo hearing in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. Following the hearing, the trial court ordered appellee to pay $400.00 per month, while the guidelines suggested the amount of $513.00 per month. In its opinion in support of its order, the trial court found the following:
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.
This Court is aware that the guidelines are a starting point only. The Court has considered the expenses of both parties and their standard of living. It is clear that an Order of $400.00 per month meets all the basic needs of the children, so that any contribution made by plaintiff will serve to enhance the standard of living of the children. The Court believes that an award in the guideline amount would require this defendant to pay 60% of the expenses of Plaintiff's household, and thus subsidize plaintiff's current husband and their child. Considering all factors, this Court concluded that an Order of $400.00 per month for two children is fair and reasonable.
Appellant appealed that decision to the Superior Court arguing that the trial court erred in awarding only $400.00 per month. A majority of the Superior Court, which heard the case en banc, reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In doing so, it found that while child support could be determined in numerous ways including, inter alia, the implementation of the support guidelines, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1 et seq., or the formula set forth in Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), the trial court here erred by not considering all the relevant factors. Specifically, the Superior Court found that the trial court failed to consider the income of each parent's respective spouses and also failed to support its award by not setting forth sufficient detail regarding the reasonable needs of these two children. With respect to the applicability of the guidelines, the Superior Court held as follows:
Thus we conclude the guidelines are not mandatory, but a starting point and by implication they cannot and do not supersede Melzer or deny the trial judge or hearing officer of the discretion to mold support Orders to meet the specific conditions of the parties.
Ball v. Minnick, 414 Pa.Super. 242, 256, 606 A.2d 1181, 1188 (1992). The Superior Court went on to state that "the traditional broad discretion in the trial court to determine these matters remains unrestricted." Id. at 262, 606 A.2d at 1191.
In so holding, the Superior Court misperceives the effect of the adoption of the guidelines and sets forth an incorrect statement of the law. First, with respect to the viability of the Melzer formula, the Superior Court ignores the clear and unambiguous language of the guidelines and corresponding rules. In Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), this Court set forth a formula for determining child support obligations based upon the reasonable needs of the particular child or children involved together with the respective abilities of each parent to support their children. In 1989, however, this Court adopted the support guidelines found at Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1 et seq. Rule 1910.16-5 specifies in detail the applicability of the guidelines. Initially, the rule makes clear that the Melzer formula applies only where the parties' combined income exceeds the amount of the guideline income figures. Thus, the Superior Court erred in holding that the guidelines do not supersede the Melzer formula. The clear and unambiguous wording of Rule 1910.16-5 provides that the Melzer formula is no longer viable where the parties' incomes fall within the guideline figures. This is true even where the finder of fact, upon application of the guideline rules, determines that a deviation from the recommended guideline figure is warranted.
The Superior Court also erred with respect to its conclusion that the trial judge or hearing officer's discretion remains inviolate irrespective of the adoption of the guidelines and accompanying rules. Rule 1910.16-1 explicitly states that the amount of support, whether it be child support, spousal support or alimony pendente lite, shall be determined in accordance with the support guidelines which consist of not only the grids set forth in Rule 1910.16-2 and the formula set forth in Rule 1910.16-3, but also Rule 1910.16-5 which discusses in detail the operation of the guidelines. 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 based on Rule 1910.16-4.
In the instant case, the trial court deviated from the support guidelines by awarding monthly support of $400 rather than the guideline amount of $513. The sole issue before this Court is thus whether this case presents any basis for deviation.
The standard of appellate review of child support matters has not changed; a reviewing court must continue to apply an abuse of discretion standard. Costello v. LeNoir, 462 Pa. 36, 337 A.2d 866 (1975). A support order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court failed to consider properly the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions for Support, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.1 et seq., or abused its discretion in applying these Rules. O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 530 Pa. 176, 607 A.2d 735 (1992); Hovis v. Hovis, 518 Pa. 137, 541 A.2d 1378 (1988); Barletta v. Barletta, 506 Pa. 404, 485 A.2d 752 (1985); LaBuda v. LaBuda, 349 Pa.Super. 524, 503 A.2d 971 (1986), appeal denied, 514 Pa. 648, 524 A.2d 494 (1987).
As we said previously, deviations are governed by Rule 1910.16-4 in support proceedings involving parties whose incomes fall within the guideline figures. 1 Subsection (b) of this Rule sets forth the only factors that a trier of fact may consider in determining whether to deviate. The trier of fact is required to consider all relevant factors and any one factor alone will not necessarily dictate that the amount of support should be other than the guideline figure. Rather, the trier of fact must carefully consider all the relevant factors and make a reasoned decision as to whether the consideration thereof suggests that there are special needs and/or circumstances which render deviation necessary. Furthermore, where the trier of fact does determine that the circumstances warrant a departure from the guideline amount, the justification for any such deviation must be explicitly set forth in writing, giving particular attention to those factors which this Court, in adopting the guidelines, has specifically deemed relevant. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(a). General references to the effect that "all relevant factors have been considered" is wholly insufficient.
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.
In the instant matter, there was no evidence presented which established any special obligations or special circumstances justifying an award lower than the recommended guideline figure. The trial court's primary reason for deviating from the support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yerkes v. Yerkes
...guidelines is entitled to a strong presumption of correctness. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 4322(b); Pa. R.C.P. No.1910.16-1(d); Ball v. Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 648 A.2d 1192, 1196 (1994); see also Mascaro v. Mascaro, 569 Pa. 255, 803 A.2d 1186, 1189-91 (2002) (reciting rules containing presumption). Onc......
-
Christianson v. Ely
...Procedure Governing Actions for Support, Pa. R.C.P.1910.1 et seq., or abused its discretion in applying these Rules." Ball v. Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 648 A.2d 1192, 1196. (Pa.1994). (internal citations omitted). An abuse of discretion is "not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a ......
-
Colonna v. Colonna
...of support matters without court involvement, and (4) more efficient hearings where they are necessary."); Ball v. Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 451-452, 648 A.2d 1192, 1197 (1994). Here, the trial court rejected the Legislature's chosen method for determining child support, upset the statutory bal......
-
LSK v. HAN
...court involvement, and (4) more efficient hearings where they are necessary.") Colonna, 788 A.2d at 442 (citing Ball v. Minnick, 538 Pa. 441, 541-452, 648 A.2d 1192, 1197 (1994)). Therefore, child support is awarded pursuant to a statewide guideline established by general rule by the Pennsy......