Mascaro v. Mascaro
Decision Date | 20 August 2002 |
Citation | 569 Pa. 255,803 A.2d 1186 |
Parties | Rosemary MASCARO, Appellant, v. Joseph MASCARO, Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
David J. Draganosky, Lansdale, David S. Rasner, Lawrenceville, NJ, Mark Randolph Ashton, Exton, for Rosemary Mascaro.
Rochelle B. Grossman, David L. Ladov, Plymouth Meeting, for Joseph Mascaro.
Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.
We granted appeal in this matter to determine whether the support guidelines, Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-1-1910.16-7,1 apply to spousal support cases where the parties' combined net income exceeds $15,000 per month ($180,000 per year).2 Because we hold that they do apply, we reverse the decision of the Superior Court, which held that in such cases, spousal support is calculated pursuant to Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984).
Joseph Mascaro (Husband) and Rosemary Mascaro (Wife) were married in August of 1978, and separated in October of 1994. They had one child, born on November 14, 1984. On June 4, 1996, Wife filed a Complaint for Support, and on September 25, 1996, a master issued a recommendation that Husband pay Wife $2,500 per week ($130,000 per year) tax free for spousal and child support.3 Both parties filed exceptions, following which the trial court held a de novo hearing. The trial court determined that Husband had monthly after-tax income of nearly $52,000 ($624,000 per year). The parties agreed that Wife had no earning capacity.
On June 10, 1998, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $19,786 per month ($237,432 per year) in child and spousal support. Husband sought reconsideration of the June 10, 1998 award, which the trial court granted by Order dated June 29, 1998. On May 4, 1999, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $13,000 per month ($156,000 per year) as tax-free unallocated spousal and child support. The court determined that where monthly income exceeds the limit provided in the support guidelines, both child support and spousal support must be calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984). On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the order of the trial court.
Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-2(e)(2) clearly provides that when the parties' combined net income exceeds $15,000 per month ($180,000 per year), child support shall be calculated pursuant to Melzer. The Rule further provides:
The presumptive minimum amount of child support shall be obligor's percentage share of the highest amount of support which can be derived from the schedule for the appropriate number of children and using the parties' actual combined income to determine obligor's percentage share of this amount. The court may award an additional amount of child support based on the parties' combined income and the factors set forth in Melzer. The Melzer analysis in high income child support cases shall be applied to all of the parties' income, not just to the amount of income exceeding $15,000 per month. In a Melzer analysis case, the presumptive minimum remains applicable.
In Melzer, we held that "the hearing court must first calculate the reasonable expenses of raising the children involved, based upon the particular circumstances—the needs, the custom, and the financial status—of the parties." Melzer at 995. Once the reasonable needs of the children have been determined, Melzer sets forth a formula to calculate each parent's support obligation. A determination of the reasonable needs of the children depends upon the standard of living that the obligor can afford, "not what he is willing to pay for." Karp v. Karp, 455 Pa.Super. 21, 686 A.2d 1325, 1328 (1996), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 549 Pa. 701, 700 A.2d 441 (1997), appeal discontinued with prejudice by Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, dated September 16, 1998. Accordingly, an obligor may not force his or her children to live below the family's means.
The statutory basis for the support guidelines is found in Section 4322 of the Divorce Code, which provides:
23 Pa.C.S. § 4322.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1 sets forth the general principles regarding application of the support guidelines:
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1. The 1998 Explanatory Comment to this Rule indicates that the guidelines are based upon the Income Shares Model developed by the Child Support Guidelines Project of the National Center for State Courts. Because authoritative economic studies demonstrate the average amount of money that intact families with a monthly net income of $15,000 or less spend on their children, such amounts serve as the basic child support schedule set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4 provides the following method by which to calculate spousal support or alimony pendente lite (APL) when the parties have dependent children:
PART IV. SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR APL With Dependent Children 12. Obligor's Monthly Net Income (line 4) ________ 13. Less Obligor's support, alimony pendente lite or alimony obligations, if any, to children or former spouses who are not part of this action (See Rule 1910.16-2(c)(2)) ( ) 14. Less Obligee's Monthly Net Income (Line 4) ( ) 15. Difference ________ 16. Less Obligor's Total Child Support Obligation (line 11) ( ) 17. Difference ________ 18. Multiply by 30%4 × .30 19. Amount of Monthly Spousal Support or APL ________
Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4(a) Part IV.
An award of child or spousal support determined under the support guidelines is a rebuttable presumption, from which the trier of fact may deviate under certain circumstances. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 provides:
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5. Accordingly, the guidelines direct a finder of fact to calculate a spousal support or APL award according to the formula set forth in Rule 1910.16-4 and to deviate from that result according to the factors provided in Rule 1910.16-5.
Despite the existence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yerkes v. Yerkes
...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). Once a support order is in effect, "[a] petition for modification ... may......
-
Hetherington v. Hetherington
...groceries and furnishings were properly included as income to an employee parent, citing similar holdings in Mascaro v. Mascaro, 569 Pa. 255, 803 A.2d 1186, 1194 (2002); Clark v. Clark, 172 Vt. 351, 779 A.2d 42, 48-49 (2001), and Morgan v. Ackerman, 964 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App.1998)). See also I......
-
Gangwish v. Gangwish
...held corporation to a shareholder, should be considered as income for purposes of determining child support. See, Mascaro v. Mascaro, 569 Pa. 255, 803 A.2d 1186 (2002); Clark v. Clark, 172 Vt. 351, 779 A.2d 42 (2001); Heisey v. Heisey, 430 Pa.Super. 16, 633 A.2d 211 (1993); Com. ex rel. Gut......
-
Diament v. Diament
...income in excess of $15,000 per month, the child support guidelines outlined at Pa.R.C.P.1910.16-3 no longer apply. Mascaro v. Mascaro, 569 Pa. 255, 803 A.2d 1186 (2002). Instead, in each such case the trial court must independently determine the reasonable expenses involved in raising the ......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...in Rule 1910.16-4 and to deviate from the result if any of the factors provided in Rule 1910.16-5 apply.' (11) In Mascaro v. Mascaro, 803 A.2d 1186, 1191 (Pa. 2002), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that determining spousal support based upon the parties' net incomes and obligor's other......