Moody v. Moody

• Docket Number: 224 WDA 2023,J-S41018-23
• Decision Date: 24 January 2024
• Parties: HEATHER J. MOODY v. ANTHONY M. MOODY Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

HEATHER J. MOODY
v.
ANTHONY M. MOODY Appellant

No. 224 WDA 2023

No. J-S41018-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 24, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered January 18, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Domestic Relations at No(s): 145 DR 2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

OLSON, J.

Appellant, Anthony M. Moody, ("Father") appeals from the January 18, 2023 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County that denied Father's exceptions to, and deemed as final, the support recommendation order, obligating Father to pay child support to Heather J. Moody ("Mother") for their two minor children.^[1] We vacate the support order

2

and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

The trial court summarized the procedural history as follows

[Mother] filed a complaint for child support on March 22 2022[,] against [Father]. The parties participated in a conference on May 5, 2022[,] and an interim order was entered on May 10, 2022.^[2]

3

Subsequently, Mother and Father [requested a] de novo hearing on May 19, 2022[,] and a hearing was held on August 8, 2022[,] before [a] hearing officer[.] On September 23, 2022, the hearing officer filed a report and findings[.] Father filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and findings on October 3, 2022[,] and each party filed briefs in support of their respective positions. Oral argument was heard before [the trial] court on January 9, 2023. Subsequently, on January 1[8], 2023, [the trial] court entered an order finding that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion and made no error of law when making her recommendation. The recommended order was adopted by [the trial] court on January 1[8], 2023[, as the final support order.]

Trial Court Opinion, 4/13/23, at 1 (extraneous capitalization omitted).^[3] This appeal followed.^[4]

Father raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by concluding that [Father] has an earning capacity of over $128,000[.00] per year despite there being no factual support for that conclusion?

2. Did the trial court commit an error of law by concluding that [Father] has an earning capacity of over $128,000[.00] per year because the [trial] court failed to follow [Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure] 1910.16-2(d)(4)[,] which states that age, education, training, health, work experience, earnings history[,] and child care responsibilities shall be considered in determining earning capacity?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of [Father's] witnesses?

4

4. Did the trial court, as a finder of fact, commit an error of law by failing to consider the testimony of [Father's] witnesses, weighing the evidence, and assessing their credibility?

Father's Brief at 4-5.

Father's issues, in toto, challenge the trial court's child support order for which our standard of review is well established.

When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the trial court's determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of the discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the [trial] court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill[-]will, discretion has been abused. In addition, we note that the duty to support one's child is absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the child's best interests.

Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284, 291 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (citation omitted).

Moreover, it is within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and decide credibility[,] and this Court will not reverse those determinations so long as they are supported by the evidence. We are also aware that a [hearing officer's] report and recommendation, although only advisory, is to be given the fullest consideration, particularly on the question of credibility of witnesses, because the [hearing officer] has the opportunity to observe and assess the behavior and demeanor of the parties.

Brubaker v. Brubaker, 201 A.3d 180, 184-185 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 216 A.3d 225 (Pa. 2019). "Support orders must be fair, non-confiscatory[,] and attendant to the circumstances of the parties." Spahr v. Spahr,

5

869 A.2d 548, 552 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation and original quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to Section 4322(a) of the Domestic Relations Code,

Child and spousal support shall be awarded pursuant to a Statewide guideline as established by general rule by [our] Supreme Court, so that persons similarly situated shall be treated similarly. The guideline shall be based upon the reasonable needs of the child or spouse seeking support and the ability of the obligor to provide support. In determining the reasonable needs of the child or spouse seeking support and the ability of the obligor to provide support, the guideline shall place primary emphasis on the net incomes and earning capacities of the parties, with allowable deviations for unusual needs, extraordinary expenses[,] and other factors, such as the parties' assets, as warrant special attention. The guideline so developed shall be reviewed at least once every four years.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4322(a) (emphasis added).

Pursuant to the support guidelines, an obligation to pay child support is, generally, based on the parties' monthly net incomes, which are calculated using at least a six-month average of each party's income, including, inter alia, wages, bonuses, net income from a business, rents, pension plan distributions, and income from a trust. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-2(a) (emphasis added). In arriving at a party's "monthly net income," the following withholdings and payments are deducted from the party's monthly gross income: federal, state, and local income taxes; unemployment compensation taxes and local services taxes; Federal Insurance Contributions Act payments (Social Security, Medicare, and Self-Employment taxes) and non-voluntary

6

retirement payments; mandatory union dues; and alimony paid to the other party. Rule 1910.16-2(c)(1).

A party's net income will not be downwardly adjusted if the trier-of-fact finds that "the party voluntarily assumed a lower paying job, quit a job, left employment, changed occupations, changed employment status to pursue an education, or employment is terminated due to willful misconduct." Rule 1910.16-2(d)(1)(ii). "When a party willfully fails to obtain or maintain appropriate employment, the trier-of-fact may impute to the party an income equal to the party's earning capacity." Rule 1910.16-2(d)(4)(i); see also Dennis v. Whitney, 844 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Pa. Super. 2004) (stating, "[w]here a party willfully fails to obtain appropriate employment, his or her income will be considered to be equal to his or her earning capacity"); Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004) (stating, "[w]here a party assumes a lower paying job or willfully fails to obtain appropriate employment, the support obligation is determined by his, or her, assessed earning capacity"). When calculating a party's earning capacity, the trier-of-fact "shall not impute to the party an earning capacity that exceeds the amount the party could earn from one full-time position[ and ] shall determine a reasonable work regimen based upon the party's relevant circumstances, including the jobs available within a particular occupation, working hours and conditions, and...