Oley v. Oley

• Decision Date: 26 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 187 MDA 2014,J-A08008-15,187 MDA 2014
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Parties: DONNA M. OLEY, Appellant v. NORMAN J. OLEY, Appellee

DONNA M. OLEY, Appellant v. NORMAN J. OLEY, Appellee

J-A08008-15

No. 187 MDA 2014

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNE 26, 2015

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered January 9, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County

Civil Division at No(s): 09815-CV-14-142, PACSES NO. 602112782

BEFORE: SHOGAN, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,^* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:

This is an appeal in a support matter by Plaintiff-Appellant, Donna M. Oley ("Wife") from the January 9, 2014 order of the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Wife and Defendant-Appellee, Norman J. Oley ("Husband"), married in August of 1987 and separated in October 2010, but they resided together until May of 2011 when Wife moved from the marital residence. N.T., 8/7/13, at 8. In the meantime, Husband filed for divorce on January 14, 2011. N.T., 9/11/13, at 40. The parties have four children, two of whom were minors at the time of separation. N.T., 8/7/13, at 8. One of the children achieved majority in October of 2012. Id. Only the youngest,presently age seventeen, remains a minor. Id. at 8-9. When Wife moved from the marital residence, the two minor children resided with her in Elysburg, Pennsylvania. Wife filed a complaint for child and spousal support and alimony pendente lite ("APL") on September 29, 2011. Id.

The trial court entered an interim support order utilizing the calculations of the Domestic Relations Section, wherein it determined that Wife's monthly net income was $1,749.24 per month and Husband's monthly net income was $5,424.85. Order, 1/20/12. The court ordered Husband to pay $1,327.00 per month in child support and $705.00 in APL, for a total monthly obligation of $2,032.00, effective September 29, 2011. Id. at 1-2. Husband received credit for $10,000.00, representing sixteen $625.00 weekly payments to Wife since the time she filed the support complaint. Id. at 3. Wife was ordered to provide health insurance for herself and the parties' children. Id.

Wife timely filed a petition for de novo hearing on January 26, 2012. Pending the de novo review, Husband filed a complaint for spousal support on October 4, 2012. After several continuances, a multi-day de novo hearing was held before President Judge Robert B. Sacavage¹ on August 7, 2013, September 11, 2013, and November 14, 2013.

By order dated December 30, 2013, and filed January 6, 2014, Judge Sacavage bifurcated the divorce action and reaffirmed that the calculation of support would utilize the parties' incomes solely for the years 2010 and 2011. Order, 1/6/14. The order additionally dismissed Husband's complaint for spousal support. The court determined that Domestic Relations properly calculated both parties' incomes for those years. Id. Thus, by order dated January 7, 2014, and entered on January 9, 2014, the trial court determined Wife's monthly net income to be $2,105.14, and Husband's net monthly income to be $5,424.85, and ordered Husband to pay Wife $1,931.00 per month in child support and APL. Order, 1/9/14.

Wife filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court, presumably due to the retirement of President Judge Sacavage, did not order the filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. New President Judge William Harvey Wiest filed Recorded Reasons in Lieu of Opinion on May 20, 2014, merely referencing the trial court's January 7, 2014 order.²

Wife raises the following issue for our review:

I. Whether the lower court erred in affirming the calculation of [Husband's] monthly net income performed by Domestic Relations, who relied solely on [Husband's] 2010 Federal Income tax return, when:

a. [Husband's] 2010 and 2011 tax returns inaccurately reported [Husband's] gross earnings?

b. [Husband's] 2010 and 2011 income tax returns incorrectly reported Husband's earnings as one-half rental income on Schedule E. and one-half as income from a sole proprietorship on Schedule C, when his earnings were actually W-2 income, and should not have been reduced by expenses reflected on Schedule C and Schedule E?

c. [Husband's] 2010 and 2011 income tax returns do not accurately reflect the money [Husband] had available for child support income, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 4302?

Wife's Brief at 6.

The order appealed provides for child support and APL. We review APL awards under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448, 463 (Pa. Super. 2011).

APL is "an order for temporary support granted to a spouse during the pendency of a divorce or annulment proceeding." 23 Pa.C.S. § 3103. APL "is designed to help the dependent spouse maintain the standard of living enjoyed while living with the independent spouse." Litmans v. Litmans, 449 Pa. Super. 209, 673 A.2d 382, 389 (1996). Also, and perhaps more importantly, "APL is based on the need of one party to have equal financial resources to pursue a divorce proceeding when, in theory, the other party has major assets which are the financial sinews of domestic warfare." Id. at 388. . . . "APL focuses on the ability of the individual who receives the APL during the course of the litigation to defend her/himself, and the only issue is whether the amount is reasonable for the purpose, which turns on the economic resources available to the spouse."

Id. at 463 (citing Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 644-645 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

The standard of review with respect to the amount of a child support award also is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court. Miller v. Miller, 783 A.2d 832, 835 (Pa. Super. 2001).

An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the 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.

W.A.M. v. S.P.C., 95 A.3d 349, 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). This Court may reverse a trial court's determination concerning support only if the court's order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. Spahr v. Spahr, 869 A.2d 548, 551 (Pa. Super. 2005).

Importantly, this Court has held that support obligations are determined primarily by the parties' actual earnings. Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citing DiMasi v. DiMasi, 597 A.2d 101 (Pa. Super. 1991)). Moreover, a party cannot voluntarily reduce his earnings in an attempt to circumvent a child support obligation. Grigoruk v. Grigoruk, 912 A.2d 311, 313 (Pa. Super. 2006). Additionally, 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." Morgan v. Morgan, 99 A.3d 554, 557 (2014), appeal denied, Morgan v. Morgan

, ___ A.3d ___, 2015 WL 1542583 (Pa. 2015). Further, in determining a husband-father's financial obligation to his wife and children, "a court must make a thorough appraisal of the husband-father's actual earnings and perquisites, and thetrue nature and extent of his property and financial resources." Labar v. Labar, 731 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Pa. 1999).

At the hearing on August 7, 2013, Wife testified she worked for Francis Bobek, M.D., for twenty-seven years, which was substantially throughout the marriage. N.T., 8/7/13, at 9. Her gross earnings in 2010 were $20,748.31 and $21,478.00 in 2011. Id. at 9-10.³ Wife testified that Husband's source of income in 2010 and 2011 was from his fifty-percent ownership of Light & Heavy Supply Company, Inc. ("L&H Supply"), a company involved in the buying, refurbishing, and selling of mining equipment. N.T., 8/7/13, at 16-17. Wife testified that during the marriage, Husband received weekly checks of $3,000.00 from L&H Supply and bonuses three times each year, in April, July, and December. Id. at 16, 23-24. Wife testified that the April bonus was used to pay the parties' income taxes, the bonus in July, typically $50,000.00, was used for their annual family vacation, and the end-of-the-year bonus typically was $100,000.00. Id. at 24. Wife further explained that she utilized the joint bank statements to total the deposits Husband made into their joint account in 2010 and in 2011 from January 1, 2011, until she moved out of the marital home in May. Id. at 29-30. In 2010, Husband deposited $194,578.00, and in the five-month period in 2011 whenWife remained in the marital home, he deposited $102,000.00. Id. at 30-31.

Husband's brother, Richard Oley ("Richard"), testified at the August 7, 2013 hearing. As noted, Husband owned fifty percent of L&H Supply and was the President; Richard owned the other fifty percent. N.T., 8/7/13, at 16, 50. Richard, who "paid the bills" and "did all the book work" for L&H Supply, testified that he wrote fifty-five $3,000.00 checks to Husband in 2010, which represented Husband's weekly pay. Id. at 53-54, 63-64. He testified that after May 2011, he did not issue any checks to Husband; rather, Richard's separate company, Black Diamond Mining, issued checks to L&H Supply. Id. at 74. To understand the intricate relationship of Black Diamond Mining and L&H Supply, and to gain an understanding of the change in Husband's salary before and after Wife left the marital residence, we review portions of Richard Oley's testimony, as follows:

Q. [By Wife's counsel]: You are also on the books as one hundred percent owner of the Black Diamond Company . . . ?

A. [Richard Oley]: I am the owner—or I was the owner of Black Diamond Mining. I sold the—corporation.

* * *

A. Black Diamond Mining was organized, was built because I wanted to have a preparation plant, a coal company to run.

Q. . . . Do you agree that Black -- first of all, do you agree that [Husband] cannot mine because he's not permitted by the state to do so?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay, and you agree that as long as [Husband] was a 50 percent owner of Light & Heavy, Light & Heavy could not conduct the mining on the property that Light & Heavy owned. Is that correct?

A. . .

...