Preston v. Preston
| Decision Date | 16 August 1994 |
| Citation | 435 Pa.Super. 459,646 A.2d 1186 |
| Parties | Margaret M. PRESTON v. William Russell PRESTON, Appellant. (Two Cases) |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
James W. Reid, Scranton, for appellant.
Joseph J. Notarianni, Scranton, for appellee.
Before BECK, POPOVICH and HOFFMAN, JJ.
The issue is whether a father, a support obligor, is entitled to credit for child support payments for an amount paid by the Social Security Administration directly to his children as a result of his retired status. We remand for the court to reconsider the question in light of Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County v. Chorgo, 341 Pa.Super. 512, 491 A.2d 1374 (1985).
Margaret (mother) and William (father) Preston were married in December, 1973. They adopted two children during their marriage, Bradley, born in 1981 and Ashley, born in 1984 (the children). The parties divorced in April, 1992 and in August of that year, the court issued a temporary order directing father to pay $480.00 per month to mother for support of the children. After hearings before the Master and arguments by the parties, the trial court denied father's request that the funds paid by Social Security directly to the children be credited against his support obligation. Father now appeals the order requiring him to pay $480 per month.
Father is 68 years old and receives a monthly retirement payment from the Social Security Administration. Father's benefits also include a payment made directly to his children in the amount of $806.00 per month. 1
In father's appeal, he relies on a superior court case which holds that there is a presumption that a father is entitled to receive credit against his child support obligation for Social Security payments made directly to his minor children. See Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County v. Chorgo. A full review of Chorgo is appropriate.
William Chorgo's children, who were in the custody of the county youth services agency, received monthly Social Security benefits. The agency commenced an action to enforce an outstanding child support order against Chorgo and to compel the payment of arrearages. Chorgo argued that he should receive credit for the Social Security payments paid to his children. The trial court rejected his arguments and ordered that no credit be given. A panel of this court concluded that the trial court erred in disallowing the credit.
After reviewing the case law of several other states that addressed the issue, the Chorgo court concluded that there is a rebuttable presumption that credit will be given for Social Security payments made directly to the child. The opinion's holding does not require credit in all cases. Instead it advises that "the court still has the ability to alter the presumption and give partial or no credit, should the circumstances justify it." Id. at 520, 491 A.2d at 1378.
In the instant case, the trial court did not address Chorgo. Father relies on the case, and mother, in her appellate brief, attempts to distinguish it. 2 We however conclude that Chorgo is apposite. Both cases involve the duty of a child support obligor where the children are receiving direct payments from Social Security as a result of the support obligor's Social Security entitlement.
The trial court erred in not considering Chorgo in reaching its decision. Chorgo does not require that credit always be given, the case merely sets forth a rebuttable presumption that credit is appropriate. A party opposing credit may persuade the court that credit is inappropriate under the specific circumstances of the case. Upon determining that a party should be awarded no credit (or only partial credit), the court must then articulate the reasons for its findings on the record. See Chorgo, supra.
Upon reconsideration of the circumstances in this case, it may be that the trial court concludes that credit is inappropriate and that mother has successfully rebutted the presumption. 3 3 We remand this matter to determine whether and to what extent father's support obligation should be credited. 4
Order of the trial court reversed, matter remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
1 The Social Security Act provides that a dependent child of a person who is entitled to Social Security benefits is also entitled to a monthly insurance benefit. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(d)(1).
2 Mother attempts to distinguish Chorgo on three grounds. First, she notes that in Chorgo one of the parties was a governmental entity, while in the instant case the parties are parents. Mother argues the difference is significant because unlike the youth services agency in Chorgo, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Belger
...620 P.2d 883, 885 (N.M.1980); Lago v. Trabucco, 207 A.D.2d 92, 621 N.Y.S.2d 824, 826 (N.Y.App.Div.1994); Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa.Super. 459, 646 A.2d 1186, 1187 (Pa.Super.Ct.1994); In re Allsup, 926 S.W.2d 323, 328 (Tex.App. Of the jurisdictions examining this issue, the majority has dec......
-
Adams v. Adams
...Security dependent retirement benefits. See, e.g., Clark v. Clark, 110 Haw. 459, 134 P.3d 625 (Ct.App.2006); Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa.Super. 459, 646 A.2d 1186 (1994). In the present case, the circuit court's judgment states: “After careful consideration, this court believes that in Alaba......
-
In re Estate of Johnson
...there is a rebuttable presumption that credit will be given for Social Security payments made to a child. Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa.Super. 459, 646 A.2d 1186, 1187 (1994); Miller v. Bistransky, 451 Pa.Super. 433, 679 A.2d 1300 (1996); Children and Youth Servs. of Allegheny County v. Chorgo......
-
Stultz v. Stultz
...622 A.2d 482 (R.I.1993) (parent entitled to credit for Social Security disability benefits to children); Preston v. Preston, 435 Pa.Super. 459, 646 A.2d 1186 (1994) (benefits to child raise a rebuttable presumption in favor of a credit).6 We can envisage a social security disability recipie......