Steinmetz v. Steinmetz

• Decision Date: 08 February 1989
• Citation: 381 Pa.Super. 440,554 A.2d 83
• Parties: Donna STEINMETZ v. William T. STEINMETZ, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 83

554 A.2d 83

381 Pa.Super. 440

Donna STEINMETZ v. William T. STEINMETZ, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 15, 1988.

Filed Feb. 8, 1989.

Allen H. Tollen, Media, for appellant.

Harry J. Bradley, Media, for appellee.

Before TAMILIA, POPOVICH and HOFFMAN, JJ.

HOFFMAN, Judge:

This appeal is from an order granting appellant's petition to modify child support. Appellant contends that the lower court erred in failing to adequately reduce his support payments by (1) not treating his alimony payments as an expense in calculating his income; (2) misapplying the guidelines under Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984); (3) finding his income to be significantly higher than it actually is; (4) not questioning appellee's excessive clothing expenses; and (5) not considering the fact that he has remarried and now has an additional child. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

The parties were married in 1961 and divorced on May 3, 1982. Three children were born of the marriage: Kimberly, Matthew, and Cynthia. On September 25, 1980, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, a temporary support order was entered directing appellant to pay fifty dollars ($50.00) per week. Following a hearing before a Master on September 10, 1981, the Master recommended that the amount of support be increased to sixty-five dollars ($65.00) weekly. Upon entry of the final divorce decree, the support order was amended and appellant's support obligation was reduced to sixty dollars ($60.00) per week.

Subsequently, appellant filed a petition to modify the support order based on a change in circumstances. In his petition, appellant alleged that he now had custody of one of the minor children and that appellee's income had increased substantially. A hearing on the petition was held before a Master and the Master recommended that the support order be reduced to twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per week. Appellee excepted to the Master's recommendation and requested a hearing before the Court of Common Pleas. Following a hearing de novo, the lower court held that under the guidelines set forth in Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), appellant is responsible for sixty-eight percent (68%) of the support of the child residing with appellee and appellee is responsible for the remaining thirty-two percent (32%). Lower Court Opinion at 3. Accordingly, the court rejected the Master's recommendation, and instead reduced the support order for the minor child residing with appellee to forty-eight dollars ($48.00) per week. This appeal followed.

Appellant first contends that in calculating his support obligation under the guidelines set forth in Melzer, the lower court erred in failing to characterize his alimony payments as an expense to him and income to appellee. Appellant argues that the court erred in including in his net income monies earmarked to fulfill his alimony obligation. Appellant reasons that his alimony payments are not part of his cash flow available for child support, and thus, are properly excludable as a reasonable living expense. We agree with appellant that the alimony award is properly excludable as income.

Our scope of review in child support cases is narrow, and we are limited to determining whether a clear abuse of discretion, as shown by clear and convincing evidence, has occurred. See Fee v. Fee, 344 Pa.Super. 276, 279, 496 A.2d 793, 794 (1985); Commonwealth ex rel. Cochran v. Cochran, 339 Pa.Super. 602, 607, 489 A.2d 804, 807 (1985); Commonwealth ex rel. Stump v. Church, 333 Pa.Super. 166, 168-69, 481 A.2d 1358, 1359 (1984). "An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment. It must be a misapplication of the law or an unreasonable exercise of judgment." Marshall v. Ross, 373 Pa.Super. 235, 238, 540 A.2d 954, 956 (1988). The general rule is that a child support order is not final and may be increased or decreased where the financial conditions of the parties change. Commonwealth ex rel. Tokach v. Tokach, 326 Pa.Super. 359, 362, 474 A.2d 41, 43 (1984). A support order must be fair, not confiscatory, and allow for the reasonable living expenses of the parent, consistent with the parents' and children's "station in life" and "customary standard of living". Funk v. Funk, 376 Pa.Super. 76, 80, 545 A.2d 326, 328 (1988) (citations omitted).

Under the guidelines enunciated by our Supreme Court in Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984), ¹ a parent's support obligation is calculated by first, determining the reasonable needs of the children and then, determining the respective abilities of the parents to support their children. Id. at 463, 480 A.2d at 993; DeWalt v. DeWalt, 365 Pa.Super. 280, 284, 529 A.2d 508, 510 (1987). To determine the respective abilities of the parents to support their children, the court must make an allowance for the reasonable living expenses of each parent and then calculate each parent's net income or earning capacity, if that figure differs from the actual income. Additionally, the court must look beyond the actual earnings of the parents and consider the full value and extent of the parties' financial resources and ability to pay support. Butler v. Butler, 339 Pa.Super. 312, 316, 488 A.2d 1141, 1142-43 (1985). See Marshall v. Ross, 373 Pa.Super. 235, 238, 540 A.2d 954, 956 (1988).

In Cross v. Cross, 310 Pa.Super. 124, 456 A.2d 214 (1983), this Court held that in assessing the full measure of a parent's financial resources, a court must evaluate, inter alia, a parent's earning capacity, property interests, alimony pendente lite, and investments. Id. at 128, 456 A.2d at 216 (emphasis added). Importantly, the court must consider each parent's "actual and potential cash flow from his [or her] property interests, financial resources, stock holdings and other investments" before determining the child support obligation. Ryan v. DeLong, 371 Pa.Super. 248, 250, 538 A.2d 1, 2 (1987).

After ascertaining the children's needs and the parents' available income, the court determines each parent's respective support obligation. Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. at 468, 480 A.2d at 998. Notably, although this analysis is accomplished according to the directives of the Melzer formula, the trial court is permitted "to adjust the resulting support obligation if deviation from the formula is warranted under the particular circumstances." Lampa v. Lampa, 371 Pa.Super. 1, 7, 537 A.2d 350, 353 (1988) (citing DeWalt v. DeWalt, 365 Pa.Super. at 285, 529 A.2d at 508 (1988)).

In this case, in computing the parties' respective support obligations under the Melzer formula, the court below held that alimony was not deductible and thus, included the monies earmarked for the alimony award as part of appellant's net income. See Lower Court Opinion at 2-3. The court, however, excluded the alimony award in calculating appellee's net income. See id. The court reasoned that to include the alimony payments in appellee's net income would defeat the purpose for which it was intended: to cover the transitional expenses of divorce and entry into fulltime employment. See id. at 4. We find this to be an abuse of discretion.

In order to calculate the support obligation of each parent, a court is bound not only to apply the Melzer analysis but also to consider the financial needs of the parties. See Ryan v. DeLong, 371 Pa.Super. at 250-54, 538 A.2d at 2-3. A parent's ability to support his or her child is not based solely on the amount of income received by the parent. See Butler v. Butler, 339 Pa.Super. at 316, 488 A.2d at 1143. The court must look beyond the actual earnings of the parents and make allowances for the reasonable living expenses of each parent. See id. Thus, if the court applied the Melzer formula without first deducting each parent's living costs and other reasonable expenses, the application of the guidelines would result in a fictional financial picture: One not truly representative of the parent's ability to support the children. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the principles underlying Melzer and DeLong.

Although appellant neither cites nor has our research revealed a reported case which addresses whether a court should consider alimony an excludable expense from a parent's net income under the Melzer computation, this Court's prior rulings concerning the effect of alimony pendente lite upon a parent's net income are instructive. We have held that a trial court must consider and evaluate the effect of alimony pendente lite on the incomes of the parents before determining child support obligations. See Cross v. Cross, 310 Pa.Super. at 127-28, 456 A.2d at 216. Alimony and alimony pendente lite serve the same interest: offsetting the unjust effects of the dissolution of marriage upon a dependent spouse. McNulty v. McNulty, 347 Pa.Super. 363, 370, 500 A.2d 876, 879 (1985). Although alimony and alimony pendente lite both provide for enforcement of a duty of support arising at common law as an incident of marriage, their immediate functions differ. Id. at 370-71, 500 A.2d at 879. Alimony pendente lite is awarded for the purpose of enabling the dependent spouse to maintain or defend the divorce litigation. Keller v. Keller, 275 Pa.Super. 573, 586-87, 419 A.2d 49, 56 (1980). Alimony, however, is awarded to ensure that the reasonable needs of the dependent spouse are met. McNulty v. McNulty, 347 Pa.Super. at 371, 500 A.2d at 880. Additionally, alimony continues after divorce, whereas alimony pendente lite continues only during the pendency of the divorce proceeding. Id. See 23 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 501-502. Although alimony and alimony pendente lite are distinguishable, the reasoning behind the necessity for considering their effect on the available portion of a spouse's income for computation of child support is the same. Thus, it logically follows that in determining a...