Hamilton, K. v. Hamilton, A.
Hamilton, K. v. Hamilton, A. No. 1443 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- Parents married 2013, separated 2014; one minor child is at issue in a child-support action.
- Mother (LPN, one year college) stopped working in 2010 and reported limited recent job search; Father (some college) had a criminal history related to drug activity and firearm possession, served ~1 year in prison.
- Father owns two small businesses and rental property; reported business/rental Schedule C income in 2013–2014 totaling roughly $16,892, plus $980/month rental receipts shown in records submitted to the Master.
- Mother filed for child support (Nov. 2014). First Support Master recommended $2,317/month for support of two children; exceptions were granted and remanded.
- A second Support Master imputed $75,000 annual income to Father based on alleged past spending and recommended $1,047/month for one child; the trial court adopted that recommendation and denied exceptions.
- Superior Court vacated and remanded because the record lacked the required factual inquiry under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4) to impute earning capacity (no evidence Father willfully failed to seek appropriate employment nor findings about age, education, training, health, work experience, earnings history, childcare responsibilities, or reasonable work regimen).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Hamilton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly imputed $75,000 annual income to Father | Impute income based on Father’s prior spending pattern and earning history to reflect true ability to support the child | Imputing $75,000 lacked evidentiary support; Father’s actual reported business/rental income (~$16,892) is far lower and Master’s credibility finding insufficient to justify large imputation | Vacated and remanded: imputation was unsupported because the court failed to conduct the full inquiry required by Rule 1910.16-2(d)(4) and relied improperly on spending history without showing willful failure to obtain appropriate employment or considering required factors |
| Whether court understated Mother’s net income | (implicit) use Mother’s limited recent earnings and job search as presented to Master | Father argued Mother’s income was understated, affecting guideline calculation | Not reached on appeal (court remanded on primary imputation error) |
| Whether trial judge’s remarks showed bias requiring reversal | Observed remarks characterized Father as a "scumbag drug dealer," suggesting prejudice | Father argued bias required reversal | Not decided on merits; Superior Court noted concern about judge’s comments and observed Father may move for recusal on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court in support orders)
- Portugal v. Portugal, 798 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 2002) (abuse of discretion requires more than error of judgment; bias/partiality standard)
- Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007) (purpose of child support and guideline emphasis on net incomes)
- Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2004) (earning capacity governs support where it diverges from actual earnings)
- D.H. v. R.H., 900 A.2d 922 (Pa. Super. 2006) (earning capacity must be what party could realistically earn considering age, health, training)
- Haselrig v. Haselrig, 840 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court must conduct a full inquiry before imputing earning capacity)