Love v. Love
33 A.3d 1268
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Wife appeals from the June 15, 2010 allocated support order and the trial court’s failure to apply Husband’s 125% federal poverty guideline commitment under Form I-864 (Affidavit).
- Husband signed the INA Form I-864 to sponsor Wife’s permanent resident status, creating a contractual support obligation of at least 125% of the poverty guidelines.
- Wife is German; they have one child; married October 29, 2005; separated May 2009; immigration status efforts backdrop the proceedings.
- A Support Master issued preliminary and revised orders; the court ultimately relied on Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3/3 with guideline calculations and denied enforcing the 1-864 in support proceedings.
- This court held the trial court erred by not applying the 1-864 as a deviation trigger under Rule 1910.16-5 and remanded to apply Naik v. Naik framework, correcting earning-capacity treatment and outdated guideline application.
- The decision discusses miscalculation of Wife’s earning capacity, improper inclusion of imputed income, and need to recalculate without inflating income to determine the deviation and amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the INA Affidavit should affect support calculation. | Love argues the Affidavit is enforceable and should guide deviations. | Love contends Nicholson limits enforcement and the Affidavit is a separate civil remedy. | Affidavit applies; reverse and remand to apply deviation under Rule 1910.16-5(a). |
| Appropriate method to calculate deviation from guidelines using 1-864. | Wife asserts 125% threshold governs deviation. | Trial court relied on guideline framework without 1-864 consideration. | Trial court erred; must identify guideline amount and reasons to deviate under Rule 1910.16-5. |
| Whether earning capacity may be used to offset sponsor obligation. | Imputed earning capacity should not inflate resources used to defeat 1-864. | Husband suggests earnings capacity could be offset as part of mitigation or obligations. | Do not include imputed earning capacity in 1-864-based deviation; use actual income sources. |
| Impact on child/spousal support calculations and 2010 guidelines. | Errors in earning capacity and guideline updates affected totals. | Court relied on outdated guidelines and improper figures. | Remand to recalculate using correct income, 2010 guidelines, and Naik framework. |
| Remedy on remand. | Enforce 1-864 baseline and adjust to reflect sponsor obligation. | No contrary position beyond enforcement of Affidavit. | Direct trial court to apply Naik-based framework and Rule 1910.16-5 for proper deviation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. Combs, 550 Pa. 23 703 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1997) (enforcement interplay between orders and agreements; cautions separation of remedies)
- Naik v. Naik, 399 N.J. Super. 390 944 A.2d 713 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008) (affidavit framework; sponsorship triggers when needed to meet poverty guideline)
- Younis v. Farooqi, 597 F. Supp. 2d 552 (D. Md. 2009) (adoption of Naik-like approach in federal cases)
- Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (consideration of immigrant’s earning capacity in Affidavit context)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 238 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2010) (significant earning capacity as a factor in Affidavit enforcement)
- Wenfang Liu v. Mund, 748 F. Supp. 2d 958 (W.D. Wis. 2010) (mentions earning-capacity analysis in immigration-support framework)
- Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192 (Pa. 1994) (guideline amount presumed affordable; standard of living considerations)
- Sonder v. Sonder, 378 Pa. Super. 474 549 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) (enforcement and waiver considerations in family matters)