M.E.H. v. J.P.N.
1073 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Parents (married 1987) entered a marital separation agreement allocating college costs under Illinois law; two children (S.N., E.N.).
- Illinois entered a child-support order in 2005; father later moved the case to Pennsylvania (2009) and petitioned to modify support.
- Pennsylvania court conducted de novo hearings, adjusted child support, emancipated E.N., and required father to pay a share of college expenses; appellate court affirmed key rulings in 2012.
- Subsequent proceedings addressed allocation of educational expenses; by 2013–2014 the court reapportioned parents’ percentages (father bearing the large share).
- Mother petitioned in 2014 claiming father underreported substantial inheritances (~$239,945.29). The hearing officer excluded $41,359.49; the trial court disagreed, found father underreported inheritance, calculated additional child payments ($14,434.52 to each child) based on a 20% deviation, and awarded modest counsel fees to Mother.
- Father appealed, raising challenges to the deviation, the inclusion of the $41,359.49 amount, the form of payment (direct to children vs. educational institution), and the counsel-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to recalculate college-expense allocations given income/tax changes | Court should enforce prior reapportionment and adjust only if warranted; Mother sought modification based on undisclosed inheritance | Father argued decrease in income, high taxes, and Mother’s income increase required recalculation | Waived by Father for failure to develop argument; court otherwise found no abuse of discretion in modification |
| Whether 20% deviation from support guidelines was justified and adequately explained | Deviation supported by record (inheritance, parties’ history); court provided reasons on the record and in opinion | Father argued the court failed to explain consideration of Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 factors in writing | Court accepted hearing officer’s deviation as reasonable and the opinion provided sufficient factual basis; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether $41,359.49 should be included in father’s inheritance total | Mother argued father had a claim/right to that amount and it should be counted toward inheritance | Father claimed he waived that $41,359.49 to his sister and thus did not receive it | Court found father had a claim of right and underreported inheritance; included amount in total and adjusted payments accordingly |
| Whether father may be ordered to pay lump sums directly to adult children rather than to institutions/loans | Mother sought payments to children and counsel relied on parties’ agreement and Illinois Act permitting payments to the child | Father argued payments should be applied to college expenses or loans per the marital agreement/Illinois Act intent | Court held Illinois Act allows payments to child; ordering direct payment was within discretion |
| Whether counsel fees to Mother were properly awarded | Mother sought fees due to father’s misrepresentation and repeated petitions necessitating litigation | Father argued no proof the fee bill was transmitted to the hearing officer and therefore fee award was improper | Court found record evidence that counsel faxed the bill and father’s conduct warranted fees; award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review and deference to trial court in support cases)
- Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007) (support-order review principles)
- Ricco v. Novitski, 874 A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussing permissible deviations from support guidelines)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (focus on party conduct in counsel-fee awards)
- Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (Pennsylvania’s adherence to the American Rule on counsel fees)