Miller, H. v. Miller, C.
305 WDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 29, 2017Background
- Mother sought support for herself and four children; parties shared equal physical custody; oldest child later emancipated.
- June 16, 2015 consent support order (based on Father’s stipulation) required Father to pay $2,840/month: $1,609.54 child support, $907.13 alimony pendent lite (APL), and $323.30 toward the mortgage.
- Shortly after the order, Father closed his masonry business, obtained lower-paying hourly work ($25/hr), and sought modification; the conference officer and trial court imputed to him his prior business income as earning capacity.
- Father filed repeated petitions to reduce support; courts repeatedly refused to recalculate income based on his actual post-business earnings and continued to assess child support using imputed earning capacity.
- Trial court eventually denied modification; appellate court reviewed whether imputed earning capacity remained appropriate given the extended period since business closure and Father’s actual earnings and work history.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by using previously imputed earning capacity instead of Father’s actual earnings to calculate child support | Use Father’s actual, lower hourly earnings (post-business closure) and re-evaluate earning capacity after prolonged period | Maintain imputed earning capacity from prior business income because Father voluntarily closed business to avoid obligations | Court held trial court abused discretion: must use actual income or a realistic earning capacity; remanded to calculate child support based on Father’s post-closure earnings retroactive to Oct. 24, 2016 |
| Whether modification petition can substitute for an earlier appeal of imputation determination | A modification petition can seek reassessment where circumstances changed over time and prior imputation is outdated | Trial court: modification is not a substitute for an appeal of the earlier imputation finding | Court rejected trial court’s blanket rule; remanded because the passage of time and evidence of sustained lower earnings warranted re-evaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbet v. Arbet, 863 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for support orders and purpose of child support)
- Smedley v. Lowman, 2 A.3d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2010) (earning capacity may be imputed when a party willfully fails to obtain appropriate employment)
- Novinger v. Smith, 880 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2005) (courts should reassess imputed earning capacity after time passes; obligor should not pay forever for losing employment)
- Hrinkevich v. Hrinkevich, 676 A.2d 237 (Pa. Super. 1996) (child support portion of an order is immediately appealable; spousal support portion may be interlocutory)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 760 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 2000) (economic support orders can be reviewed in connection with finalization of divorce and property division)