Montgomery, J. v. Montgomery, M.
Montgomery, J. v. Montgomery, M. No. 880 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 15, 2017Background
- Parties married 2005, separated 2015; two minor children. Mother is a contingent beneficiary of a spendthrift trust and has received discretionary distributions in the past. Father employed with base salary $150,000 and receives perquisites (car allowance, gas card, cell phone); he received a December 2015 bonus and a January 2016 raise.
- Domestic Relations issued an interim support order in June 2015; Father timely demanded a de novo hearing. The court held de novo hearings Dec. 15–16, 2015 and a second de novo hearing Apr. 26, 2016 after discovery and motions.
- In Dec. 2015 the court: added Father’s perquisites to income but ruled that Mother’s trust distributions should not be included in her income. Domestic Relations recalculated support Dec. 24, 2015 (but omitted some perquisites).
- After the second de novo hearing the court reversed on the trust issue (May 17, 2016) and ordered recalculation, imputing $9,000 of trust distributions for Mother in 2015; the May 20, 2016 support order again omitted Father’s gas card and cell phone in the calculation.
- Mother appealed the child-support portion. On appeal the Superior Court found procedural and substantive problems: the trial court had limited relitigation at the second de novo hearing but later relied on pre-conference documents not admitted at any de novo hearing and failed to account for Father’s post‑hearing bonus/raise.
- Superior Court vacated and remanded: ordered recalculation reflecting Father’s stipulations (all perquisites, head‑of‑household tax status, extracurricular allocation), inclusion of Father’s raise/bonus, and a limited hearing on whether Mother’s trust distributions should be treated as income (with live evidence and argument). The remand hearing was not to be a full de novo hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary trust distributions to Mother are income for support | Trust distributions are not income because she has no absolute right and did not receive regular payments | Distributions Mother received should be included as income; court may consider them for support | Court initially excluded distributions, later reversed without hearing evidence; Superior Court found reversal improper without allowing relitigation and remanded for a hearing on distributions |
| Whether court may rely on Domestic Relations conference documents not admitted at de novo hearings | Using pre-conference documents (showing $9,000 distributions) deprived Mother of full opportunity to contest | Court relied on those documents to impute distributions | Superior Court held reliance on such documents (when excluded from the de novo record) was improper and remanded for admissible evidence and argument |
| Whether Father’s employee perquisites, tax status, and extracurricular expenses were correctly treated | Mother argued the court omitted gas card and cell phone perquisites and misapplied Father’s tax status; extracurriculars increased and should be allocated | Father stipulated on appeal to inclusion of all perquisites, head‑of‑household tax status, and allocation of extracurriculars | Superior Court accepted Father’s stipulations and ordered recalculation consistent with them (remand) |
| Whether the court erred by failing to account for Father’s post‑hearing bonus and raise | Mother argued the raise and bonus (admitted at second hearing) should increase Father’s income for support recalculation | Father had acknowledged use of $150,000 but contested retroactive application for reduced periods; but admitted bonus/raise at second hearing | Superior Court ordered Domestic Relations to include Father’s bonus and raise in recalculation and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Warner v. Pollock, 644 A.2d 747 (Pa. Super. 1994) (party demanding de novo hearing is entitled to litigate the matter anew)
- Capuano v. Capuano, 823 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinguishes appealability of child‑support portion of combined orders; de novo rights under Rule 1910.11)
- Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for reviewing child support orders and trial court discretion)
- Brickus v. Dent, 5 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2010) (child support purpose and appellate review principles)