Morgan, S. v. Morgan, D.
99 A.3d 554
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Parties divorced in Maryland (2003) and entered a property settlement agreement (PSA) providing for alimony and child support; PSA was incorporated (not merged) into the Maryland decree. Father later registered the decree in Franklin County (May 3, 2007).
- Mother filed a Pennsylvania support action in 2011 to compel continued support for C.M., an adult son with severe autism who is unemancipated and cannot live independently. Father admitted obligation but contested the amount.
- Discovery revealed Father had submitted falsified income documents in earlier alimony proceedings; this prolonged discovery and delayed hearings until July/September 2012.
- The trial court imputed an earning capacity to Mother, set Father’s child support (retroactive to May 3, 2007), awarded Mother $128,526 in counsel fees, and used an $80,500 figure (plus $12,000 from Mother’s father) as Mother’s earning capacity.
- Father appealed claiming the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the incorporated PSA child-support provision; Mother cross-appealed the imputed earning capacity amount, its retroactive application, and the denial of an upward deviation for minimal obligor contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father or Mother) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to modify child support where PSA was incorporated, not merged | Father: Incorporated agreement is a contract and not subject to modification by court | Mother/Trial Ct: Divorce Code §3105(b) allows court modification of child-support provisions regardless of merger/incorporation | Court: Trial court had jurisdiction; §3105(b) permits modification of child-support provisions in incorporated agreements |
| Imputing an earning capacity to Mother given C.M.’s intensive care needs | Mother: Needs round-the-clock care; childcare costs would offset any income, so earning capacity should not be imputed | Trial Ct: Childcare costs speculative; insufficient credible evidence to reduce imputed capacity | Court: Trial court properly considered Rule 1910.16-2(d)(4) factors and did not abuse discretion in imputing capacity |
| Amount of Mother’s imputed earning capacity ($80,500) | Mother: $80,500 unsupported; out-of-work 12 years, vocational expert testified lower immediate earnings | Trial Ct: Relied on vocational expert’s salary range and averaged available job salaries to $80,500 | Court: Trial court abused discretion as record showed expert testified $60–65k immediate expectation; $80,500 vacated and remanded for recalculation |
| Upward deviation because Father has virtually no contact with C.M. | Mother: Rule comment suggests upward deviation when obligor has little/no contact | Trial Ct: Mother prevented contact; court refused to reward denial of access by increasing support | Court: No abuse of discretion; upward deviation is discretionary and trial court reasonably declined given findings that Mother denied access |
Key Cases Cited
- McClain v. McClain, 872 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for child support orders and court’s modification power)
- Jones v. Jones, 651 A.2d 157 (Pa. Super. 1994) (distinction between merged and incorporated marital settlement agreements)
- Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503 (Pa. 1991) (parties may not bargain away children’s rights; policy for court modification of child-support provisions)
- Krankowski v. O'Neil, 928 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court’s role as factfinder and credibility determinations in support matters)
- Glover v. Severino, 946 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard where insufficient evidence sustains support order)