Nevins, K. v. Nevins, S.
Nevins, K. v. Nevins, S. No. 971 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Sean Nevins (Father) and Kristin Nevins (Mother) separated in Aug. 2014; they share custody of two children. Mother filed for support; initial order entered Dec. 12, 2014.
- Mother, an attorney, experienced a decline in income Oct–Dec 2015 after a partner left her firm and sought modification on Oct. 27, 2015, arguing her income decreased while Father’s increased.
- A master recommended increased child support reflecting changed incomes; trial court signed that recommendation Dec. 22, 2015; Father objected and requested a de novo hearing.
- At the Mar. 1, 2016 de novo hearing Mother (with counsel) and Father (pro se) testified; court found Mother had an involuntary income dip Oct–Dec 2015 and accepted her January 1, 2016 salaried income of $6,153.33 net/month.
- Court calculated Father’s net monthly income at $10,376.74, set basic obligation and adjusted for health insurance and shared extracurricular/tuition costs (Father 63%, Mother 37%), and entered modified support orders with differing amounts for the Oct–Dec 2015 period and from Jan. 1, 2016 forward.
- Father appealed pro se raising ten issues (imputing income, modification for fluctuations, income calculations, guideline form procedures, tuition/extracurricular adjustments, and calculation of Father’s income/deductions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether court should impute earning capacity to Mother | Mother willfully worked part-time and earned less than her IP attorney capacity; vocational report supports imputing income | Mother maintained 40-hour workweeks, looked for work, and income dip was due to firm changes, not willful underemployment | Court found no willful failure to maintain employment; no imputation (affirmed) |
| 2. Whether support should be modified for Oct–Dec 2015 income dip | Modification was improper because dip was a normal fluctuation | Dip was involuntary and substantial due to partner leaving firm; thus adjustment appropriate | Court ruled the Oct–Dec 2015 reduction was a substantial continuing involuntary decrease and modified support accordingly (affirmed) |
| 3. Whether court miscalculated Mother’s or Father’s net monthly income | Father argued Mother’s compensation omitted commission; he disputed his own net due to anticipated tax liability; requested different guideline forms | Mother relied on paystubs and offered evidence of salaried position; court used W-2 for Father and paystub for Mother; offered Father right to seek modification after tax filing | Court used presented W-2/paystub evidence; rejected speculative tax adjustments and unsupported commission claims (affirmed) |
| 4. Whether court erred in treatment of tuition/extracurricular and procedural/forms issues | Father argued court improperly removed tuition adjustment, eliminated some activities, and mishandled guideline form procedure/submissions | Court ordered direct tuition payments to schools and joint agreement on activities; found no instruction forcing Father to complete a form and found issues waived or unsupported | Court’s allocation and procedural handling upheld; many procedural/contentions waived for failure to develop with authority; no abuse of discretion (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Krebs v. Krebs, 944 A.2d 768 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review and discretion in child support and earning-capacity/imputation determinations)