P.J. v. E.J.
P.J. v. E.J. No. 1455 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- Mother filed for child (and spousal) support; interim order (May 11, 2016) set child support using Mother’s 2015 income and Father’s earning capacity based on BLS wage estimates for a self‑employed roofer.
- Father demanded a de novo hearing; trial court held a hearing on August 31, 2016 and made the interim order final.
- Mother had recurrent medical problems since 2013 (back injury, broken ankle, broken knee/ACL, domestic‑violence injury) that produced intermittent leaves, a functional capacity evaluation, and a shift to lower‑paying work; she was terminated for cause in early 2016.
- Father has operated a roofing business for ~16 years and reported low self‑reported taxable income on tax returns, but the court found lifestyle and payments (vacation, mortgage payoff, bank transfers, real estate acquisitions) inconsistent with reported taxes.
- The trial court accepted Mother’s reduced 2015 income as her realistic earning capacity due to medical limitations, but used off‑record BLS wage data to impute Father’s earning capacity.
- The Superior Court affirmed the finding as to Mother’s earning capacity, vacated the portion relying on off‑record BLS data for Father, and remanded for a new hearing limited to Father’s income/earning capacity (interim order remains effective pending new hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in assessing Mother’s earning capacity based on 2015 income | Mother could and should be assessed at full‑time RN earning capacity; 2015 was not representative (worked less than full year) | Mother’s medical history produced substantial involuntary reductions; 2015 income realistically reflects capacity | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found medical issues produced continuing involuntary decreases making 2015 income realistic for earning capacity |
| Whether court properly assessed Father’s earning capacity using BLS wage estimates not entered into evidence | Objected: BLS document was not in record and no evidence Father had opportunities to earn that amount | Court relied on lifestyle indicia and found tax returns unreliable; used BLS estimates consistent with his occupation | Reversed in part: use of off‑record BLS data was improper; remand for new hearing on Father’s income using record evidence |
| Whether trial court properly relied on factors beyond tax returns to assess Father’s income | Father argued tax returns showed low income and court must base on evidence | Court cited precedent that tax returns may understate self‑employment cash flow and used other record indicia | Partially affirmed: court may look beyond tax returns, but must do so based on evidence in the record (not off‑record internet/BLS data) |
| Whether trial court failed to state reasons for imputing Father’s earning capacity per Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16‑2(d)(4) | Father argued court did not state written/record reasons | Mother argued reasons and credibility findings supported imputation | Court did not need separate ruling here; Superior Court remanded so Father can present evidence and the trial court can state reasons on remand (issue not otherwise decided) |
Key Cases Cited
- Portugal v. Portugal, 798 A.2d 246 (trial court discretion and abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247 (earning capacity definition and principles)
- Haselrag v. Haselrag, 840 A.2d 338 (earning capacity is what a person could realistically earn)
- Strawn v. Strawn, 664 A.2d 129 (definition of earning capacity)
- Ney v. Ney, 917 A.2d 863 (trial court may not rely on facts outside the record to determine earning capacity)
- Labar v. Labar, 731 A.2d 1252 (federally taxable income may understate real cash flow)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Banks v. Banks, 478 A.2d 1387 (income tax returns not infallible for measuring earning capacity)
- Depp v. Holland, 636 A.2d 204 (both parents must contribute to child support per relative incomes and ability to pay)