Volume 59, No. 29

 

PUBLIC NOTICES

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES

NOTICE OF TRUST ADMINISTRATION

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

FICTITIOUS NAME

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Carolina Cabrera Walizer, v. Neil Walizer

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Letters Testamentary or of Administration have been granted in the following estates. All persons indebted to the said estate are required to make payment, and those having claims or demands to present the same without delay to the administrators or executors named.

 

FIRST PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF LORETTA J. PETERS, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Virginia L. Keppley, Executrix

861 Stracks Dam Road

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Edward Coyle, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF CAROLE FAYE KOONS, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Scott D. Koons, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF GLENN L. MOYER, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Patricia L. Vogelsong, Executrix

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF BETTY J. KLESS, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Barbara A. Matteson, Executrix

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF JENNINGS A. HOPKINS, late of Jonestown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Brett A. Hopkins, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF CHRISTINE M. SHAY a/k/a CHRISTINE MARY SHAY, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Robert Bruce Shay, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF NANCY L. TORRES, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Jeffrey A. Miller, Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF JAMES E. BALSBAUGH, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Danielle R. Short, Administratrix

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF KEVIN J. MIKELSON, late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Jessica Sanders, Administratrix

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF BARRY R. DAVIS, late of Bethel Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Andrea M. Warner, Executrix

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MARY C. ROBERTS, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Patricia J. Roberts, Executrix

 

Loreen M. Burkett, Esquire

Weiss Burkett, LLC

802 Walnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

Attorney

 

SECOND PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF HOWARD CALVIN RESSLER a/k/a HOWARD C. RESSLER, late of 1635 N. 8^th Ave., Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Kevin S. Kleinfelter, Executor

 

Kevin M. Dugan, Esquire

Feather and Feather, P.C.

22 West Main Street

Annville, PA 17003

ATTORNEY

 

ESTATE OF ANTHONY J. MILLER, late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Anthony J. Miller, Executor

48 Wheatland Cir

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

Michael S. Bechtold, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF BETTY J. SATTAZAHN, late of Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Michele Morris, Executrix

10512 Mountain Rd

Grantville, PA 17028

 

Scott L Grenoble, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF RICHARD A. DONMOYER, JR. a/k/a RIDHARD A. DONMOYER, late of Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Mary K. Donmoyer, Executrix

711 Oak St.

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Jason Schibinger, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MARIANNE L. GERNERT, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Michael A. Good, Executor

595 Sterling Drive

Red Lion, PA 17356

 

Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire

Morcom Law, LLC

226 W. Chocolate Ave.

Hershey, PA 17033

 

ESTATE OF DAVID B. GERNERT, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Michael A. Good, Executor

595 Sterling Drive

Red Lion, PA 17356

 

Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire

Morcom Law, LLC

226 W. Chocolate Ave.

Hershey, PA 17033

 

ESTATE OF HELEN CHAMBERS, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Brenda F. Chambers, Executrix

240 N. Lincoln St.

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire

Morcom Law, LLC

226 W Chocolate Ave

Hershey, PA 17033

 

ESTATE OF RICHARD L. BORDNER, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Ann Smith, Executrix

 

George E. Christianson, Esquire

Christianson Meyer

411 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MARIAN L. BERGER, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Danielle M. Weaver, Executrix

400 South College Street, Apt. 2

Myerstown, PA 17046

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF ANNA M. BAESHORE a/k/a ANNA MAE BAESHORE, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Charles A. Heim, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

ESTATE OF CAROLYN M. HAUCK, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Dawn M. Neider, Co-Executor

10 Preston Road

Reinholds, PA 17569

 

Trina L. Brugger, Co-Executor

218 Fausnacht Drive

Denver, PA 17517

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF FLORENCE L. EMBREY, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

John R. Embrey, Co-Executor

 

Julia M. Wagner, Co-Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF KATHARINE E. ELY, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Timothy D. Sheffey, Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF JOE L. MAY, late of Jonestown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executors.

 

Melodie E. Favinger, Executor

169 Werner Road

Fredericksburg, PA 17026

 

Joe L. May, Jr., Executor

189 Cemetary Road

Jonestown, PA 17038

 

John D. Enck, Esquire

Spitler, Kilgore & Enck, PC

522 South 8^th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

Attorney

 

THIRD PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF ARLENE M. DARE, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Bradford R. Grauel, Executor

126 W. Summit St.

Mohnton, PA 19540

 

ESTATE OF DAVID E. BOWMAN, late of North Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Chelsea Bowman, Executor

314 Cocoa Avenue

Hershey, PA 17033

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10^th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MILDRED C. EARLY, late of North Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Luther P. Early, Executor

351 Kauffman Road

Annville, PA 17003

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10^th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF HARVEY EDWIN STAMM a/k/a HARVEY E. STAMM, late of North Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Debra J. Bucher, Executrix

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF BETTY A. BEAR, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased October 16, 2021. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.

 

Diane F. Engle, Administrator

 

James M. Zugay, Esquire

1253 Stonegate Road

Hummelstown, PA 17036

 

ESTATE OF JUNE H. GRIMES, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased November 28, 2021. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix on January 7, 2022.

 

Lori G. Roehl, Executrix

Seattle, Washington

 

Jacqueline A. Kelly, Esquire

JSDC Law Offices

11 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300

Hershey, PA 17033

717-533-3280

 

ESTATE OF DARREN L. GERNERT, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Carol Ulrich, Executrix

 

George E. Christianson, Esquire

Christianson Meyer

411 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF FRANCIS J. DIXON, late of Cornwall Borough Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Thomas A. Dixon, Co-Executor

1005 Alden Way

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

Joann Dixon White, Co-Executor

190 Monacacy Lane

Westfield, PA 16950

 

Scott Grenoble, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MICHELE R. MILLER, late of Bethel Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Courtney K. Rosario, Administratrix

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF ANNA M. KAPP a/k/a ANNA MARY KAPP, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Theodore J. Kapp, Executor

219 East Guilford Street

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. ANNIBALI, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Georgianne E. Annibali, Administratrix

193 East Market Street

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

Joseph M. Farrell

201/203 South Railroad Street

P.O. Box 113

Palmyra, PA 17078

ATTORNEY FOR THE ESTATE

 

ESTATE OF RUTH H. PEIFFER, late of Richland Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Jane L. Gruber, Executrix

2 Little Swatara Church Road

Richland, PA 17087

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF EDWARD S. RHEN a/k/a EDWARD STERLING RHEN, late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Andrew D. Rhen and Julie E. Mask, Co-Executors

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

NOTICE OF TRUST ADMINISTRATION of the Beverly M. Fortran Living Trust dated 7/10/2001, as amended (the “Trust”), following the death of Beverly M. Fortran, late of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania on January 2, 2022 (the “Decedent”), is hereby given.

 

All persons having claims against the Decedent or Trust are requested to present them for settlement and all persons indebted to the Decedent or Trust are requested to make immediate payment to:

 

Ellis Lee Hostetter and Shirley Hostetter, Successor Death Co-Trustees

660 Wedgewood Drive,

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

Or to:

Edward P. Seeber, Esquire

JSDC Law Offices

11 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300

Hershey, PA 17033

(717) 533-3280

 

 

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

 

Eagle Distribution Services, Inc., hereby gives notice that Articles of Incorporation were filed

with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on January 10, 2022, under

the provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, approved December 21,

1988, P.L. 1444, No. 177, effective October 1, 1989, as amended. The purpose for which the

corporation is to be organized is a temp to hire employment agency.

 

Morcom Law

226 W. Chocolate Avenue

Hershey, PA 17033

 

FICTITIOUS NAME

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 311 of Act 1982-295 (54 Pa. C.S. §311), that a certificate was filed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, on the 14^th day of February, 2022 for Heisler Lawn Care with its principal place of business at 87 Lindley Murray Road, Annville, Pa., 17003.

 

The name and address of the entity owning or interested in said business is:

Heisler Farms Enterprises, LLC

87 Lindley Murray Road

Annville, Pa. 17003

 

Jeffrey F. Arnold, Esquire

Christianson Meyer

411 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, Pa. 17042

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGE’S OPINION

 

Carolina Cabrera Walizer, v. Neil Walizer

 

Civil Action-Family Law-Child Support-Exceptions-Income for Purposes of Support-Income Tax Refunds-Cash Assistance-Child Tax Credit

 

Carolina Cabrera Walizer (“Mother”) filed a Complaint seeking support of the parties’ three (3) children.  Following a hearing before a Domestic Relations Master (“DRM”), the DRM found that the parties were entitled to receive an annual Child Tax Credit in the amount of $9,000.00 with the effect that Mother would receive $622.78 per month as a result of that credit.  The DRM added $622.78 to Mother’s monthly income in determining Neil Walizer’s (“Father’s”) monthly support obligation.  Mother filed Exceptions to the Order of Court adopting the Report and Recommendation of the DRM challenging the inclusion of a monthly prorated Child Tax Credit as income attributed to her for purposes of support.

1. The Child Tax Credit enacted in 1997 was designed to affect a credit against tax imposed upon taxpayers with eligible children.

 

2. As a result of the American Rescue Plan of 2021, the Child Tax Credit substantially was altered with changes including an increase in the amount of the credit from $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per year per eligible child and the fact that the Child Tax Credit now fully is refundable such that an individual may receive a credit even if that individual has no taxable income, individuals may receive an advance payment in the amount of one-half (1/2) of the estimated amount of that credit and penalties no longer exist for an individuals who fraudulently or recklessly disregard rules regarding the Child Tax Credit.

 

3. Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1910.16-2(a) provides that income from any source is income available for support.

 

4. Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1910.16-2 specifically includes income tax refunds and cash assistance as income available for support.

 

5. It would be error to ignore the Child Tax Credit when calculating an individual’s income available for support when that individual will receive a tangible financial benefit from the Child Tax Credit that will be received in the form of an enhanced income tax refund, an advance payment under the Child Tax Credit changes or both that will be assigned as additional income equal to the amount of the Child Tax Credit to the party who received it.

 

6. While the DRM may decide the parent who should be entitled to receive the Child Tax Credit in light of any prior agreements between the parties and the manner in which the parties’ collective tax obligation would be affected by the Child Tax Credit, the standard paradigm will be that the custodial parent will enjoy the Child Tax Credit benefit.

 

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2021-50253, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, December 7, 2021.

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION

 

          CAROLINA CABRERA WALIZER, :         NO. 2021-5-0253

Plaintiff                                        :         PACSES NO. 466300841
:

1. :

:

NEIL WALIZER,                               :

Defendant                                                :

:

ORDER OF COURT

 

AND NOW, this 7^th day of December, 2021, upon consideration of the exceptions filed, and in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Order of this Court is as follows:

2021. This Order shall be effective in two tiers: (1) From May 6, 2021 to June 30, 2021 and (2) From July 1, 2021.
2022. The amount of support to be paid by Defendant is:
2023. From May 6, 2021 to June 30, 2021, $1,077.32 per month for child support for Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer, Andrew Daniel Walizer and Abigail Joy Walizer, plus $107.73 per month in arrears for Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer, Andrew Daniel Walizer and Abigail Joy Walizer.
2024. From July 1, 2021, $995.35 per month for child support for Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer, Andrew Daniel Walizer and Abigail Joy Walizer, plus $99.54 per month in arrears for Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer, Andrew Daniel Walizer and Abigail Joy Walizer.

AMOUNT/FREQUENCY  OBLIGATION TYPE                  BENEFICIARY

5/06/21-6/30/21

_$359.10 _/_month_              _ Child support _      Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer

_$35.91_/_month_                  _Arrears_                 Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer

_$359.11 _/_month_              _ Child support _     Andrew Daniel Walizer

_$35.91_/_month_                  _Arrears_                 Andrew Daniel Walizer

_$359.11 _/_month_              _ Child support _     Abigail Joy Walizer

_$35.91_/_month_                  _Arrears_                 Abigail Joy Walizer

 

07/01/21 and forward

_$331.78 _/_month_              _ Child support _      Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer

_$33.18_/_month_                  _Arrears_                 Kaleb Nathaniel Walizer

_$331.78 _/_month_              _ Child support _     Andrew Daniel Walizer

_$33.18_/_month_                  _Arrears_                 Andrew Daniel Walizer

_$331.79 _/_month_              _ Child support _     Abigail Joy Walizer

_$33.18_/_month_                  _Arrears_                 Abigail Joy Walizer

 

Arrears are due in full IMMEDIATELY.  All terms of this Order are subject to collection and/or enforcement by contempt proceedings, credit bureau reporting, tax refund offset certification, driver’s license revocation, and the freeze and seizure of financial assets.  These enforcement/collection mechanisms will not be initiated so long as Obligor does not owe overdue support.  Failure to make each payment on time and in full will cause all arrears to become subject to immediate collection by all the means listed above.

Un-reimbursed medical expenses of Obligee or children that exceed $250 annually shall be allocated between the parties.  The party seeking allocation of the un-reimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of the expenses to the other party no later than March 31^st of the following calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated was received.  The un-reimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows:  _58_% by Defendant and _42_% by Plaintiff.

__X__Defendant ___ Plaintiff ____Neither party is to provide medical coverage __for Plaintiff and child.

IT IS ORDERED THAT (ITEMS CHECKED BELOW APPLY):

__X___The defendant is ordered to cover the dependent(s) with health care coverage whenever it is available at a reasonable cost which shall be defined as a cost that does not exceed 5% of defendant’s net monthly income and does not exceed 50% of defendants net monthly income when added to the basic child support plus additional expenses,.

_____Health care coverage is currently not available at a reasonable cost to defendant.  Therefore, plaintiff is ordered apply for/continue government-sponsored coverage, such as Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  The cost of said coverage shall not exceed 5% of plaintiff’s net monthly income.

____Health care coverage is currently not available at a reasonable cost to defendant.  Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to cover the dependent(s) with health care coverage if it is available at a reasonable cost which shall be defined as a cost that does not exceed 5% of plaintiff’s net income.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

Within 30 days after the entry of this order, the party ordered to provide health care  coverage shall provide written proof to the Lebanon County Domestic Relations Office and the other party that medical insurance has been obtained, including insurance cards and any other material necessary to utilize the coverage.

If Health Insurance is currently unavailable to the party/parties ordered to provide it, such proof shall be provided to Lebanon County Domestic Relations within 7 days of the date of this order.

If Health Insurance coverage is now available or becomes available to the party/parties ordered to provide it, the party/parties shall provide proof of the cost to Lebanon County Domestic Relations within 7 days of the date of availability.

 

 

D.__X__DEFENDANT____PLAINTIFF SHALL PAY THE FOLLOWING FEES:  

FEE TOTAL FEE DESCRIPTION                  PAYMENT FREQUENCY

_$40.25/ once_     JCS FEE                         _$40.25_PER _once__

_____/______________________________PER _________

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

___ ____All other provisions from the court order dated ___, not affected by this order, shall remain in full force and effect.

Any money collected pursuant to this Order shall be paid by Pennsylvania State Collection & Disbursement Unit to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s assignee, or as designated, by other Order of Court.  Said money to be turned over by the Pennsylvania State Collection & Disbursement Unit to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s assignee, or as designated, by other Order of Court.

Within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order, the party or parties providing insurance shall submit to the person having custody of the child(ren) written proof that medical insurance coverage has been obtained or that application for coverage has been made.  Proof of coverage shall consist, at a minimum, of: 1) the name of the health care coverage provider(s); 2) any applicable identification numbers; 3) any cards evidencing coverage; 4) the address to which claims should be made; 5) a description of any restrictions on usage, such as prior approval for hospital admissions, and the manner of obtaining approval; 6) a copy of the benefit booklet or coverage contract; 7) a description of all deductibles and co-payments; and 8) five copies of any claim forms.

Payments must be made by check or money order.  All checks and money orders must be made payable to Pennsylvania State Collection & Disbursement Unit and mailed to P.O. Box 69110, Harrisburg, PA 17106-9110.  Each payment must bear your social security number and member number in order to be processed.

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE

PARTIES MUST WITHIN SEVEN DAYS INFORM THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION AND THE OTHER PARTIES, IN WRITING, OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES RELEVANT TO THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUPPORT ORDER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OR CHANGE OF INCOME OR EMPLOYMENT AND CHANGE OF PERSONAL ADDRESS OR CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF ANY CHILD RECEIVING SUPPORT. A PARTY WHO WILLFULLY FAILS TO REPORT A MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, AND MAY BE FINED OR IMPRISONED.

 

PENNSYLVANIA LAW PROVIDES THAT ALL SUPPORT ORDERS SHALL BE REVIEWED AT LEAST ONCE EVERY THREE (3) YEARS IF SUCH REVIEW IS REQUESTED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES. IF YOU WISH TO REQUEST A REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF YOUR ORDER, YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING: CALL YOUR ATTORNEY. AN UNREPRESENTED PERSON WHO WANTS TO MODIFY (ADJUST) A SUPPORT ORDER SHOULD CONTACT THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION.

 

ALL CHARGING ORDERS FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT AND ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, INCLUDING UNALLOCATED ORDERS FOR CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT OR CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, SHALL TERMINATE UPON DEATH OF THE PAYEE.

 

A MANDATORY INCOME ATTACHMENT WILL ISSUE UNLESS THE DEFENDANT IS NOT IN ARREARS IN PAYMENT IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN ONE MONTH’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION AND (1) THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE IS GOOD CAUSE NOT TO REQUIRE IMMEDIATE INCOME WITHHOLDING; OR (2) A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS REACHED BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENT.

 

UNPAID ARREARS BALANCES MAY BE REPORTED TO CREDIT AGENCIES. ON AND AFTER THE DATE IT IS DUE, EACH UNPAID SUPPORT PAYMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE, BY OPERATRION OF LAW, A JUDGEMENT AGAINST YOU, AS WELL AS A LIEN AGAINST REAL PROPERTY.

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon payer’s failure to comply with this order, payer may be arrested and brought before the Court for a Contempt hearing; payer’s wages, salary, commissions, and/or income may be attached in accordance with law; this Order will be increased without further hearing by 10 % a month until all arrearages are paid in full.  Defendant is responsible for court costs and fees.

 

 

 

 

BY THE COURT:

 

 

 

BRADFORD H. CHARLES

BHC/pmd

 

cc:     Domestic Relations

Carolina Cabrera Walizer// 222 Blackford Blvd., Lebanon PA 17042

Neil Walizer/ 1334 Poplar St., Lebanon PA 17042

Timothy Engler, Esq.// 36 w Main Ave., Myerstown PA  17067

Matthew Kopecki, Esq.// 1118 Penn Ave., Wyomissing PA  19610-2034

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION

 

 

          CAROLINA CABRERA WALIZER, :         NO. 2021-5-0253

Plaintiff                                        :         PACSES NO. 466300841
:

1. :

:

NEIL WALIZER,                               :

Defendant                                                :

:        

APPEARANCES

 

Timothy T. Engler, Esquire                    For Carolina Cabrera Walizer

 

 

Matthew Kopecki, Esquire                      For Neil Walizer

 

OPINION BY CHARLES, J., December 7, 2021

 

For most people who appear in Child Support Court, the recently expanded Federal Child Tax Credit is not a tool to restructure taxes, it is a method by which the Federal Government has chosen to transfer money into the hands of parents.  In a very real sense, the so-called Tax Credit is a governmental benefit designed to provide additional disposable income for people with children.  As such, this Court cannot ignore the Tax Credit in making child support decisions.  We author this Opinion to provide guidance in Lebanon County with respect to how the Child Tax Credit should be considered.

 

1. FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carolina Cabrera Walizer (hereafter MOTHER) and Neil Walizer (hereafter FATHER) are the parents of three minor children.  The record is unclear about the history of the parties’ relationship.  However, a Complaint for Support was filed by MOTHER on May 6, 2021.  A hearing before a Domestic Relations Master (DRM) was conducted on July 29, 2021.

At the time of the DRM hearing, MOTHER was employed as an office manager for the Mennonite Paloma School earning $1,080 per month.  FATHER worked for his family’s business, Walizer Interior and Renovation Systems.  According to testimony, FATHER typically earned in the neighborhood of $50,000 per year.

According to the DRM, MOTHER and FATHER were entitled to receive a $9,000.00 annual Child Tax Credit from the Federal Government.  The DRM determined that MOTHER would receive a $622.78 per month “negative tax” as a result of this Tax Credit.  The DRM therefore added this amount to MOTHER’s monthly income.  With the $1,080.00 per month that MOTHER earned from her employment and the Tax Credit income determined by the DRM, MOTHER‘s net monthly income was set at $1,702.00 per month.

MOTHER filed Exceptions to the decision of the DRM.  MOTHER’s Exception focused entirely upon the Tax Credit.  MOTHER characterized the Tax Credit as a “pre-payment of a potential Federal Tax refund”.  As such, MOTHER argued that it was error for the DRM to effectively characterize the Tax Credit as income attributable solely to her.

We conducted oral argument regarding MOTHER’s Exceptions on November 23, 2021.  At oral argument, we received a plethora of interesting information regarding the Federal Government’s Child Tax Credit scheme.  Effectively, everyone at oral argument agreed that for most parents, the Tax Credit is a Federal benefit for parents disguised as a restructuring of tax.  Because the Pennsylvania Support Guidelines do not specifically address the Federal Tax Credit, and because the amount involved is so substantial – almost 20% of the parties’ aggregate income in this case – we have chosen to author this Opinion in order to provide guidance for the Walizer family and future support litigants with respect to how the Tax Credit should be considered in child support litigation.

 

1. FEDERAL CHILD TAX CREDIT SCHEME

Enacted in 1997 as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act, the Child Tax Credit (hereafter “CTC”) afforded a credit against tax imposed upon taxpayers with eligible children.  26 U.S.C. § 24(a).  The CTC was initially established as a $1,000.00 credit per qualifying child per year.  This amount was subsequently increased to $2,000.00 per child for taxable years 2018 through 2025.  26 U.S.C. § 24(h)(1).  Credits were awarded at the time a taxpayer filed their tax returns and, prior to 2021, an individual must have had actual payable taxes in order to claim the CTC.  See, I.R.S. Pub. 972(2020).

Under the 1997 CTC scheme, credits were awarded to parents who had physical custody of the child for a greater portion of the tax year.[1]  See, Bjelland v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.M. 664(T.C. 2009).  (“[Mother] had physical custody of [child] for the greater portion of 2004…For that reason, she is entitled to claim a dependency exemption deduction, the Childcare Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit.”); See also 26 U.S.C. § 1.152-4.

Likely in recognition that parents filing separately could exploit the CTC by double-claiming the credit, the IRS implemented a “disallowance period” for taxpayers making fraudulent CTC claims.  When a taxpayer was deemed to have acted fraudulently, he/she was not eligible to receive the CTC for ten years.  When a taxpayer was deemed to have acted in “reckless disregard of rules and regulations”, he/she was ineligible for a CTC for two years.  26 U.S.C. § 24(g)(1)(B).  When a taxpayer was disallowed a CTC by virtue of the above procedures, no CTC was allowed in any subsequent tax year until the taxpayer provided information required by the IRS to demonstrate renewed eligibility for the CTC. 26 U.S.C. § 24(g); IRS Pub. 972(2020).

The CTC scheme remained largely unchanged between 1997 and 2021.  Earlier this year, as a result of the American Rescue Plan, the CTC was substantially altered.  See, 26 U.S.C. § 24(i); American Rescue Plan of 2021, Public Law 117-2, 135 Stat. 4, 144-148 (March 11, 2021).  Some of the more salient changes established by the American Rescue Plan were as follows:

• The CTC increased from $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per child. 26 U.S.C. § 24(i)(3);
• The CTC is now deemed to be fully “refundable”. 26 U.S.C. § 24(i)(1). If a tax credit is “non-refundable”, it can only reduce a taxpayer’s income tax liability to zero.  In contrast, a “refundable” tax credit can exceed the taxpayer’s income tax liability, thus providing cash assistance to low- and moderate-income taxpayers who owe little or no income tax.  Congressional Research Service R418872.
• Unlike prior years, an individual can receive a CTC even if he/she has no taxable income whatsoever. See, irs.gov/credits-deductions/2021-child-tax-credit-and-advance-child-tax-credit-payments-topic-a-general-information.
• An “advance payment” provision was added by the American Rescue Plan to the CTC. 26 U.S.C. § 7527A.  Advance payments are early payments of the tax credit that amount to one-half of the estimated amount of the CTC that a taxpayer may claim on his/her 2021 tax return.  26 U.S.C. § 7527A(b)(1).[2]  The advance payment is subject to an opt-out process.  See, IRS Pub. 5549(Rev. 10-2021).  Thus, if a parent does not “opt-out” on the IRS website, advance payments will be automatically sent to him/her either by mail or direct deposit. 26 U.S.C. § 7527A(c)(1).  These payments were required to be distributed in six monthly installments throughout 2021.
• Unlike prior years, parents are eligible to receive both the CTC and its advance payment even though they had little or no taxable income. On its website, the IRS unveiled an on-line non-filer tool that enables parents to file a simplified “tax return” in order to receive the CTC and advance payments even though that individual was not working or earning any money.  See, irs.gov/credits-deductions/2021-child-tax-credit-and-advance-child-tax-credit-payments-topic-a-general-information.[3]
• The American Rescue Plan suspended the disallowance penalty previously applied for taxpayers who fraudulently or recklessly disregard CTC rules. Instead, the American Rescue Plan created what has become known as a “Repayment Protection Plan”.  Under this plan, joint tax filers with under $60,000.00 in Modified Adjust Gross Income (MAGI), head of household filers with a MAGI under $50,000.00 and single filers with a MAGI under $40,000.00 are deemed protected from any repayment of excess CTC awarded. 26 U.S.C. § 24(j)(2)(B).  If a taxpayer earns income below the amount specified in the “Repayment Protection Plan”, the taxpayer will be absolved from repaying any amount of CTC awarded to him/her, including advance payments.[4]

Effectively, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 24(j)(2)(B), the Federal Government has indicated that it will not be challenging individuals who earn less than $40,000.00 per year regardless of whether “incorrect”  information is provided by said individuals to obtain a CTC benefit.

 

III.    DISCUSSION

Pennsylvania law defines income available for support as “income from any source.”  Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a).  Included within this definition are wages, income from business dealings, interest, rents, dividends, pensions, Social Security benefits, worker’s compensation benefits and unemployment compensation benefits.  See, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a).  In addition, the term “income available for support” specifically includes “income tax refunds.”  Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(8)(ii).[5]

 

With the above in mind, we turn to an analysis of the 2021 iteration of the CTC.  Based upon our reading of Federal law, we determine that the CTC will benefit two different groups of qualified individuals:

• Those who file tax returns and owe tax amounts in excess of the CTC; and
• Those who pay little or no taxes but who are now eligible for both the CTC and its advance payments.

For reasons that we will articulate below, we hold that both classes of individuals outlined above will receive a tangible financial benefit by virtue of the CTC.  We thus hold that it would be error for this Court – or a DRM – to ignore the CTC when calculating an individual’s income available for support.  Having reached this broad conclusion, we will provide additional comment regarding both groups of individuals who will benefit from the CTC.

 

 

• Individuals who owe taxes in excess of the CTC

For individuals who are required to pay income tax, the CTC will reduce their liability by up to $3,000.00 per child.  Traditionally, these types of tax credits resulted in a decreased tax obligation that sometimes took the form of an income tax refund payment.  While no Pennsylvania Appellate decisions exist regarding the 2021 iteration of the CTC, several cases exist pertaining to more traditional Federal tax credits.  For example, in Curtis v. Curtis, 473 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 1984), a parent historically over-withheld Federal taxes.  As a result, he received annual tax refunds.  The court discussed the impact of this dynamic by stating:

“The court below erred in its calculation of income in yet another respect.  Appellee testified that in 1981 he received a $2,400.00 Federal income tax refund, and that he had a history of receiving tax refunds each year.  The court below, however, ignores this factor in its calculations.  An individual is free to claim fewer allowances than he is entitled to on his W-4 Federal income tax form.  Doing so, consequently, increases the amount withheld from each paycheck, and decreases the net.  However, any excess amounts withheld are returned to the taxpayer at the end of the year as a refund.  We could not permit an individual to overpay his taxes all year, and then exclude the amount of his overpayment from calculation of that individual’s income.  To do so works an injustice, especially here, where Appellee testified that he has a history of receiving refunds.”

Id at page 601.

 

See also, Young v. Muthersbaugh, 609 A.2d 1381 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“Because “steps taken to reduce income for the purpose of avoiding or decreasing support are ineffective insofar as diminishment of the obligation is concerned…Upon remand, the trial court should add the tax refund to Appellee’s net income.”” Id at page 1383.)

More recently, in K.B. v. J.B., Sr., 2017 WL 1401996 (Pa. Super. 2017), the Superior Court discussed the question of whether a Child Tax Credit (“CTC”) or a Federal Earned Income Credit (“EIC”) could be considered as income available for support.  The trial court determined that the EIC has the effect of reducing a parent’s tax obligation, which may result in a tax refund.  Because income tax refunds may be considered as income available for support, the court determined that a mother’s EIC-enhanced tax refund should be considered as income when calculating a support obligation.  The Superior Court stated: “We agree. Moreover, we apply the same logic to the trial court’s consideration of the CTC, which is also a tax credit that may result in a tax refund.”[6]

Based upon the above, we have little difficulty concluding that the CTC will afford tax-paying parents with additional income available for support.  This additional income will either take the form of an enhanced income tax refund, or an advance payment under the new CTC scheme, or both.  Whatever the form, the new CTC scheme is designed to enhance disposable income for parents.  As such, it must be considered as income available for support for any and all parents receiving the benefit.

 

 

• Individuals with minimal income tax liability

For individuals who owe taxes less than the amount of the CTC, the new tax scheme created by the American Rescue Plan is, pure and simple, an expanded government entitlement designed to assist parents who are raising children.  For 2021 – and possibly into the future – the advance payments of the CTC are automatically sent to parents unless they affirmatively “opt out”.  Moreover, a parent no longer needs to have any taxable income in order to receive benefits under the CTC.  Furthermore, the IRS has declared that for low-income individuals, it will not seek reimbursement under any circumstances, including submission of false information.  Thus, for almost all individuals who earn less than $20.00 per hour, the CTC affords a de facto unconditional cash grant that the recipient will never have to repay.  By definition, this cash assistance is “income from any source” under the definition set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a).  As such, it must be considered when establishing a child support obligation.

 

1. CONCLUSIONS

From its inception in 1997, the CTC was designed to place money into the hands of parents so that they could spend it on their children.  As such, it cannot be ignored in child support litigation.  As it relates to the latest iteration of the CTC established within the American Rescue Plan, we reach the following conclusions of law:

• For those individuals who owe taxes in excess of the CTC, their tax obligation will be reduced and they will receive a cash benefit either in the form of advance payments or an enhanced income tax refund. Whatever the form of the additional cash benefit, it should be considered as income available for support as, when and how it is received.
• If neither or both parents have applied for the CTC, the DRM shall be at liberty to decide which parent should be entitled to receive the CTC benefit. In making this decision, the DRM may consider any prior or contemporaneous agreements between the parties. The DRM may also consider whether or how the parties’ collective tax obligation would be affected by the application of the CTC.  With the above being said, the standard “default” paradigm will be for the custodial parent to enjoy the CTC benefit.  To effectuate a decision regarding entitlement to the CTC, the DRM shall be authorized to require the non-recipient parent to sign any necessary tax or “opt-out” documents required by the IRS.  As set forth above, any party receiving the CTC will be assigned additional income equal to the amount of the CTC.
• As it relates to parents for whom the CTC is simply a government benefit – and this will include almost everyone earning less than $20.00 per hour – the amount of that benefit is to be considered as income available for support, even if the parent has little or no other taxable income, and even if both parents have applied for and/or received CTC benefits. Because the government has already declared that no effort will be made to collect “incorrectly” received benefits, those benefits must be considered as an unconditional cash benefit that is therefore income available for support.[7]

Applying the above principles to this case leads us to the following conclusions:

• Only MOTHER has applied for and been awarded CTC benefits pertaining to the parties’ three children. Because MOTHER is the custodial parent, there is no need to direct that the CTC be allocated in any different manner.
• The DRM did not err by including the monthly advance payments due to MOTHER under the CTC as income available to her under Pennsylvania’s Support Rules.
• Because the advance payments due to MOTHER represent only a portion of her CTC benefit, the additional amount payable to MOTHER in the form of an income tax refund payable in 2022 should be considered income available for support if, as, and when MOTHER receives her enhanced tax refund predicated upon the CTC.

 

While the DRM’s evaluation of this case was not identical to our own, her decisions are completely consonant with the conclusions we have outlined above.  By considering the CTC benefit as a “negative tax”, the DRM added the CTC amount to MOTHER’s income and considered it when applying the Child Support Formula.  This is precisely the type of analysis that can and should be employed when a parent receives a CTC benefit.  Accordingly, we will affirm the DRM’s calculations of support.  By so doing, we deny MOTHER’s exception.

 

[1] An exception to this general rule existed where the parties agreed that the tax exemption should be afforded to the non-custodial parent.  In this situation, the parents were required to attach a written declaration to his or her Federal Income Tax Return.  Such a declaration could be executed for a single year, a specified number of years, or for all future years.  See, Sec.1.152-4T(a), Q&A-3 and 4 found at 49 Fed.Reg.34459.

[2] For example, for each qualifying child age 5 or younger, a taxpayer would generally receive $300.00 per month for six months, for each qualifying child ages 6-17, a taxpayer will generally receive $250.00 per month for six months.

[3] The IRS further specified that non-filer recipients of the CRC advance payments cannot have those payments counted as income determining if an individual is eligible for public assistance or other benefits.

[4] In one of its publications, the IRS has specifically stated:

“Individuals who report incorrect information regarding qualifying children or other dependents or otherwise provide incorrect information on their returns may be liable for civil or criminal penalties.  However, the IRS will not challenge the accuracy of the items of income reported by zero AGI filers on their returns in accordance with this section 5.”

Rev. Proc. 2021-24(emphasis supplied).

[5] However, an explanatory note to the support income rule also states:

“The trier-of-fact shall not include income tax refunds in a party’s income, if the trier-of-fact factored in the tax refund when calculating the party’s actual tax obligation and monthly net income.”

 

[6] K.B. v. J.B., Sr., is a non-precedential decision.  We cite the decision because it is relevant to our discussion, but we recognize that it is not binding precedent and it does not control the dispute now before this Court.

[7] Nothing in this Opinion should be construed as encouraging both parents to file CTC claims.  However, if both parents have independently submitted dual claims for CTC benefits, then both parents should have their child support calculated based upon the amount of CTC each receives.