Judges Opinions Public Notices, — February 16, 2021 22:09 — 0 Comments

Public Notices, February 17, 2021

Volume 58, No. 29

 

PUBLIC NOTICES

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE

NOTICE OF PRIVATE SALE

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Karen Louise Jones v. Kevin Anthony Jones

 

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 RAMON G. MUSHENO A/K/A RAMON GANTZ MUSHENO, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.


Susan Carol, Executrix

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

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


John R. Boudman, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF HETTY WENGERT, late of Jackson Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Kenneth W. Wengert, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF CHRISTINE M. HOPPLE, late of Jackson Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

William C. Hopple, Executor

304 W. Queen Street

Annville, PA 17003

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA, 17067

 

ESTATE OF JANE K. BASHORE, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Deborah Davies, Co-Executor

 

Laura Abbondi, Co-Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

ESTATE OF BRENDA E. FLORY, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Steven T. Flory, Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF JOAN M. VARANO, late of Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Gary A. Varano, Executor

5523 Hazel Street

Harrisburg, PA 17112

 

Joseph M. Farrell, Esquire

201/203 South Railroad Street

P.O. Box 113

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

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


Jason G. Sweinhart, Executor

96 Lewis Road

Annville, PA 17003

 

Joseph M. Farrell, Esquire

201/203 South Railroad Street

P.O. Box 113

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF EARL A. WOLFE, A/K/A EARL A. WOLFE, SR., late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Ronald G. Wolfe, Executor

1380 North State Route 934

Annville, PA 17003

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MARY F. REB, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Patrick M. Reb, Esquire, Executor

547 South 10th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF GLENN R. KERCHER, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executors.


Jeffrey Kercher, Executor

859 Water Edge Court

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Gregory Kercher, Executor

P.O. Box 272

Pine Grove, PA 17963

 

Karen Kercher, Executor

1821 Carlton Court

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF RICHELLE J. KUSHMANICK, late of Union Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Antoinette Kushmanick Houser, Executor

2380 Quarry Rd.

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Patrick M. Reb, Esquire

547 South 10th Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

SECOND PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF JUSTINE J. KREIFELS, late of Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased, who died January 9, 2021. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

John J. Kreifels and Brigitte R. Jones, Co-Executors

 

John D. Killian, Esquire

Killian & Gephart, LLP

218 Pine Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101

 

ESTATE OF STANLEY P. RZEPLINSKI, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Gregory A. Rzeplinski, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF AMY I. NYE, late of Swatara Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

Pollyanna M. Nye, Executrix

 

Keith D. Wagner, Esquire

  1. O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF MARGERY A. DADAMIO, late of 1 Boyd Street, Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Rita Jackson, Executrix

122 Norway Lane

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

Robert R. Kreitz, Esquire

Kreitz | Gallen-Schutt

1210 Broadcasting Road, Suite 103

Wyomissing, PA 19610

 

ESTATE OF PATRICIA J. STIMA, late of Cleona Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Valerie S. Chenail, Executrix

111 Stonebrook Drive

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

Edward J. Coyle, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF GARY R. DAUGHERTY, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, 17046, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Gail M. Rohland, Executrix

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Esquire

410 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF ANN T. KURY, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, 17046, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Thomas A. Kury, Executor

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Esquire

410 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF DORIS J. STALNECKER, late of West Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, 17545, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Stephanie A. Bell, Executrix

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Esquire

410 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF DORIS J. NELSON, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, 17042, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Executor

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Esquire

410 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF JOAN S. BRIODY A/K/A JOAN BRIODY, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Rebecca Briody, Executrix

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF MAEANNA J. MILLER, late of Jackson Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executors.

 

Patricia J. Shirey, Executor

11 Edris Road

Womelsdorf, PA 19567

 

Robert G. Miller, Jr., Executor

71 Mill Road

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA, 17067

 

ESTATE OF JANET M. WERNER, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Bruce M. Werner, Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

THIRD PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF CAMELIA A. UNDERKOFFLER, late of 440 E. Lincoln Ave., Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.


Colleen J. Hoch, Co-Executor

835 Blattadahl Rd.

Mohrsville, PA 19541

 

Sharon L. Gruber, Co-Executor

26 North Rd.

Robesonia, PA 19551

 

Robert R. Kreitz, Esquire

Kreitz | Gallen-Schutt

1210 Broadcasting Road, Suite 103

Wyomissing, PA 19610

 

ESTATE OF JOANNE M. ROBB, A/K/A, JOANNE MOYER, A/K/A, JOANNE MARIE ROBB, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.


Samantha Schaeffer, Administratrix

 

Loreen M. Burkett, Esquire

Weiss Burkett

802 Walnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF THOMAS A. SHAAK, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executrixes.

 

Cathy L. Wise & Caren A. Butera, Co-Executrixes

 

James K. Noel, IV, Esquire

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

570 Lausch Lane, Suite 200

Lancaster, PA 17601-3057

 

ESTATE OF RUTH E. DUNDORE, late of Jackson Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Cynthia L. Liskey, Co-Executor

494 Kutztown Road

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Lynnea Pellissier, Co-Executor

206 Peach Avenue

Hershey, PA 17033

 

Susan Dundore, Co-Executor

490 Stracks Dam Road

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA, 17067

 

ESTATE OF GERALDINE J. BOHR, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executrixes.

 

Lois M. Padilione, Deborah L. Lutz and Rosanne E. Lutz, Co-Executrixes

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF DOROTHY B. LASHINSKY, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.


Mary A. Lashinsky, Executrix

William G. Fenwick, Jr., Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF SUZANNE M. SHANKROFF, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.


Benjamin B. Shankroff, Executor

 

Kevin M. Richards, Esquire

P.O. Box 1140

Lebanon, PA 17042-1140

 

ESTATE OF AMELIA R. GALBRAITH, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration, c.t.a. have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.

 

  1. Kenneth Carpenter, Jr., Administrator, c.t.a.

108 Sandra Drive

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA, 17067

 

ESTATE OF GARY E. LOY, late of Swatara Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Michael K. Loy, Co-Executor

Kelly A. Loy, Co-Executor

 

Gerald J. Brinser, Esquire

  1. O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF ALLEN A. MILLER, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

Nathan S. Shearer, Co-Executor

Katherine E. Shearer, Co-Executor

 

Gerald J. Brinser, Esquire

  1. O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF DONNA J. ZIMA, A/K/A DONNA JEAN ZIMA, A/K/A DONNA ZIMA, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

Joshua D. Zima, Co-Executor

Tracy V. M. Deck, Co-Executor

 

Keith D. Wagner, Esquire

  1. O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF ROBERT P. YOKLISCH, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration, c.t.a. have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.

 

Paul A. Lundberg, Administrator, c.t.a.

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE

 

LOUISE P. RANDAZZO, Deceased. Late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania.

 

NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Section 7755(c) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act that The LOUISE P. RANDAZZO Trust is in existence, that Louise P. Randazzo is deceased, and that Deborah A. Mogel is the Trustee. ALL persons indebted to the Trust or to the above named Decedent are requested to make payment, and those having claims or demands against the same will make them known without delay to:

 

Mrs. Deborah A. Mogel

928 Snapdragon Ct.

Lebanon, PA 17046 or

 

Scott C. Painter, Esquire

Attorney for the Trustee,

Deborah A. Mogel

906 Penn Ave., P.O. Box 6269

Wyomissing, PA 19610

 

NOTICE OF PRIVATE SALE

 

NOTICE is hereby given that on February 9, 2021, the Board of Directors of the Lebanon School District, filed a Petition for the sale of the following tracts of real estate:

 

Northwest Elementary School containing 2.65 acres located on the northwest corner of the intersection of North Ninth Street and Maple Street in Lebanon City; and the second parcel of land containing .95 acres, adjacent to the elementary school building, the identified tax parcel I.D. numbers are 07-2336938-372822 and 07-2336473-372837, respectively.

 

The Court has fixed the 2nd day of March, 2021, at 3:30 o’clock P.M. at Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas, located at 400 South Eighth Street, Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042, as the time and place for the hearing on said petition when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted.

 

Michael S. Bechtold, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042-0049

Phone: (717) 274-1421

E-mail: Bechtold@buzgondavis.com

Solicitor for Lebanon School District

 

JUDGES OPINION

 

Karen Louise Jones v. Kevin Anthony Jones

 

Civil Action-Family Law-Child Support-Exceptions-Deviation from Child Support Guidelines-Expense for Additional Housing for Employment-Temporary Income-Payment of Post-Separation Expenses

 

Defendant (“Father”) filed Exceptions to the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Domestic Relations Master directing him to pay child support to Plaintiff (“Mother”).  Father argues that the Domestic Relations Master erred by failing to deviate from the amount recommended by the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines on the basis that he was required to maintain two (2) households due to the location of his job, his greater pay for work performed in another country was temporary and he paid mortgage payments upon the marital residence during the parties’ pending divorce.

 

  1. In reviewing the report and the recommendation of the domestic relations master, the court must give fullest consideration to the credibility findings of the domestic relations master.

 

  1. The report of the domestic relations master is advisory only.

 

  1. The court must consider all of the evidence de novo and make an independent determination of the amount of support due and owing.

 

  1. The Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines do not set forth an immutable formula that must be applied strictly in all cases.

 

  1. Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1910.16-5 permits a court to deviate from a Guideline support amount in a wide variety of situations including when there are unusual fixed obligations and due to other relevant and appropriate factors.

 

  1. A deviation analysis is implicated where parents irresponsibly have created a large number of children, a parent does not have housing expenses and a parent must travel long distances to visit the children.

 

  1. Income for purposes of children support ideally should be predicated upon six (6) months of earnings.

 

  1. When less than six (6) months of documentation of a party’s earnings is provided by the party, the domestic relations master is at liberty to base a determination of income on any reasonable time frame for which earnings may be proven.

 

  1. No litigant should be permitted to double dip in both divorce and support court based upon payment of identical expenses.

 

  1. The award of credits for post-separation mortgage payments routinely is addressed in equitable distribution proceedings.

 

  1. If a party’s support obligation were reduced based upon mortgage payments, the same would inhibit full consideration of a spouse’s payment of post-separation expenses benefitting the other spouse, which could prevent effectuation of economic justice within the divorce.

 

  1. The record establishes no other circumstance justifying deviation from the support amount set forth in the Guidelines where the Domestic Relations Master already deviated from that amount based upon Father’s need to pay rent for an additional residence near his place of employment two (2) hours from the family’s home, Father’s increased earnings for work performed in other counties, while temporary, still represents monetary compensation Father received that is income for purposes of support and post-separation payments made by Father more appropriately are considered during the parties’ divorce proceedings.

 

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2018-50401, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, May 19, 2020.

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION

 

 

KAREN LOUISE JONES          : 

          (Plaintiff)                                  :        NO. 2018-5-0401                                                                                          :        PACSES NO. 364117281

  1. :       

                                                          :

KEVIN ANTHONY JONES                  :

(Defendant)                     :

ORDER OF COURT

 

 

 

AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2020, upon consideration of the exceptions filed by Kevin Anthony Jones, it is hereby ordered that said exceptions are granted in part and denied in part.  The Order of this Court is as follows:

  1. Leave is granted for the DEFENDANT to immediately file a Motion for Modification. If/when a motion is filed, the DRM shall be authorized to enter a recommended order retroactive to April 1, 2020.
  2. The amount to be paid for each dependent and obligation amount is allocated as follows:

Effective June 12, 2019, the amount of support to be paid by the defendant is: $2.672.22 per month spousal support for Plaintiff, Karen Louise Jones and $1,460.00 per month for one child, Karma Louise Jones.  Effective July 21, 2019, Defendant shall pay $2,619.73 spousal support and $1,504.87 per month child support.  Defendant shall also pay $261.97 per month on arrears for spousal support and $150.49 per month on arrears for child support.

AMOUNT/FREQUENCY          OBLIGATION TYPE               BENEFICIARY

6/12/19-07/07/19

_$2,672.22 _/_month_             _Spousal Support _        Karen Louise Jones

_$1,460.00 _/_month_             _Child support _             Karma Louise Jones

07/08/19 and forward

_$2,619.73 _/_month_             _Spousal Support _        Karen Louise Jones

_$1,504.87 _/_month_             _Child support _             Karma Louise Jones

_$261.97_/_month_                  _Arrears_                       Karen Louise Jones

_$150.49_/_month_                  _Arrears_                       Karma Louise Jones

 

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 31st 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:  _68_% by Defendant and _32_% by Plaintiff.

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

IT IS ORDERED THAT (ITEMS CHECKED BELOW APPLY):

__ ___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.____DEFENDANT____PLAINTIFF SHALL PAY THE FOLLOWING FEES:  

FEE TOTAL          FEE DESCRIPTION                PAYMENT FREQUENCY

__$__/ once_      __ __                                       _$0.00_PER _once__

_____/______________________________PER _________

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

___X____All other provisions from the court order dated __5/14/2019_, not affected by this order, shall remain in full force and effect.

Unreimbursed medical after spousal support:

PL       1,699.00 + 2619.73 = 4319.12 (32%)

DEF  11,936.68 – 2619.73 = 9316.95 (68%)

                                                13,636.07

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:

 

 

 

  1.          

BRADFORD H. CHARLES

BHC/pmd

 

cc:     Domestic Relations

Karen Jones

Kevin Jones

          Loreen Burkett, Esq.

Donna Long Brightbill, Esq.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

DOMESTICE RELATIONS SECTION

 

 

KAREN LOUISE JONES          : 

          (Plaintiff)                                  :        NO. 2018-5-0401                                                                                          :        PACSES NO. 364117281

  1. :       

                                                          :

KEVIN ANTHONY JONES                  :

(Defendant)                     :

APPEARANCES

 

Loreen Burkett, Esquire                    For Karen Louise Jones

WEISS BURKETT, LLC

 

Donna Brightbill, Esquire                  For Kevin Anthony Jones

LONG BRIGHTBILL ATTORNEYS AT LAW

 

OPINION BY CHARLES, J., May 19, 2020

 

This case involves a support obligor who earns dramatically divergent income depending upon whether he is performing services here in America or overseas.  While the situation itself may be unique, general rules governing child support and spousal support are nevertheless applicable.  The reality of any support dispute – including this one – is that any obligation must be based upon ALL sources of income, whether those sources are temporary or not.  Primarily because we believe that the Domestic Relations Master (DRM) appropriately analyzed ALL of the income implicated in this case, we will be denying the support exceptions filed by Kevin Anthony Jones (hereafter FATHER).

 

  1. FACTS

FATHER and Karen Louise Jones (hereafter MOTHER) married in July of 2007 and separated in June of 2018. The parties are currently in the process of divorcing. They have one (1) minor child who is twelve (12) years of age. MOTHER has primary custody of the minor child.

On May 14, 2019, an Order was issued awarding MOTHER roughly $3,700.00 in child and spousal support. A review hearing was held on September 19, 2019. As a result of the hearing a two-tier Order was issued, the first from June 12, 2019 through July 7, 2019 at $4,132.22 per month total support and the second from July 7, 2019 forward at $4,124.60 per month total.

At the September 2019 hearing, the Domestic Relations Master (hereinafter DRM) found that MOTHER was off work from June 12, 2019 through July 8, 2019 after surgery and was cleared to return to work as of July 8, 2019. MOTHER had been a part-time employee for the United States Postal Service for five (5) years at a rate of $18.19 per hour, working a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours per week. MOTHER hoped to become a full-time employee of the US Postal Service once a full-time position becomes available. MOTHER also worked part-time for Hershey Entertainment and Resorts during the summer months and earned $7.50 per hour from that source.

FATHER worked at PDS Tech for Boeing Aerospace since July 2018 as a helicopter flight engineer instructor. The DRM found that FATHER earned an average of $12,861.68 per month[1]. He received different amounts depending on the nature and location of his job tasks.  In particular, FATHER’s employer outsourced him periodically to the country of India from March 2019 through March 2020. While FATHER worked in the country of India, he was paid time and one-half for work hours that exceeded forty hours a week. To prove his disparity of income, FATHER submitted eight (8) paystubs dated from August 2, 2019 through September 20, 2019 and one (1) paystub dated November 11, 2018.[2]

FATHER requested a guideline deviation for three reasons: (1) he was required to maintain two households due to the location of his job; and (2) his greater pay in India was only temporary; and (3) FATHER argued that he maintained the marital residence and paid expenses pertaining to that residence.

The DRM found that FATHER’s rent payment for an apartment near his employment was a reasonable expense due to the distance between his work and home; the DRM considered FATHER’s $925 per month rent as an unusual fixed obligation and deducted the rental payment from his monthly net income.  On the other hand the DRM declined to make an additional guideline deviation to account for FATHER no longer receiving overtime/per diem and, in fact, noted that the per diem/overtime rate should have been added to the prior support order, but was not.

FATHER filed timely exceptions to the DRM’s report because he believes that the DRM did not deviate sufficiently from the guideline formula amount.

 

  1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Superior Court has provided guidance with respect to the scope of review we must employ.  In reviewing a DRM’s report, we must give “fullest consideration” to the credibility findings of the DRM, who was present to observe the demeanor of witnesses and hear their testimony. Schuback v. Schuback, 603 A.2d 194, 196 (Pa. Super. 1992)(citing Dukmen v. Dukmen, 420 A.2d 667, 670 (Pa. Super. 1980)).  A DRM’s report should not be lightly disregarded.  Pasternak v. Pasternak, 204 A.2d 290, 291 (Pa. Super. 1964).  However, the DRM’s report is only advisory, and we are not bound by its conclusions.  Id. at 291 (citing Rankin v. Rankin, 124 A.2d 639, 641 (Pa. Super. 1956)).  Essentially, we must consider all of the evidence de novo and make an independent determination of the amount of support due and owing.  Id. at 291 (citing Rankin v. Rankin, 124 A.2d 639, 641 (Pa. Super. 1956)).

 

III.     ANALYSIS

This Court has made abundantly clear in numerous instances that the child support guidelines are called “guidelines” for a reason; they are not immutable formulas that must be applied strictly in all cases.  See, Lehman v. Walmer, C.P. Leb. Co. No. 2008-5-0412 (Charles, J. 2012) (“A Court cannot always robotically adhere to rigid formulas in a child support case.”)  Even the guideline rules themselves create a methodology for deviation.  Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 permits a court to deviate from the support guideline formula in a wide variety of situations, including when there are “unusual fixed obligations” and “other relevant and appropriate factors.”  This Court has characterized situations where parents have irresponsibly created a large number of children, situations where a parent does not have any housing expense and situations where a parent is required to travel long distances to visit children as implicating a deviation analysis.  See, Moyer v. Nafzinger, C.P. Leb. Co. No. 2009-5-0473 (2016), Haag v. Haag, No. 2016-5-0146 (2016), Richards v. Richards, No. 2006-5-0322 (2016) and Varella v. Sandifer, No. 1997-5-0492 (2003).

In this case, the DRM recognized the uniqueness of the fact pattern before her.  Because of this, the DRM did employ a deviation analysis and reduced FATHER’s income by nearly $1,000.00 per month to accomplish a deviation.  FATHER does not believe that the DRM went far enough.  He argues that additional deviation should have been employed because the income he earned while in the country of India was temporary and because he continues to pay expenses pertaining to the marital residence.

Implicit in FATHER’s arguments is the recognition that the DRM correctly applied the child support formula to the parties’ incomes as she found them to exist.  Although FATHER expended a little more than one paragraph in his brief to complain about MOTHER’s income[3], he focused his attention on the DRM’s failure to deviate from the child support guidelines due to the temporary nature of his overseas income and his payment of marital expenses.  Because that is where FATHER focused his attention, we will do likewise and address both of FATHER’s primary arguments seriatim.

 

  • Temporary Income

FATHER characterizes his income while working in India as “temporary”.  He claims that it would be unfair to predicate an ongoing child support award upon artificially high income that is only temporary.

We will begin by emphasizing that income for purposes of child support should ideally be predicated upon six (6) months of earnings.  See, e.g. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a). Because the rules prefer use of a 6-month average of earnings, the court orders that are used to schedule support hearings require that parties bring documentation to prove their earnings during the 6 months leading up to the time of the hearing. See, e.g. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-11(c).  In this case, FATHER was sent a court order that required him to bring the following:

“(1) A true copy of your most recent Federal Income Tax Return including W-2’s as filed,

(2) Your paystubs for the preceding 6 months,

(3) The income statement and appropriate expenses statement…attached to this Order completed as required by Rule 1910.11(c)…”

See, Court Order contained in file consistent with the requirement of Pa.R.C.P. 1910.27(g) (emphasis added).

 

When less than 6 months of documentation is provided, the DRM is at liberty to base a determination of income on any reasonable time frame for which earnings could be proven.  See, e.g. Trostle v. Trostle, C.P. Leb. Co. No. 2017-5-0073 (June 4, 2018).

In this case, FATHER has three sources of income.  His primary source is his employment as a helicopter flight engineer.  In addition, FATHER also receives a VA pension and a monthly VA disability stipend.  FATHER’s income situation is of course complicated by the fact that he received enhanced earnings during company deployments to India to facilitate delivery of helicopters by Boeing to that country.  Ultimately, the DRM went to great lengths in order to evaluate FATHER’s income at various points in time.  From June 12, 2019 through July 7, 2019, the DRM afforded FATHER with net monthly income of $10,367.40.  Starting on July 8, 2019, the DRM afforded FATHER with net monthly earnings of $11,936.68.[4]

FATHER’s employment earnings are complicated.  His job as a flight engineer is based at Boeing’s factory plant located in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania.  However, he also sometimes works in Mesa, Arizona and he is sent overseas to train customers to whom Boeing delivers its helicopters.  As of the date of the hearing before the DRM, FATHER had been sent to the country of India on three occasions.  In addition, FATHER testified that he anticipated two additional trips to India in September of 2019 and March of 2020.  During all of these deployments, FATHER was entitled to received enhanced income.

To prove his income, FATHER produced paystubs that reflected year-to-date earnings for thirty-seven (37) weeks during 2019.  According to Exhibit 5, FATHER received year-to-date gross earnings through September 20, 2019 of $111,768.80.  FATHER’s paystub reflected total deductions of $52,796.61.  However, roughly $23,000.00 of these deductions reflected support payments and additional $6,220.00 represented FATHER’s 401(k) contribution.  Adding FATHER’s support and retirement deductions to his net income reflected in Exhibit 5 yields a total year-to-date net income through September 20, 2019 of $82,361.00.  Divided by 37 weeks, this yields a monthly employment net income for FATHER of $9,500.00.   Adding FATHER’s monthly retirement pay of $1,700.00[5] and monthly disability stipend of $1,325.00 results in a nine-month average income for FATHER of approximately $12,500.00.

Our calculation of FATHER’s income based upon an analysis of his 9-month year-to-date numbers is statistically indistinguishable from the determination rendered by the DRM.[6]  Moreover, it is obvious that the DRM undertook a more detailed evaluation of FATHER’s employment income based upon the changing paradigms by which he was paid.  Truthfully, this Court prefers the DRM’s analysis over the easier one that we undertook.  Therefore, we will affirm and adopt the DRM’s determination of FATHER’s income earned from his employment.

As noted above, the DRM did deviate from the child support guidelines based upon FATHER’s unique situation.  According to testimony presented at the hearing, FATHER owned a house in Jonestown where he and his family lived during the marriage.  However, he also maintained an apartment in Ridley Park near his place of employment.  FATHER presented evidence that his home in Jonestown is located almost one-hundred (100) miles from his place of employment.  Without traffic, it would require more than two (2) hours of drive time for FATHER to commute one-way from Jonestown to Philadelphia.  Because of this extreme commute time, the DRM determined that FATHER had a reasonable need for a small apartment near his place of employment and that his obligation to maintain two residences constituted an “unusual expense”.  Because of this unusual expense, the DRM deviated from the child support guidelines.  We concur completely with the DRM’s analysis of FATHER’s Ridley Park apartment expenses, and we adopt the DRM’s deviation analysis as our own.

While the DRM was justified in deviating from the child support guidelines based upon FATHER’s unusual need for two residences, there are no other circumstances that would justify deviation.  FATHER’s earning are what they are.  Even though some of his earnings were “temporary”, they still represented monetary compensation that FATHER received.  It is axiomatic in Pennsylvania that ALL income from all sources represents “income available for support” under Pennsylvania’s child support guidelines.  See, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a).[7]

With the above being concluded, we also recognize that several things have occurred since the DRM’s hearing that could significantly impact FATHER’s income and ability to pay support.  For example, FATHER’s deployments to India have now apparently ended, thus depriving him of the opportunity to receive significant enhanced foreign service income.  Perhaps even more important, the coronavirus global pandemic has severely impacted Boeing.  Certainly, there is no way that FATHER is going to be traveling to places like Arizona and foreign countries to facilitate delivery of helicopters.  He may not even be able to work on a 40-hour per week basis given the supply chain disruptions that have been caused by the pandemic.  We will therefore afford the DEFENDANT with  leave to file an immediate Motion for Modification and we will also afford the DRM with the authority to enter a revised support order retroactive to April 1, 2020.  Our expectation is that the DRM will be able to analyze FATHER’s current income situation so that an appropriate support amount within his ability to pay can be crafted.

 

  • Payment of Expenses Relating to Marital Residence

FATHER’s second deviation argument is that the DRM should have reduced his child support because he continues to pay many of the expenses related to the marital home.  The DRM rejected FATHER’s argument for several reasons: (1) MOTHER and the parties’ daughter did not consistently reside full-time in the marital home; (2) the marital home was titled in FATHER’s name, as was the mortgage encumbering it; and (3) a divorce is pending within which issues pertaining to post-separation payment of expenses can be decided.  We agree with the analysis of the DRM.

In Heister v. Heister, No. 2013-5-0506 (2014), this jurist wrote: “It is important to note that there is always interplay between equitable distribution and spousal support.  While one should not usurp the other, neither can be considered in a vacuum without consideration of the other.”  In Miller v. Bixler, No. 2012-5-0212 (2014), this jurist wrote: “The goals of the divorce code and [support court] are not mutually exclusive.  However, they are mutually dependent, and this sometimes creates tension…”

While we have always recognized that divorce and support issues are both separate and related, there is one principle we have always followed.  No litigant should be permitted to “double-dip” in both divorce and support court based upon an identical argument.  This type of “double-dipping” has been specifically decried not only by this Court, but also by Pennsylvania’s Superior Court.  See, Berry v. Berry, 898 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Super. 2006).

In this case, FATHER is apparently paying many of the living expenses relating to the former marital home.  We faced an identical situation in Davis v. Davis, No. 2014-5-0720 (2015) and White v. Vernet, No. 2008-5-0774 (2015).  In both Davis and White, we declined to decrease an obligor’s child support obligation simply because he was also paying a mortgage encumbering the marital home.  We emphasized that the award of credits for post-separation payments of a mortgage is routinely addressed in a divorce equitable distribution proceeding.  In Davis, we specifically stated: “We believe that when it is possible to do so, decisions relating to post-separation mortgage and rental credits should abide an equitable distribution dispute and the Special Master’s analysis should not be encumbered by a spousal [or child] support overlay.”

We explained in Davis and White, and it bears repeating today, that if we were to reduce FATHER’s support obligation based upon his mortgage payments, that would inhibit a divorce Special Master from fully considering a spouse’s payment of post-separation expenses benefitting the other spouse, and that could prevent the Master from effectuating economic justice within the divorce.

Today, we will follow the precedent set forth above.  We will not undertake a deviation analysis based upon FATHER’s payment of post-separation expenses relating to the Jonestown home.  By rendering this decision, and rendering it explicitly, we will enable the divorce Special Master to fully consider all amounts that FATHER paid for the benefit of MOTHER subsequent to separation.

 

  1. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the DRM did an exemplary job in analyzing the information presented to her.  We adopt as our own the DRM’s analysis of FATHER’s income, MOTHER’s income and the application of Pennsylvania’s support formula to the income as determined.  We also adopt the DRM’s decision to deviate from the guidelines due to FATHER’s unusual work situation.

Most important to the dispute now before this Court, we concur completely with the DRM’s analysis relating to FATHER’s enhanced income while in the country of India.  Income is income, regardless of whether it is temporary or ongoing.  All income is considered ‘available for support”.  This includes FATHER’s temporary enhanced earnings while overseas.  Had the DRM not considered the totality of FATHER’s income, she would have been violating Pennsylvania law.

Sometimes, we need for the parties to take a step back and look at the so-called “big picture”.  The reality in this case is that FATHER earns more than almost every other support litigant who appears before this Court. His total support obligation of $4,100 per month is admittedly higher than almost every other support obligation we enforce, but it still represents only 32% of FATHER’s net earnings.   Many people with far less in earnings pay a greater percentage in support than what FATHER is being asked to pay, and those individuals have significantly less disposable income remaining after their support is paid.

For today, we will be denying FATHER’s exceptions.  As we do so, we will leave the door open for FATHER to seek a Modification of Support if in fact his income has decreased as we suspect it may have.  An Order to accomplish these decisions will be entered today’s date.

 

 

 

[1] The DRM reduced this for guideline calculation purposes to $11,936.68 due to FATHER’s need to pay $925/mo. Rent in Ridley Park.

[2] Fortunately, the September 20 paystub included year-to-date earnings.

[3] FATHER argued that MOTHER should not have been afforded earnings based upon a 24-hour work week.  Implicit in this argument is the request that MOTHER be afforded a full-time earning capacity.  What FATHER conveniently overlooked in his argument is that MOTHER maintained a second job between April and September.  The earnings for MOTHER’s second job were included within her income.  Given that MOTHER’s earnings are so dramatically less than those of FATHER, we conclude that even a marginally higher earning capacity for MOTHER would have had only a negligible impact upon a final award of support.  We suspect that FATHER’s counsel recognized this reality and therefore chose not to expend time or energy to pursue the argument in depth.

[4] The DRM’s income figures were $950 less than actual figures to reflect FATHER’s payment of rent in Ridley Park.

[5] The $1,700.00 per month VA retirement income used by the DRM is less than FATHER’s gross annual pension income of $22,457.00.  Divided by twelve, the gross pension amount equates to a monthly figure of $1,871.42.  Although the DRM did not explain the discrepancy, we suspect that it is related to some sort of tax or other mandatory deduction.

[6] The difference between our 9-month calculation and the DRM’s more detailed analysis is less than three percent (3%).

[7] We had expected to receive an argument that FATHER had unusually high expenses while he worked overseas.  We do not know the extent to which FATHER was reimbursed for travel, food, lodging and culturally appropriate clothing during his stay in India.  To the extent that FATHER was expected to expend unusually large amounts to support himself while in a foreign country, those unusual expenses could provide a basis for deviation.  However, no proof of unusual expenses related to FATHER’s trips to India were presented in the record and we cannot presume that those expenses existed.

About the author

Lebanon County Legal Journal has written 703 articles for Lebanon County Legal Journal

Search