Judges Opinions Public Notices, — November 10, 2021 8:23 — 0 Comments

Public Notices, November 10, 2021

Volume 59, No. 15

 

PUBLIC NOTICES

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF ORGANIZATION

NOTICE OF ACTION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Kevin Dennis Sonnon v. Emily Charlotte Sonnon

 

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 LLOYD THOMAS BEERS, late of South Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration D.B.N. have been granted to the undersigned Administrator D.B.N.

 

Christina M. Nez, Administrator D.B.N.

3 Chestnut Street

Hummelstown, PA 17036

 

Edward Coyle , Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF RUTH J. HOOVER a/k/a RUTH HOOVER, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Karen E. Anspach, Executrix

137 Berrywood Drive

Severna Park, MD 21146

 

Timothy T. Engler, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue,

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF DEBORAH ANN MCCORD, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased 12/5/20. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.

 

Ian McCord, Administrator

127 N. Washington St.

Orwigsburg, PA 17961

 

Marybeth O. Lauria, Esquire

Lauria Law LLC

3031 Walton Rd., Ste. A320

Plymouth Mtg., PA 19462

 

ESTATE OF KIMON ZOUMAS, late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Pamela A. Lysy, Executrix

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Esquire

410 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

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

 

Deanne C. Sholly, Executrix

 

Horace M. Ehrgood, Esquire

410 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF BETTY JANE DALE, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Alan Hayward Dale, Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

SECOND PUBLICATION

 

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

 

Harry F. Zerman Jr., Executor

601 E. Pine Street

Cleona, PA 17042

 

Edward Coyle, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF EVELYN J. KLEINFELTER, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Jeffrey L. Kleinfelter, Executor

1585 Back Rd

Halifax, PA 17032

 

Scott L. Grenoble, Esquire

Buzgon Davis Law Offices

P.O. Box 49

525 South Eighth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF RICHARD S. RUNKEL, late of Jonestown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.

 

Denis R. Runkel, Co-Executor

 

James B. Runkel, Co-Executor

 

John M. Zimmerman, Esquire

Zimmerman Law Office

466 Jonestown Road

Jonestown, PA 17038

 

ESTATE OF HERVY S. GIBSON, late of Bethel Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.

 

Fern L. Gibson, Administratrix

164 Chase Drive

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Timothy T. Engler, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF ROY R. PATCHES, late of Bethel Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Royce R. Patches, Executor

17 Ketterman Hill Road

Richland, PA 17087

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF ELLA M. FETTERHOFF, late of Swatara Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Guardian Services of PA, Executor

P.O. Box 418

Elizabethville, PA 17023

 

Timothy T. Engler, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

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

 

Keith R. Bender, Executor

822 Marcon Drive

Lebanon, PA 17046

 

Timothy T. Engler, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF ELISE R. ACRI, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Richard B. Acri, Executor

 

Gerald J. Brinser, Esquire

P.O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF SCOTT LEE DINGER, late of Millcreek Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.

 

Terry Dinger, Administrator

 

Michael J. Gombar, Jr., Esquire

Masano ♦ Bradley

1100 Berkshire Boulevard, Suite 201

Wyomissing, PA 19610

 

ESTATE OF ISABEL C. ZULKER, late of Jackson Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Elizabth A. Mellon, Executrix

327 Winding Way

Womelsdorf, PA 19567

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF GRACE E. DERR, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Cynthia Ann Behler, Executrix

31 Hickory Drive

Bethel, PA 19507

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF MARGARET N. DISSINGER, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Anthony Gulotta, Executor

 

Matthew M. Karinch, Esquire

Weiss Burkett, LLC

802 Walnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

ESTATE OF ANNA MAE SNYDER, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Judy K. Umbenhauer, Executor

 

Reilly Wolfson Law Office

1601 Cornwall Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

 

THIRD PUBLICATION

 

ESTATE OF JEAN M. MAENZA, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Christina Zezenski, Executrix

384 Mountain Blvd.

Wernersville, PA 19565

 

Frederick M. Nice, Esquire

Leisawitz Heller Abramowitch Phillips, P.C.

2755 Century Blvd.

Wyomissing, PA 19610

 

ESTATE OF CHARLES W. DUMBAULD a/k/a CHARLES WILLIAM DUMBAULD, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Sherri L. Dumbauld, Executrix

 

Keith D. Wagner, Esquire

  1. O. Box 323

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

ESTATE OF DONALD H. SHUE, JR., late of South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Marianne Adams, Executrix

 

John R. Elliot, Esquire

Anstine & Sparler

117 East Market St.

York, PA 17401

 

ESTATE OF CAROL K. BRANDT, late of North Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

David K. Brandt, Executor

1100 Willoughby Road

Harrisburg, PA 17111

 

Theresa L. Shade Wix, Esquire

Wix, Wenger & Wedner

4705 Duke Street

Harrisburg, PA 17109-3041

 

ESTATE OF BETTY C. MILLER a/k/a BETTY CAROLYN MILLER, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Bonita F. Miller, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

ESTATE OF EDWARD P. ROOT, JR. A/K/A EDWARD PAUL ROOT, JR., late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Cindy S. Rivers, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

ESTATE OF URSEL RANDOLPH ADKINS a/k/a URSEL R. ADKINS, late of South Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.

 

Debra E. Mrakovich, Executrix

 

George W. Porter, Esquire

909 E. Chocolate Ave.

Hershey, PA 17033

 

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

 

Elam G. Stoltzfus, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

ESTATE OF ROBERT WITMAN GROFF, late of West Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Charles Nelson Groff, Executor

 

Young and Young

44 S. Main Street

P.O. Box 126

Manheim, PA 17545

 

TRUST ESTATE OF BETTY JANE HARTMAN, late of Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Successor Trustees.

 

Michael Lee Hartman, Trustee

519 Albright Road

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

Andrew Hartman, Trustee

548 Pancake Road

Clarence, PA 16829

 

Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire

Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys

36 West Main Avenue,

Myerstown, PA 17067

 

ESTATE OF HENRY JAVIER RIVERA ALVAREZ, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Yamilis Yaire Rivera Melendez, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

ESTATE OF WANDA S. REID, a/k/a WANDA SPENCE REID, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased September 13, 2021. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Gail L. Wagner, Executor

 

Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

100 Pine Street

  1. O. Box 1166

Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166

(717) 232-8000

 

ESTATE OF BETTY J. MURRAY, a/k/a BETTY JANE MURRAY, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executrices.

 

Susan L. Weiman, Co-Executrix

 

Virginia L. Kline, Co-Executrix

 

Charles A. Ritchie, Jr., Esquire

Feather and Feather, P.C.

22 West Main Street

Annville, PA 17003

ATTORNEY

 

ESTATE OF JAMES A. HEISEY, late of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.

 

Jennifer R. Noel, Executor

 

Anthony J. Fitzgibbons, Esquire

279 North Zinn’s Mill Road

Lebanon, PA 17042

717-279-8313

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

 

Notice is hereby given that a nonprofit corporation known as

 

HEADER FAMILY FOUNDATION

 

was incorporated on November 4, 2021, under the provisions of the Nonprofit Corporation Law

of 1988, as amended, for charitable, religious and educational purposes as defined in Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, including, without limitation, to support education, social, medical, environmental and disaster relief causes and all other purposes permitted under the Act.

 

BARLEY SNYDER

Attorneys

 

 

 

 

Notice is hereby given that Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for a professional corporation which has been, on 11/8/21, incorporated under the provisions of the Business Corporation Law of 1988. The name of the corporation is: Synergy Health Group, PC.

 

Dylan Lolya, Publication Team Leader

Vcorp Services, LLC

25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 204

Monsey, NY 10952

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF ORGANIZATION

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Certificate of Organization was filed with the Corporation Bureau of the Pennsylvania Department of State, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of forming a domestic business corporation under the Pennsylvania Uniform Limited Liability Company Act of 2016 (P.L. 1328, No. 170), 15 Pa. C. S. A. §8811 et. seq. as amended.  The purpose of the corporation is to invest in real estate, and to engage in any other lawful business a corporation may engage in.

The name and address of the corporation is: Ghimirey, LLC, 128 Thistledown Drive, Palmyra PA 17078.

 

Ernest J. Woolever, Esq.

42 West Main Street

Palmyra, PA 17078

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE OF ACTION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – LAW

NO.: 2021-00786

 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff,

vs.

Jeffrey L. Hostetter, Jr., as Believed Heir and/or Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey L. Hostetter; Jessica Zimmerman, as Believed Heir and/or Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey L. Hostetter; Unknown Heirs and/or Administrators of the Estate of Jeffrey L. Hostetter (if any), Defendants

 

TO: Unknown Heirs and/or Administrators of the Estate of Jeffrey L. Hostetter (if any)

 

You are hereby notified that Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed an Action in Mortgage Foreclosure endorsed with a Notice to Defend, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, docketed to No. 2021-00786, seeking to foreclose the mortgage secured by the real estate located at 1227 Lehman Street, Lebanon, PA 17046.

 

A copy of the Action in Mortgage Foreclosure will be sent to you upon request to the Attorney for the Plaintiff, Manley Deas Kochalski LLC, P. O. Box 165028, Columbus, OH 43216-5028. Phone 614-220-5611.

 

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims in this notice, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this publication, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

 

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

 

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE

Lebanon County Bar Association

547 South Tenth Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

(717) 273-3113

MidPenn Legal Services

513 Chestnut Street

Lebanon, PA 17042

(717) 274-2834

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGES OPINION

 

Kevin Dennis Sonnon v. Emily Charlotte Sonnon

 

Civil Action-Family Law-Child Support-Contract Limiting Support-Enforceability-Deviation from Guideline Support Amount-Factors

 

The parties, who are the parents of two (2) minor children subject to an Order of support, entered into a Custody Stipulation affording additional periods of physical custody to Defendant Emily Charlotte Sonnon (“Mother”) that contained a provision precluding the modification of support.  Mother filed a Petition for Modification of Support on the basis that the Custody Stipulation afforded her additional periods of physical custody of the children.  The Domestic Relations Master (“DRM”) relied upon the parties’ Custody Stipulation precluding the modification of support and denied Mother’s Petition for Modification.  Mother has filed Exceptions to the Report of Recommendation of the DRM.

 

  1. A child’s right to support from both parents transcends the parents’ ability to enter into a contract limiting support.

 

  1. When a child would suffer as a result of an agreement of the child’s parents, the agreement may be disregarded by the court.

 

  1. A private agreement between parties prohibiting modification of support will not be enforced when a child adversely would be affected by its enforcement.

 

  1. To determine whether a child support limitation agreement is binding, the court must examine whether the amount set forth in the agreement is fair and reasonable, the agreement was entered without fraud or coercion and the agreement prejudices the welfare of the children.

 

  1. The Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines create a presumptive amount to which a custodial parent is entitled.

 

  1. The law recognizes that unusual circumstances may exist that may support deviation from the standard support amount under the Guidelines.

 

  1. Whether a parent has unusual needs or expenses is a circumstance that may warrant deviation.

 

  1. The DRM erred by relying upon the parties’ Custody Stipulation alone in denying Mother’s Petition for Modification, as any decision to deny a Petition for Modification must be predicated upon an analysis of the Support Guidelines that is unencumbered by any agreement precluding modification of support.

 

  1. Remand of the case is necessary for the DRM to undertake a complete analysis of the parties’ custody agreement and any factors that may support deviation from the presumptive Guideline support amount.

 

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2017-50880, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, October 19, 2020.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

CIVIL ACTION – FAMILY DIVISION

 

KEVIN DENNIS SONNON                         :         NO. 2017-5-0880

Plaintiff                                        :         PACSES NO. 447116937                                                                          :

:

  1. :

EMILY CHARLOTTE SONNON                :

Defendant                                                :

:

:        CHILD SUPPORT

 

 

AMENDED ORDER OF COURT

 

AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2020, upon consideration of the exceptions filed by Emily Charlotte Sonnon (hereafter MOTHER), after review of the file and in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Order of this Court is as follows:

  1. This matter is remanded to the Domestic Relations Master (DRM) in order to conduct an additional hearing with the purpose of undertaking a complete analysis of the parties’ revised custody arrangement and the deviation factors outlined in said Opinion.
  2. Pending completion of the DRM’s analysis, the current temporary order dated May 2, 2019 shall continue in effect in all its terms. This decision is without prejudice to the ability of the DRM to render whatever substantive decision is deemed appropriate.

 

This Order shall be effective February 5, 2020.   

Defendant’s Petition for Modification has been remanded for an additional hearing to conduct an analysis of the Support Guidelines.          

 

The amount of support to be paid by Defendant is: $_375.00_ per month for child support for __Levi John Sonnon and Isaac Clayton Sonnon__.  The amount to be paid by __Defendant__on accumulated arrears is: $__37.50__ per month.  The amount to be paid for each dependent and obligation amount is allocated as follows:

AMOUNT/FREQUENCY          OBLIGATION TYPE               BENEFICIARY

_$187.50_/_month_                _child support_             _Levi John Sonnon_

_$18.75_/_month_                  _arrears_                       _Levi John Sonnon_

_$187.50_/_month_                _child support_       _Isaac Clayton Sonnon_

_$18.75_/_month_                  _arrears_                 _Isaac Clayton Sonnon_

 

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.

The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in the amount of $250 annually for un-reimbursed medical expenses incurred for each child and/or spouse.  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:  _0_% by Defendant and _100_% by Plaintiff.  ____Defendant ___ Plaintiff ____Neither party is to provide medical coverage __ .

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,.

__X___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.

  1. _XX____DEFENDANT _____PLAINTIFF SHALL PAY THE FOLLOWING FEES:  

FEE TOTAL          FEE DESCRIPTION                PAYMENT FREQUENCY

_40.25_/_one time fee__       _JCF FEE_          _40.25_PER _one time_

 

 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

___XX____All other provisions from the court order dated April 16, 2018, 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

Kevin Sonnon// PO Box 204, Rexmont PA 17085

Emily Sonnon// 210 Murry Hill Drive, Lancaster PA 17601

Corey Lamoureux, Esq.// 1601 Cornwall Road, Lebanon PA 17042

Michael Bechtold, Esq.//525 S. 8th Street, PO Box 49, Lebanon PA 17042

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

 

CIVIL ACTION – FAMILY DIVISION

 

 

KEVIN DENNIS SONNON                         :         NO. 2017-5-0880

Plaintiff                                        :         PACSES NO. 447116937                                                                          :

:

  1. :

EMILY CHARLOTTE SONNON                :

Defendant                                                :

:

:        CHILD SUPPORT

APPEARANCES

 

Corey Lamoureux, Esquire                   For Plaintiff

 

Michael Bechtold, Esquire                     For Defendant

OPINION BY CHARLES, J., October 19, 2020

 

No parent can bargain away a child’s right to support.  This precept is part of any “Child Support 101” curriculum.  Yet the real world implications of tying child support amounts to other justiciable domestic relations issues is far more nuanced.  So nuanced, in fact, that we have chosen to take this opportunity to author an opinion that we hope will discourage lawyers from drafting agreements that tie child support to other issues such as custody.

 

  1. FACTS

 

Kevin D. Sonnon (hereafter FATHER) and Emily C. Sonnon (hereafter MOTHER) are the parents of two (2) children.  An initial Support Order was entered in May of 2019 shortly after the parties separated.  On October 18, 2019, the parties entered into a Custody Stipulation that modified the Custody Scheduled to afford additional time to MOTHER.  The Custody Order contained a clause that precluded a modification of support.

On February 5, 2020, MOTHER filed a Petition for Modification of Support.  In her modification petition, MOTHER averred that the Order should be changed in part because of the increased custody time afforded to her in the October 18, 2019 Stipulation.  FATHER relied upon the no-modification provision of the Custody Stipulation and challenged MOTHER’s request for a modification.

On July 9, 2020, a hearing before a Domestic Relations Master (DRM) was conducted.  On July 27, 2020, the DRM filed a report that denied MOTHER’s request for decreased support.  MOTHER filed exceptions to the decision of the DRM.  The issue is now before this Court for disposition.

 

  1. AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO SUPPORT

The law favors agreements as a vehicle to resolve Domestic Relations disputes.  As a general rule, parties who are living in an environment of dispute are in the best position to determine how the environment can and should be changed.  With due respect being afforded to the above precept, there are limitations to the ability of parties to resolve Domestic Relations disputes, especially in situations involving children.  One of those exceptions is implicated in the case now before this Court.

The law has always recognized that a child’s right to support from both of his parents transcends the parents’ ability to enter into a contract limiting that support.  Oman v. Oman, 482 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 1984).  As the Superior Court of Pennsylvania noted: “[A parent] cannot by contract, bargain away the right of his/her minor children to adequate support from [the obligor]…” Miesen v. Frank, 522 A.2d 85, 87 (Pa. Super, 1987). The reasoning for this legal principle was described by our Commonwealth highest Court in the case of Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503, 505 (Pa. 1991):

“Parties to a divorce action may bargain between themselves and structure their agreement as best serves their interests,…They have no power, however, to bargain away the rights of their children,…Their right to bargain for themselves is their own business.  They cannot in that process set a standard that will leave their children short.  Their bargain may be eminently fair, give all that the children might require and be enforceable because it is fair. When it gives less than required or less than can be given to provide for the best interests of the children, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Court’s wide and necessary powers to provide for that best interest…[The agreement] is at best advisory to the Court and swings on the tides of the necessity that the children be provided.”

 

By virtue of the above, child support courts are not bound by the agreements presented to them by litigants.  When a child would suffer as a result of his/her parents’ agreement, said agreement can be disregarded by a court.  Middleton v. Robinson, 728 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super. 1999).  Thus, a private agreement between parties prohibiting modification of support will not be enforced when children would be adversely affected by enforcement of that agreement.  Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 2007).  Moreover, private agreements that seek to penalize parents for pursuing a modification of child support will similarly be ignored.  In Huss v. Weaver, 134 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. 2016), the Superior Court favorably referred to a trial court’s reasoning: “We cannot tolerate a provision which penalizes a parent for pursuing her children’s rights.” Id at page 455.

Several cases have proposed a three-pronged test for determining whether a child support limitation agreement can be binding.  That test asks three questions:

  • Is the amount set forth in the agreement “fair and reasonable”?;
  • Was the agreement entered without fraud or coercion?;
  • Does the agreement prejudice the welfare of the children?

See, Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, supra; Huss v. Weaver, supra.

Using this test, the Superior Court has held that when an agreement “leaves the children short”, it cannot be binding to any child support adjudicator.  Kraisinger, supra at page 341.

Given the law as outlined above, it would be easy for us to declare all support non-modification agreements to be void as contrary to public policy.  But effectuating fairness in a highly volatile domestic relations environment is seldom easy.  The law must recognize that support clauses contained in custody or property settlement agreements are almost always accompanied by some sort of quid pro quo.  Affording one parent with the ability to receive the benefit of his/her bargain while taking away the ability of the other parent to enforce a support clause can, in some cases, create injustice.  Moreover, such injustice could cause harm to the very same children that were sought to be protected.  Because of these realities, the law has created nuance.

In one case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that agreements can be considered as “advisory” by a Support Court.  See, e.g. Knorr v. Knorr, supra.  Another line of Pennsylvania Appellate decisions has recognized the ability of a parent to seek enforcement of a Support Agreement via a separate civil action for Breach of Contract.  Sams v. Sams, 808 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2002).  (“Pennsylvania law permits Support Orders and private agreements for support to co-exist and be enforced separately.” Id at page 211.)   In the case of Heisey v. Heisey, No. 2015-5-0752 (August 10, 2018), this Court stated:

This case involves the interplay between a private child support agreement and child support litigation pursued through a local Domestic Relations Office.  It is axiomatic that no parent can contract away a child’s right to be financially supported.  Still, the existence of private agreements cannot be ignored, in part because every United States citizen enjoys a constitutional right to enter into contracts that he/she deems appropriate.  See, United States Constitution, Article I Section 10.[1]  Whenever possible, courts should strive to give effect to a private child support agreement if that can be accomplished without violating a child’s right to receive adequate financial support.  Achieving this goal is always difficult and sometimes impossible…

The interplay between private agreements and Child Support Orders is tricky.  It is certainly true that parents cannot contract away a child’s right to receive support.  See, e.g. Com. ex rel. Rossi v. Rossi, 53 A.2d 887, 888 (Pa.Super. 1947).  As it relates to child support litigation, private agreements are deemed to have only an “advisory effect” and may be disregarded altogether when they are not deemed to be in the best interest of the child.  See, Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503, 504 (Pa. 1991.)  On the other hand, support agreements may be enforced separate and apart from Child Support Orders.  See, Nicholson v. Combs, 703 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1997).  The mere existence of a Child Support Order does not preclude a party from seeking to enforce a private agreement under traditional contract law.  Our Superior Court has stated:

 

“Both agreements and Support Orders under certain circumstances could be given independent effect.  Obviously, double recovery cannot be allowed on both the agreement and the Support Order.  To the extent the agreement is not completely satisfied by giving credit for the amount paid pursuant to the Support Order, a debt is accumulated which may be recovered in an action of assumpsit or inequity.  Dechter v. Kaskey, 549 A.2d 588 (Pa. Super. 1988).[2]

 

 

III.     ANALYSIS

Based upon the totality of the legal precedent we have reviewed, it is clear that our decision today cannot be predicated upon the non-modification clause contained in the parties’ Custody Stipulation.  We understand and respect the desire of parties to avoid potentially contentious and emotionally taxing support litigation.  We accept as a near axiom that emotion turmoil triggered by support litigation will inevitably be harmful to the children of the parties embroiled in the dispute.  Nevertheless, no parent can bargain away the right of children to receive the full amount of child support to which they are entitled.  In this case, we will not permit MOTHER to limit FATHER’s right to receive the full amount of support due to the children under Pennsylvania law.

Having reached the conclusion outlined above, we cannot say one way or another whether the current Support Order is “fair and reasonable” or whether its enforcement would “cause prejudice” to the parties’ two children.  It is clear that MOTHER’s time with the children has expanded since October of 2019.  However, even if this expansion of custody is sufficient to affect the current Support Order, there are clearly other factors in play that must be considered.

Pennsylvania’s Support Guidelines create a presumptive amount to which a custodial parent is entitled.  However, the Guidelines are not immutable.  The law recognizes that unusual circumstances could exist that would require deviation from the standard amount due under the Guidelines.  See, Pa.RCP 1910.16-5.  The deviation factors set forth in the Support Rules require a Court to consider whether a parent has “unusual needs or expenses”.  This Court has long recognized that unusually low housing expenses are a factor that must be considered when assessing whether the Guideline formula amount should or should not be employed.  In the case of Haag v. Haag, C.P.Leb. Co. No. 2016-5-0146 (Aug. 11, 2016), this Court specifically declared that when one parent’s housing expenses are subsidized by grandparents or other third persons, the artificially low housing expense that results is a factor that requires a deviation analysis.  The Court stated:

Almost all parents are required to expend money for housing and related expenses.  In fact, United States Census Bureau information reveals that the average American family spends roughly 30 percent of income on housing.  See www.census.gov.  See also, Wall Street Journal Guide “How Much You Should Spend On A Home” found at www.guides.wsj.com.  In this case, though, MOTHER has been afforded housing at little or no expense for both herself and the parties’ daughter.  So long as this paradigm continues, it constitutes an “unusual” situation.  In the parlance of the Support Guidelines, MOTHER has an “unusually” low housing expense, and she has “other income in the household” in the form of her parents’ financial ability to pay housing expenses.

 

In this case, MOTHER’s housing and daycare expenses are heavily subsidized by her own parents.  Whether these subsidies are sufficient to outweigh any possible consideration MOTHER is entitled to receive because of her increased custody time is a decision that must be made by a DRM.  As far as we can discern, the DRM in this case did not undertake such an analysis.  Rather, the DRM relied inappropriately on the parties’ own agreement in her decision to deny MOTHER’s modification request.

We recognize that our decision today may not ultimately end up benefitting MOTHER.  However, any decision to deny MOTHER’s request for modification must be predicated upon an analysis of the Support Guidelines unencumbered by reliance upon the parties’ misguided non-modification agreement.  Because the DRM did not undertake a complete analysis of either the parties’ revised custody arrangement or the deviation factors outlined above, we can and must remand this case for an additional hearing.

 

  1. CONCLUSION

Before we end this Opinion, we wish to send an editorial message to the Domestic Relations Bar of Lebanon County.  That message is this.  Including a Support Non-Modification clause within an agreement focused more broadly upon other domestic relations issues is a bad idea.  Including a support clause establishing an artificially low amount of support based upon other quid pro quo financial considerations is an even worse idea.  In either of the above circumstances, the support clause may not be enforceable.  And in some cases, the non-enforceability of the support clause could itself create an injustice for the parties or their children.  At a minimum, inclusion of clauses such as outlined above will create uncertainty.[3]  And it is a near certainty that continued uncertainty hurts the ability of parties to move forward beyond their own emotionally-laden and sometimes painful history with one another.  Therefore, when parties ask a lawyer to include a non-modification provision or an artificially low support provision within a property settlement agreement or a custody agreement, counsel should adhere to the admonition found in anti-drug commercials and “Just Say No”.

 

 

 

[1] This Constitutional right is not unlimited.  For example, the law will not recognize the validity of a contract intended to facilitate commission of a crime.  Regarding child support, the law will not allow a private contract to trump a child’s need for financial support. (See cases cited in Section III, infra.)

[2] In this case, separate litigation is pending regarding child support and enforcement of the parties’ agreement.  While the issues in each proceeding are governed by different legal paradigms, the judges presiding over the child support proceeding and the Special Relief proceeding must be careful to ensure that no double recovery is awarded.

 

[3] One example of uncertainty is the situation presented in this case.  Another is the Heisey case cited on pages 5-6, infra.  For another example, simply examine the labyrinth of legal precedent regarding merger or non-merger of agreements into a final divorce decree.

About the author

Lebanon County Legal Journal has written 741 articles for Lebanon County Legal Journal

Search