Opinion
J-A35027-15 No. 442 WDA 2015
01-11-2016
DINA A. DICENZO, Appellee v. ANDREW D. HEARY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): FD 07-8810-006 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Andrew D. Heary ("Father") appeals from the February 23, 2015 order dismissing his exceptions to a Master's child support recommendation and making the November 20, 2014 recommendation final. We affirm.
Father and Dina A. DiCenzo ("Mother") are the parents of two minor daughters ("the Children"). They were married in April of 2000 and divorced in June 2010. Father has received Social Security disability support since 2002 when he was injured in a motorcycle accident; Mother is an obstetrician/gynecologist. Father sought an upward deviation from the $2,462.62 guideline amount of child support to $6,200 per month, based on his $2,899.91 net monthly income versus Mother's $24,858.89 net monthly income and the lifestyle of the Children. The Master recommended that Mother pay $2,462.62 per month to Father in child support. Hearing and Recommendation, 11/20/14, at 1. Father filed exceptions, which the trial court dismissed. Trial Court Order, 2/23/15. This appeal followed. Father and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Father presents the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to consider the relative assets and liabilities of the parties?Father's Brief at 4-5.
2. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to permit evidence or testimony concerning the relative assets and [liabilities] of the parties?
3. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to consider the standard of living of the parties' children?
4. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to consider [Father's] expenses for the children's activities?
5. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to consider [Father's] extraordinary expenses?
6. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to consider [Father's] additional expenses incurred as a result of one child's medical condition?
7. Whether the Hearing Officer failed to consider [Father's] Request for an upward deviation from the guideline support amount even though he had a reasonable basis for his request based on the factors listed in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1[?]
Appellate review of support matters is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. When evaluating a support order, this Court may only reverse the trial court's determination where the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.
The principal goal in child support matters is to serve the best interests of the children through the provision of reasonable expenses.J.P.D. v. W.E.D., 114 A.3d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33, 37 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted)). "A party seeking to modify a support order has the burden of proving a modification is warranted and that he/she promptly filed a modification petition." Krebs v. Krebs , 944 A.2d 768, 774 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). The amount of support indicated by the guidelines presents a rebuttable presumption. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1(d). In deciding whether to deviate from the guidelines, the trial court shall consider, inter alia, the relative assets and liabilities of the parties and the standards of living of the parents and the children. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b)(5) and (7).
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the certified record, the relevant case law and statutory authority, and the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. Trial Court Opinion, 6/1/15. Based on that review, we conclude that the trial court adequately and accurately disposed of Father's myriad challenges to the support order in its opinion to this Court. Therefore, we affirm the support order on the basis of the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion, which we adopt as our own. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court's June 1, 2015 opinion to this memorandum in future proceedings.
We correct the trial court's pinpoint citation of Elias v. Spencer , 673 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 1996). The correct cite is to page 984.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/11/2016
Image materials not available for display.