L.J.O. v. E.O.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

L.J.O. v. E.O.

DecidedApril 14, 2016

Docket1303 MDA 2015

StatusUnpublished

This text of L.J.O. v. E.O. (L.J.O. v. E.O.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L.J.O. v. E.O., (Pa. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S27031-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

L.J.O. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

E.O.

Appellant No. 1303 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 29, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Domestic Relations at No(s): 14 DR 00760 PACSES No. 424114580

E.O. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

L.J.O.

No. 1304 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 29, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Domestic Relations at No(s): 14 DR 00760R PACSES No. 603114752

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 14, 2016

Husband appeals from the spousal support and child support orders

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. After a careful

review, we quash Husband’s appeal from the order entered in the spousal

support matter, which is docketed at 1303 MDA 2015. We affirm Husband’s

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S27031-16

appeal from the order entered in the child support matter, which is docketed

at 1304 MDA 2015.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Wife and

Husband were married on July 23, 1988, and they have one daughter, E.O.,

who was born in February of 1995. On April 10, 2014, Wife and Husband

separated, and on that same date, Wife filed a complaint for spousal

support. Additionally, on April 17, 2014, Wife filed a complaint in divorce,

seeking alimony pendente lite, equitable distribution of the marital property,

and alimony. Wife’s divorce action, including her request for spousal

support, was docketed in the lower court at 14 DR 00760, PACSES No.

424114580.

On July 11, 2014, Husband filed a cross-complaint for child support,

which was docketed in the lower court at 14 DR 00760R, PACSES No.

603114752. The trial court entered orders consolidating Wife’s requests for

spousal support and alimony pendent lite with Husband’s request for child

support, and the trial court directed the issues be considered at one hearing.

Thereafter, on January 21, 2015, a hearing was held before Support Master

Molly B. Kleinfelter.

On March 16, 2015, Master Kleinfelter filed her “Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Support Hearing Officer.”

Therein, Master Kleinfelter found, in relevant part, the following:

Since September 2013, [Wife] has been working as a stylist at Amazing Style earning 45% commission on each

-2- J-S27031-16

appointment plus 10% commission on each product she sells. She is scheduled for appointments. The salon does not have a walk-in business. She does not get paid if she does not have an appointment. [Wife] testified that she works twenty (20) hours per week. She testified that most of the customers pay for their service and tips by credit card. [Wife] provided her pay information in Exhibit #1 which reveals that her year-to-date cash tips for 2014 totaled $439.00 and that her W2 wages totaled $8,322.93 for a total annual gross income of $8,761.93. [Wife] testified that after cosmetology school she determined that she is allergic to the chemicals used in a regular salon. She testified that in order to work as a cosmetologist, she must work in a salon that uses the organic product line used at Amazing Style. She did not provide any additional testimony regarding her ability or inability to work. [Wife] testified that she graduated from high school in 1987. After graduation, she worked at Sweet Street Dessert Co. from 1989 to 1996. She began at minimum wage but increased her pay as she was promoted until she was fired because she was not an effective supervisor. At the time of her termination, she testified that she was earning $12.00 per hour. [Wife] also testified that, for a period of time, she worked for her mother’s business, DayStar Natural. She testified that she worked in 2011 until May 2012 when her mother essentially fired her because the parties’ daughter required more supervision. [Wife] was then a stay-at-home-mother from May 2012 until September 2013 when she began working for Amazing Styles. [Wife] testified that the job working for her mother at DayStar has been filled and is no longer available. Additionally, she testified that while she took one course toward a certification in nutrition, she does not have $20,000.00 or the guarantee of employment to complete the certification. [Wife] provided Exhibit #2, a letter and pay statement from Ernst Licht. A review of the exhibit reveals that [Wife] was hired as a seasonal employee from August 8, 2014[,] until December 31, 2014[,] earning $12.00 per hour. The pay statement indicated that she worked 12 hours per week. [Wife] testified that she is not looking for another job. She testified that she is available for work at the salon, essentially on-call, 40 hours per week. At this time she is only scheduled for approximately 20 hours per week, but it takes time to “build a book” of clients. Regarding [E.O.], [Wife] testified that she graduated from high school in September 2014. [Wife] testified that [E.O.] has

-3- J-S27031-16

not been diagnosed with any condition which would prevent her from working. [Wife] testified that before she left the marital home, [E.O.] did not want to get a job, and that [E.O.] was not cooperative. *** Regarding [E.O.], [Husband] testified that she attended and graduated from cyber-school. He testified that sending [E.O.] to cyber-school was a family decision. [Husband] testified that [E.O.] is suffering from costochondritis and fibromyalgia. [Husband] testified that [E.O.] goes to a chiropractor for physical therapy and to a psychologist twice a month. [Husband] testified that he is trying to get [E.O.] to qualify for Social Security benefits. [Husband] offered Exhibit #10, which is a record of the medical visits and payments he has made on [E.O.’s] behalf. [Husband] failed to bring any evidence of [E.O.’s] diagnosis. [Husband] argues that [E.O.] should not be emancipated. In Hanson v. Hanson, 625 A.2d 1212 (Pa.Super. 1993), the Court held that the parent has a continuing duty to support a child if the child has a mental or physical condition which exists at the time the child reaches majority that prevents the child from being self-supporting. Hanson, 625 A.2d at 1214. In Style v. Shaub, [955 A.2d 403] (Pa.Super. 2008), the Court held that there is a presumption that child support terminates at majority. This presumption is rebuttable upon proof that the child has disabilities that preclude self-support. The question in Style, and in this case, then becomes, “the test is whether the child is physically and mentally able to engage in profitable employment and whether employment is available to the child at a supporting wage.” Style, [955 A.2d at 409 (quotation and citations omitted)]. The adult child has the burden of proof on these issues. See Verna v. Verna, 432 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa.Super. 1981) [(per curiam)]. I do not find that [Husband] met the burden to prove that [E.O.] is unable to engage in profitable employment and to prove that employment is not available to [E.O.] at a supporting wage. First, [Husband] failed to properly introduce any uncontradicted evidence that [E.O.] is disabled. [Husband] testified that [E.O.] is disabled. [Wife] testified that [E.O.] is uncooperative. Second, [Husband] failed to produce the testimony of [E.O.].

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI