Lance J. Nelson, Esquire
Sheila Drewen-Mayer, Paralegal

How high income affects the amount of
child and spousal support

In determining the amount of spousal and child support, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania indicates that the lifestyle the supported party was accustomed to has little impact on support levels. Instead, the supporting party's current income determines the amounts paid.

Consider the case of Joseph and Rosemary Mascaro. The couple married in August 1988 and separated after only six years of marriage in October 1994. They had given birth to one child. In June of 1996, Rosemary filed a Complaint for Support, and, in September of 1996, a Montgomery County support Master issued a recommendation that Joseph pay Rosemary $2,500 per week ($130,000 per year) tax free for spousal and child support.

At a hearing, after both Joseph and Rosemary filed exceptions to the Master's recommendation, the trial court determined that Joseph had a monthly after-tax income of nearly $52,000 ($624,000 per year). Both parties agreed that Rosemary had no earning capacity. Thereafter, the trial court ordered Joseph to pay Rosemary $19,786 per month ($237,432 per year) in child and spousal support. Joseph again sought reconsideration and the trial court ordered him to pay Rosemary $13,000 per month ($156,000 per year) as tax-free unallocated spousal and child support.

On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court that where monthly income exceeds the limit provided in the support guidelines, both child support and spousal support must be calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in Melzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984).

The Melzer Formula
In Melzer, once the reasonable needs of the children have been determined, which depends upon the standard of living that the obligor can afford and not what he is willing to pay, Melzer sets forth a formula to calculate each parent's support obligation. Consequently, obligor (highest wage earner) may not force his or her children to live below the family's means. For instance, in the Mascaro case, Joseph was ordered to pay all of the reasonable needs because both parties agreed that Rosemary had no earning capacity.

The guidelines are based upon the Income Shares Model developed by the Child Support Guidelines Project of the National Center for State Courts. Because authoritative economic studies demonstrate the average amount of money that intact families with a monthly net income of $15,000 or less spend on their children, such amounts serve as the basic child support schedule set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-3. The formula is as follows:

Defendant/Obligor's Monthly Net Income
Less
Plaintiff/Obligee's Monthly Net Income Difference
Less
Obligor's Total Child Support Obligation Difference
Multiply by 30% =
Amount of Monthly Spousal Support or APL (alimony pending litigation)

Reasons for Deviation
The amount of child or spousal support determined under the support guidelines can be refuted and may deviate under certain circumstances. Acceptable reasons for deviation include:

• Unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations;
• Other support obligations of the parties;
• Other income in the household;
• Ages of the children;
• Assets of the parties;
• Medical expenses not covered by insurance;
• Standard of living of the parties and their children;
• In a spousal support or alimony case, the period of time during which the parties lived together from the date of marriage to the date of final separation; and
• Other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children.

The Decision
In the Mascaro case, the trial court rejected the guidelines and performed a Melzer analysis regarding the reasonable needs of the wife and the parties' child. The trial court based its decision on its understanding of other Superior Court cases, including Karp and Terpak. In neither case did the Superior Court address whether spousal support orders in high-income cases are based on the guideline formula or on the reasonable needs of the obligee. Although the trial court considered itself faced with inconsistent precedent, there was actually no direct precedent.

According to the Opinion of Justice Newman, the Superior Court acted unreasonably in refusing to follow the guidelines because they do not state that they apply to high-income cases. Pursuant to the guideline formula, an obligee will not be prejudiced by the fact that during the marriage the obligor required him or her to live below the parties' means. Conversely, an obligor whose spouse spent wildly and extravagantly during the marriage will not be required to fund such a lifestyle unless it can be justified by the parties' income. The trial court should have calculated this high-income child support pursuant to Melzer and spousal support or APL pursuant to the formula in
Rule 1910.16-4.

The trial court erred by failing to calculate the child's reasonable needs separately from those of the wife. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for the Middle District reversed the Order of the Superior Court and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court Opinion.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com