Several changes to the state-wide support guidelines will take place in August 2013. First and foremost, the basic child support schedule will be updated to reflect newer economic data. The basic child support schedule is a table that references the combined monthly net income of the parents and the number of children to determine the appropriate support award. There is a presumption that the amount of support indicated by the support schedule is the correct amount. In addition to updating the entire support schedule, the Self-Support Reserve has also increased from $867 a month to $931 a month. This amount reflects the 2012 poverty level for one person. The self-support reserve is the minimum amount of income that should be retained by the party paying support to ensure they can support themselves and to provide an incentive to continue working.

Another change set to take place in August relates to the calculation of net income. Generally, the rules provide for a calculation including the net income of both parents, however, Rule 1910.16-2 will soon provide that two calculations be done in low-income cases. First, a calculation should be done using only the income of the party that will be paying support. Then, a second standard calculation should be done utilizing the income of both parties. The party owing support would be responsible to pay the lower amount of the two calculations. This revised rule is meant to address issues where the party owing support is low-income but the party to receive support has significantly greater income.

Click here to read more on support.

Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 3502(c), the court has the express authority to award exclusive possession of the marital residence to one or both parties during the pendency of the divorce. This provision was added to the law in 1990. Prior to that, the court had determined it had the authority to grant exclusive possession of the marital residence under the “full equity power and jurisdiction of the court” found at 23 Pa. C.S. §3323(f). This provision gives the court the authority to issue injunctions or other orders necessary to protect the interests of the parties. Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, decided in 1985, was the first case to hold that the court could award exclusive possession of the martial residence during a divorce. 344 Pa. Super. 154 (Pa. Super. 1985). In Laczkowski, the home was to be given to the spouse having physical custody of any minor children.

Other cases have clarified and expanded the instances under which exclusive possession may be ordered. In Uhler v. Uhler, the court indicated exclusive possession should only be awarded sparingly. 428 Pa. Super. 630 (Pa. Super. 1993). Uhler also pointed to the emotional welfare of children as the most important consideration. In Vuocolo v. Vuocolo, the court held an award should be based not only on the needs of minor children, but also the age and health of the parties and their financial needs and resources. 42 Pa. D. & C. 398 (1987). In Merola v. Merola, the court granted exclusive possession in an instance where there were no minor children but the wife was vulnerable and confined to a wheelchair. 19 Pa. D. & C. 4th 538 (1993). In contrast, in Duzgon v. Duzgon, the court did not grant exclusive possession based on wife’s allegations of tension in the home because of husband’s phone calls to his girlfriend. 76 Pa. D. & C. 4th 538 (2005). The court’s rationale was that there was no abuse between the parties and hence no clear need for husband to be excluded from the home. In sum, an award of exclusive possession is a harsh remedy that will not be awarded without clear need and is more likely to be awarded where minor children are involved.

Click here to read more on division of marital property.

In the event that a party in a support matter asserts an inability to work due to medical issues, the support rules now require that a physician verification form be completed. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure (Pa. R.C.P.) 1910.29 (b), regarding evidence in support matters, the physician verification form should be completed by the party’s physician and submitted at the time of the support conference. If the party receives Social Security disability or workers’ compensation benefits, proof of income from those sources can be submitted in lieu of the physician verification form. A sample of the actual form to be used is contained in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.29(b)(3).

If the support matter does not settle at the conference and a hearing will be necessary, the physician verification form can be admitted into evidence if certain requirements are met. First, the party intending to use the physician verification form must serve a copy on the other side within 20 days from the conference date. The other party then has 10 days from receipt of the physician verification form to file an objection. If no objection is received, the form may be accepted into evidence without requiring the physician’s testimony. If an objection is made, the physician would need to testify in court and the court would determine how the cost of the testimony will be divided among the parties.

Click here to read more on the Physician Verification Form.

 

In a support matter, the incomes of the parties will be used to calculate an appropriate award based on the support guidelines applicable throughout the commonwealth. In the event there is a disagreement over the entry of an interim support order, a party has the option of filing exceptions. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1910.12, parties have twenty (20) days from the entry of an order to file exceptions. Exceptions may address objections to evidence, findings of facts, conclusions of law, or any other matters occurring during the hearing. Each issue should be raised separately as an exception. Each exception should be concise and without lengthy discussion. Issues that are not raised in the exceptions are deemed waived. Examples of appropriate exceptions would include claims that the incomes and/or expenses were not correctly calculated, special circumstances were not considered, or there was an error in assigning an earning capacity. It is not appropriate to file exceptions simply because you do not agree with the guideline amount.

Click below to read more on exceptions.

If a party raises exceptions, any other party in the matter may also file exceptions within twenty days of receiving the initial exceptions. A hearing will be held to hear from the parties on the exceptions raised and a final order will be entered at that time. If no exceptions are filed, the initial support order becomes a final order after the twenty-day window has passed. Once an order is final, an appeal would be the avenue to challenge the order. An appeal would need to be filed with the Superior Court within thirty days of the final order.

Click here to read more on support.