Mascaro v. Mascaro
2002 Pa. LEXIS 1703, 803 A.2d 1186, 569 Pa. 255 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure support guidelines (Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1-1910.16-7) apply to spousal support cases regardless of the parties' combined net income, requiring the application of the guideline formula with allowable deviations, while child support in high-income cases is calculated using the Melzer reasonable needs analysis.
Facts:
- Joseph Mascaro and Rosemary Mascaro were married in August of 1978.
- Joseph and Rosemary Mascaro had one child, born on November 14, 1984.
- Joseph and Rosemary Mascaro separated in October of 1994.
- Joseph Mascaro had a monthly after-tax income of nearly $52,000 ($624,000 per year).
- Rosemary Mascaro had no earning capacity.
- Joseph Mascaro's employer provided him with personal perquisites, including automobiles, car phones, fuel expenses, and automobile insurance.
- Joseph Mascaro's employer provided medical insurance for him and his family.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 4, 1996, Rosemary Mascaro (Wife) filed a Complaint for Support.
- On September 25, 1996, a master issued a recommendation that Joseph Mascaro (Husband) pay $2,500 per week ($130,000 per year) tax free for spousal and child support.
- Both parties filed exceptions to the master's recommendation.
- The trial court held a de novo hearing.
- On June 10, 1998, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $19,786 per month ($287,432 per year) in child and spousal support.
- Husband sought reconsideration of the June 10, 1998 award, which the trial court granted by Order dated June 29, 1998.
- On May 4, 1999, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $13,000 per month ($156,000 per year) as tax-free unallocated spousal and child support, determining that both child and spousal support in high-income cases must be calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in Melzer v. Witsberger.
- Rosemary Mascaro (Wife) appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that in high-income cases, spousal support is calculated pursuant to Melzer v. Witsberger.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure support guideline formula for spousal support apply to cases where the parties' combined net income exceeds $15,000 per month, or should a Melzer reasonable needs analysis be applied?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice NEWMAN
Yes, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure support guidelines for spousal support apply in all cases, regardless of the parties' combined net income, but child support in high-income cases is determined by a Melzer analysis. The Court reasoned that the statutory basis for support guidelines (23 Pa.C.S. § 4322) mandates statewide guidelines for both child and spousal support to ensure similarly situated persons are treated similarly, with a rebuttable presumption that the guideline amount is correct. While Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(e)(2) explicitly states that child support in high-income cases (combined net income over $15,000/month) shall be calculated pursuant to Melzer, there is no similar limitation in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4, which provides the formula for spousal support or alimony pendente lite (APL). The Court rejected the Superior Court's reliance on the 'income shares model,' clarifying that this model relates only to child support and does not 'underpin' the spousal support formula. Instead, the spousal support formula (Rule 1910.16-4) determines an initial amount, which can then be deviated from based on the factors listed in Rule 1910.16-5, ensuring flexibility while maintaining consistency. Regarding perquisites, the Court clarified that benefits provided by an employer, such as automobiles, should be included in income only if they solely benefit the obligor, but medical insurance benefits paid by an employer should not be included in income calculations for support purposes, as the obligation to provide such insurance is separate from the support amount. The trial court erred by applying Melzer to spousal support and by failing to calculate the child's needs separately from the wife's.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a critical distinction in Pennsylvania support law: while high-income child support cases require a Melzer analysis focused on the child's reasonable needs, spousal support in such cases must still adhere to the guideline formula with potential deviations. The decision ensures uniformity and predictability in spousal support awards across all income levels, preventing arbitrary calculations based solely on perceived 'reasonable needs' of a spouse in high-income brackets. It also provides important guidance on how to treat employer-provided perquisites and medical benefits when calculating income for support purposes, promoting more equitable and consistent income determinations.
