Kulan, C. v. Kulan, M. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A30042-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CHRISTINA M. KULAN, Appellant v. MICHAEL S. KULAN, Appellee : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1144 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered on March 18, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Civil Division, No. 2012-62032 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED APRIL 22, 2014 ng Michael - year-old son, and an additional $956.00 per month for spousal support. We affirm the Order as to child support. Mother and Father married on November 21, 1993, and separated on October 10, 2012. Mother currently resides in the marital home. Father maintains the mortgage on the marital home, paying $3,366.00 per month on the mortgage. Mother filed a Complaint for Support on October 17, 2012. Mother filed a divorce Complaint on November 16, 2012.1 When the parties could not reach an agreement as to support at the support conference, the trial 1 As of the date Mother filed the instant appeal, no divorce decree had been entered. J-A30042-13 court entered an Interim Order, directing Father to pay $784.00 per month for child support and $692.00 per month for spousal support. The trial with Mother being responsible for the initial $250.00 of annual unreimbursed medical expenses. After the initial $250.00 per year payment, the remaining annual unreimbursed medical expenses would be paid in Mother paying 24% of the unreimbursed medical expenses.2 On March 18, 2013, the trial court conducted a support hearing. As a result of that hearing, on April 15, 2013, the trial court entered a support Order requiring Father to pay $844.00 per month for child support, and $956.00 per month for spousal support. However, the trial court directed that annual unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $250.00 were to be allocated between the parties, with Father paying 81% and Mother paying 19%. Thereafter, Mother filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. Mother now presents the following claims for our review: I. Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion when, as is clear from a review of the transcript of the hearing before the [trial] court, the [] court failed to consider the earning capacity of [Father], as required by Pennsylvania law[?] 2 The Interim Order had faile the marital home. -2- J-A30042-13 II. Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion when, as is clear from a review of the transcript of the hearing before the [trial] court, the [] court failed to consider the factors set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5, particularly the relative assets and liabilities of the parties and the standard of the living of the parties and their child, as required by Pennsylvania law[?] Brief for Appellant at 4. Mother first claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to support. Id. availab return. Id. According to Mother, a review of the transcript of the hearing indicates quite clearly that the only thing that the [trial c]ourt considered in fashioning its award was the investment income earned by Father based on Id. Mother points out that the trial court apparently adopted the testimony Id. at 9. Mother further argues that Father owns only one rental property, and there is no testimony that Father considers the management of that property to be his current occupation. Id. at 10. Mother asserts that the -3- J-A30042-13 prevent him from continuing in dentistry, where he had owned and operated his own practice. Id. Initial support and child support. This Court has jurisdiction to consider claims related to child support, but we cannot address issues related to spousal support until a divorce decree has been entered and the certified record shows that no economic claims remain to be decided. Hrinkevich v. Hrinkevich, 676 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. Super. 1996). [A] spousal support order entered during the pendency of a divorce action is not appealable until all claims connected with the divorce action are resolved. The rationale behind this rule is that, for purposes of judicial efficiency, in the event that an initial award of interim relief is granted in error, the court has the power to make adjustments in the final settlement via the equitable distribution of marital property. Thus, when all economic matters involved in a divorce are resolved, any support order can be reviewed and corrected when the court finalizes the equitable division of the property. Capuano v. Capuano, 823 A.2d 995, 998-99 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). separate provisions for child support and spousal support. See id. (defining an allocated support order as one t separate provisions for child support and separate provisions for we may review the portion of the trial court Order awarding child support. See id. When reviewing an order of child support, -4- J-A30042-13 this Court the order cannot be sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of [] discretion or insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused. absolute, and the purpose of child support is to promote the K.J.P. v. R.A.P., 68 A.3d 974, 978 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). 1910.16-2(d)(1). Where a party willfully fails to obtain appropriate employment, his or her income will be considered to be equal to his or her earning capacity. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4). A determination training, health, work experience, earnings history, and child care responsibilities. Ney v. Ney, 917 A.2d 863, 866 (Pa. Super. 2007). In its Opinion, the trial court summarized the evidence presented at the support hearing. Trial Court Opinion, 5/30/13, at 3-6. After setting claim lacks merit. Id. at 8- its Opinion, and affirm on this basis. See id. In particular, we point out the following evidence presented by Father at the support hearing. -5- J-A30042-13 Father testified that, as a dentist in 2001, he earned more than $59,000 a year. N.T., 3/13/13, at 65. When asked why he no longer works as a dentist, Father provided the following explanation: Well, back at that point[,] I thought it was a good opportunity between my wife and I and we talked about selling my practice. I had a number of people ask me to sell it to them, and I decided to stop. Also, I started getting a little shaky and I -on. Id. Father further explained that [T]hings were going pretty good at that point and the economy was pretty good, and my father had died a few years ago before that, so I thought it was a good opportunity to be able to take Id. at 68. Id. Father testified unequivocally that he could not work as a dentist because of the shakiness. Id. at 66. Mother offered no evidence to counter conclusion. Mother next claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth at Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5. Brief for Appellant at 10. In particular, Mother asserts that the trial court failed to consider the relative assets and liabilities of the parties, and their standard of living. Id. t serve to -6- J-A30042-13 satisfy the requirement of Rule 1910.16-5. Id. at 11. According to Mother, failure to consider the assets of Father in this case was timony that the parties were required to, on occasion, utilize the principal of his assets in order to sustain their standard of living. Id. at 11- inadequate to permit Mother to make even the home equity, tax and insurance payments on the marital home in which she and the child were Id. Mother relies upon Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5 to support her claim that the trial court abused its discretion. Rule 1910.16-5 states that the trial court must consider the following factors in determining whether to deviate from the guideline child support obligation: (1) unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations; (2) other support obligations of the parties; (3) other income in the household; (4) ages of the children; (5) the relative assets and liabilities of the parties; (6) medical expenses not covered by insurance; (7) standard of living of the parties and their children; (8) in a spousal support or alimony pendente lite case, the -7- J-A30042-13 duration of the marriage from the date of marriage to the date of final separation; and (9) other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children. Pa.R.C.P 1910.16-5(b). expedited process, that the amount of the award which would result from the application of such guideline is the correct amount of support to be e presumption is strong that the appropriate amount of support in each case is the amount as determined Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Pa. 1994). Mother did not rebut this presumption. In its Opinion, after setting forth the relevant law, the trial court Opinion, 5/30/13, at 13-16. In particular, the trial court pointed out that the parties presented no evidence regarding their standard of living before, during or after the marriage. Id. at 16. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as stated in its Opinion, and affirm on this basis. See id. at 13-16. Order as to child support affirmed. -8- J-A30042-13 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/22/2014 -9-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.