The cite is: Woskob v. Woskob, 2004 PA Super 37 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). The issues involve changes in earning capacity. Specifically, where divergence exists between actual earnings and earning capacity, support obligations should be determined more by earning capacity than actual earnings because earning capacity is more indicative of ability to pay support than actual earnings. Your Bucks County divorce lawyers should fight for your if this happens.
Additionally, a person's support obligation is determined primarily by the parties' actual financial resources and their earning capacity. Although a person's actual earnings usually reflect his earning capacity, where there is a divergence, the obligation is determined more by earning capacity than actual earnings. Earning capacity is defined as the amount that a person realistically could earn under the circumstances, considering his age, health, mental and physical condition, training, and earnings history.
In any event, in this 2004 case, the estate of appellant father appealed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Civil Division, which awarded appellee mother $ 23,824 in child support arrears and $ 473 for unreimbursed medical expenses. The mother also cross-appealed.
On appeal, the parties raised several issues. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by omitting the advances accrued in 1996 in its calculation of the father's arrearage because the father provided the trial court with an adequate explanation as to why the advances were treated as a loan. The father presented competent evidence that he did not conspire to terminate his employment where he secured the most lucrative employment he could find. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the father had an earning capacity of $ 59,000 because his salary at his previous job was far greater than his actual earning capacity and his salary at his current job was less than his actual earning capacity. The trial court properly chose not to apply the nurturing-parent doctrine to the mother because the parties' three minor children attended school during the day and the mother's youngest child was not the father's responsibility. Finally, the trial court properly adjusted the father's support obligation to account for the mortgage payment on the marital home because the mortgage exceeded one-quarter of the mother's net income.