581 Pa. 1 - Colonna v. Colonna

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2020

14 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Justice NIGRO,

¶1concurring.

¶2I agree with the majority that the “obligor” parent in a child support ease may be the custodial parent.1 Moreover, I agree that in cases such as this where the parties’ incomes differ significantly, the trial court should consider whether it is proper to deviate from the presumptive minimum amount of support calculated under Pa. R.C.P.1910.16-2(e)(2) based on the factors in Pa. R.C.P.1910.16-5(b). However, contrary to *10the expressions of the majority and like Chief Justice Cappy, I would caution the trial court against ever resting a decision to deviate on a presumption that a child will favor his or her relationship with the parent who can provide the child with greater material possessions.

¶3. We note that in high income cases like the instant one, the trial court must generally calculate the parents' child support obligations according to the formula set forth by this Court in Melzer v. Witsberger, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (1984). See Pa. R.C.P.1910.16-2(e). The Melzerformula in no way presupposes that the non-custodial parent is the "obligor,” but rather simply makes each parent responsible for that portion of child-related expenses that corresponds to his or her percentage of the two parents’ combined income. Notably, in the instant case, both the domestic relations hearing officer ("DRO”) and the trial court determined the parents’ support obligations based solely on the presumptive minimum calculation in Pa. R.C.P.1910.16-2(e), reasoning that Mother had not presented any evidence of her reasonable living expenses as is required to perform a Melzeranalysis. Whether the DRO and trial court erred in failing to request such information and apply the Melzerformula is not before the Court as it has not been raised by the parties.