J-S03028-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
J.D. ¦ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
¦ PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant ¦
¦
v. ¦
¦
D.G.M. ¦
¦
Appellee ¦ No. 1150 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order July 6, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Domestic Relations at No(s): NS200900847 / PASCES 543100845
BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: MAY 24, 2017
I agree with the Majority that the trial court erred in calculating
Father’s monthly support obligation and must correct that error upon
remand. However, because I would also hold that Mother is entitled to the
immediate, lump-sum payment of overdue support, I respectfully dissent.
As noted by the Majority, Father was over $10,000 in arrears in 2009,
and was still over $7,500 in arrears more than seven years later. Majority
Memorandum at 1-2. Because he has now obtained a lump-sum workers’
compensation payment of over $90,000, Father is fully capable of making
Mother whole. Yet the trial court decided to allow Father to have what is in
effect an interest-free loan from Mother by ordering the arrears to be paid in
small monthly installments. The Majority affirms that decision on the basis
that the language of 23 Pa.C.S. § 4308.1 clearly and unambiguously does
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03028-17
not require the payment of arrears to be made in a lump sum. Majority
Memorandum at 5. I disagree.
The statute at issue provides as follows, in relevant part.
(a) General rule.--Overdue support shall be a lien by operation
of law against the net proceeds of any monetary award, as
defined in subsection (i), owed to an obligor, and distribution of
any such award shall be stayed in an amount equal to the child
support lien provided for under this section pending payment of
the lien. Except as provided in subsection (c) or (f), nothing in
this section shall provide a basis for a paying agent or an insurer
to delay payment of a settlement, verdict or judgment.
***
(f) Workers’ compensation awards.--With respect to any
monetary award arising under … the Workers’ Compensation Act,
or, … The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act, no order
providing for a payment shall be entered by the workers’
compensation judge unless the prevailing party or beneficiary,
who is a claimant under either or both of the acts, shall provide
the judge with a statement made subject to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904
that includes the full name, mailing address, date of birth and
Social Security number for the prevailing party or beneficiary
who is a claimant under either or both acts. The prevailing party
or beneficiary, who is a claimant under either or both of the acts
shall also provide the judge with either written documentation of
arrears from the Pennsylvania child support enforcement system
website or, if no arrears exist, written documentation from the
website indicating no arrears. The judge shall order payment of
the lien for overdue support to the department’s State
disbursement unit from the net proceeds due the prevailing
party or beneficiary who is a claimant under either or both acts.
23 Pa.C.S. § 4308.1.
First, that statute applies to the orders of workers’ compensation
judges providing for payment to an injured party, not to a family court judge
making a support order. See also 34 Pa. Code § 131.111 (cross-
-2-
J-S03028-17
referencing 23 Pa.C.S. 4308.1 in the regulations applicable to workers’
compensation judges).
Second, the statute mandates that a workers’ compensation judge
order payment of the amount of overdue support to the State disbursement
unit from the claimant’s net proceeds. Thus, if the money at issue in the
instant case were awarded to Father by an order of a workers’ compensation
judge rather than through a negotiated settlement, Mother would receive
payment of arrears from the proceeds prior to their distribution to Father.
Applying the policy evidenced by subsection 4308.1(f) to an instance of a
lump-sum payment of workers’ compensation benefits, I believe the statute
clearly and unambiguously suggests that Mother should be paid the full
amount of overdue support immediately from Father’s net proceeds.
In light of subsection 4308.1(f), and because Mother has seen scant
repayment of substantial arrears over the past decade, I would hold that it
was an abuse of discretion to force Mother to wait longer to collect the past-
due support that Father is undeniably able to pay now.1 Accord Goodman
v. Goodman, 760 N.E.2d 72, 78 (Ohio App. 2001) (holding trial court
1
In Kessler v. Helmick, 672 A.2d 1380 (Pa. Super. 1996), this Court held
that it was within a trial court’s discretion to allow payment of arrears in
installments rather than in a lump sum. Id. at 1384–85 (holding there was
no abuse of discretion in ordering arrears paid in installments where the
appellant had “not set forth any compelling reason or authority which would
require that the lower court award arrearages in a lump sum”). However,
that case is distinguishable, in that it did not involve a lump-sum payment of
workers’ compensation proceeds.
-3-
J-S03028-17
abused its discretion in failing to order value of life insurance policy as a
lump sum payment towards arrears where the mother otherwise was
unlikely to collect the arrearage).
On remand, I would require the trial court to order immediate
payment of arrears in a lump sum.
-4-