J-A28009-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
GREGG SCHOLL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
MARGARET SCHOLL
Appellee No. 923 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Domestic Relations at No(s): CID: 613115096
No. DR-6915
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and PLATT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 07, 2017
“Reasonable child care expenses paid by either parent, if necessary to
maintain employment or appropriate education in pursuit of income, shall be
allocated between the parties in proportion to their net incomes and added
to his and her basic support obligation.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a). The issue
presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when
it required Appellant, Greg Scholl (“Father”), to contribute towards the costs
of a nanny utilized by Appellee, Margaret Scholl (“Mother”). Father argues
that Mother’s retention of a nanny is unreasonable and unnecessary.
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A28009-16
The trial court’s order entered on February 22, 2016, sets forth the
parties’ support obligations. As Father correctly notes, “Nowhere in the trial
court’s order or in the court’s opinion does the court identify the exact
amount of the child care expense that the court determined to be
‘reasonable and necessary.’” Appellant’s Brief, at 10. The order does not
mention the nanny or set any amount for the nanny’s salary or expenses.
The order, dated February 16, 2016, sets forth the parties’ monthly net
salaries and support obligations for three distinct periods: February 1, 2015
through May 31, 2015; June 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015; and from
September 1, 2015 on.
In his brief, Father calculates two different annual expenses for the
nanny: $29,133.96, for February 1, 2015 through May 31, 2015, and
$29,477.04, beginning on June 1, 2015. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11, nn. 2-
3. The trial court’s opinion,1 in summarizing the deposition testimony, notes
that “the parties paid the nanny $30,928.00” in 2013. Trial Court Opinion,
filed 5/12/16, at 5. And that “In 2014, the nanny received $20,800 in
wages, and Defendant paid the 7.65% for social security wages and ‘several
hundred dollars’ for unemployment” and paid “approximately $540.00 per
month for the nanny’s health insurance.” Id. The court notes, “All of the
____________________________________________
1
“[A] trial court opinion is not part of the evidentiary record and cannot be
used to add to or contradict evidence in the case….” Commonwealth v.
Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 709 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis omitted).
-2-
J-A28009-16
current expenses for the nanny were the same as when the parties were
married and living together.” Id. But there is no concrete number attributed
to that statement. And, as noted, the figures varied during the previous
years. The opinion then goes on to explain its reasons as to why Mother’s
use of the nanny is reasonable. See id., at 6-7, 11. But that analysis is
utterly devoid of any discussion of the expense associated with the nanny or
what each party is financially obligated to pay for the nanny.
With no specific finding in the order (or even in the record) as to the
expense of retaining the nanny, we are simply unable to determine whether
the nanny constitutes a reasonable child care expense under Rule 1910.16-
6(a). The order, as entered, cannot sustain a finding that the nanny is a
reasonable child care expense.2
____________________________________________
2
In the order, the trial court set forth specific dates and corresponding
monthly net incomes for Father and Mother. See Order, filed 2/22/16, at 1-
2. The order also states, “Calculations appended.” Id., at 2. The calculations
attached to the order are three pages of guideline calculation worksheets,
each dated February 12, 2016.
The monthly net incomes set forth in the order vary widely from the
monthly net incomes calculated in the attached guideline calculation
worksheets. For example, for the three-month period from June 1, 2015
until August 31, 2015, the monthly net income set forth in the order for
Father is $5,062.00, but in the attached guideline calculation his monthly net
income is $6,843.38. Mother’s net monthly income for this same three-
month period is $15,959.00 in the order, but in the attached guideline
calculation her monthly net income is $13,583.76. The same figures for both
parties appear in the order and attached guideline calculation worksheets for
the period beginning September 1, 2015. The incompatible figures are
inexplicable, but neither party on appeal takes issue with their
incompatibility.
-3-
J-A28009-16
Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for proceedings
consistent with this memorandum. On remand, the trial court, if it again
finds the expense is reasonable, shall also allocate the expense of retaining
the nanny between the parties in proportion to their net incomes. See
Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(a), Example.
Order vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this
decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/7/2017
-4-