Opinion
March 18, 1963.
April 18, 1963.
Husband and Wife — Support — Parent and child — Purpose of support order — Earning capacity of husband — Duty of wealthy father to give his children advantages — Indication of court below as to how it determined amount of order — Discretion — Appellate review.
1. The purpose of a support order is to secure such an allowance to the wife and child as is reasonable, having in mind the husband's property and earning capacity and the station in life of the parties.
2. The husband's ability to pay or capacity to earn is an important criterion in the determination of the amount of the support order.
3. A wealthy father has a legal duty to give his children the advantages which his financial status indicates to be reasonable.
4. On an appeal by a husband challenging a support order, the function of the appellate court is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the order of the hearing judge, and the appellate court will not interfere unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.
5. In this case, in which it appeared that the lower court had before it the husband's own testimony and other evidence of his earnings, income, and net worth, sufficient to warrant the amount of the support order entered by it, detailed evidence of the needs of the wife and child, and testimony which clearly established the relatively high standard of living to which the family was accustomed; and that the court below stated that it had not accepted the itemized necessities of the wife at face value, and had also questioned the veracity of defendant as to the disclosures of his entire income; it was Held that the court below had obviously made its own specific findings and deductions based on the evidence, and that defendant's contention, that the court below had arrived at a lower amount than that requested by relatrix, without mention of any specific items it might have questioned and without indicating, as it was required to do, the method by which it had reached its independent award, was Held to be without merit.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 432, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1962, No. 3729, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Frances S. Kallen v. Morris N. Kallen. Order affirmed.
Nonsupport. Before KALLICK, J.
Order entered directing defendant to pay stated weekly sum for support of wife and child. Defendant appealed.
Edward N. Barol, with him Leonard L. Creskoff, for appellant.
Harry Shapiro, with him David N. Bressler, and Shapiro, Rosenfield, Stalberg Cook, for appellee.
Argued March 18, 1963.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the lower court which granted $225 a week for the support of the appellant's wife and son. There was never any question in this case as to the right to support; the sole issue being the amount of support.
The parties were married on June 7, 1941, and have one child born May 10, 1947. They separated on June 10, 1962. The son lives with the wife in a two bedroom apartment and is a student. The appellant is a physician in general practice and is 61 years of age.
The appellant's testimony establishes that the gross receipts from his profession in 1961 were $36,338, and he also had $290 of income from other sources; his net income before taxes was $26,033.61, and his income after taxes was $20,660.26. The appellant acknowledged that the net worth of his assets was $324,750, although he claims that the major part of this is in speculative real estate which if liquidated at the present time would not bring this appraised valuation.
It is well settled that the purpose of a support order is to secure such an allowance to the wife and child as is reasonable, having in mind the husband's property and earning capacity and the station in life of the parties. Commonwealth ex rel. O'Hey v. McCurdy, 199 Pa. Super. 115, 184 A.2d 291; Commonwealth ex rel. Warner v. Warner, 194 Pa. Super. 496, 168 A.2d 755. The husband's ability to pay or capacity to earn is an important criterion in the determination of the support order. Commonwealth ex rel. Mass. v Mass, 170 Pa. Super. 545, 87 A.2d 793. A wealthy father has a legal duty to give his children the advantages which his financial status indicates to be reasonable. Hecht v. Hecht, 189 Pa. Super. 276, 150 A.2d 139. The lower court, in consideration of these fundamental principles of law, reviewed the testimony of the appellant's finances and earning ability and concluded that the appellant is a person of means with a fairly substantial income who had been able to accumulate a personal estate of over a quarter-million dollars. The court was also of the opinion that the appellant's returns from his various business transactions and investments were substantially greater in amount than appellant disclosed. The lower court did not accept the itemized expenditures asserted by the appellee to be necessary for her and the son's support and which amounted to approximately $315 per week. After considering the credible evidence as to the appellant's finances and the standard of living to which the wife and son had been accustomed, the court entered an order for $225 per week for the support of the appellee and the son.
On an appeal by a husband challenging a support order, the function of the appellate court is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the order of the hearing judge and the appellate court will not interfere unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Commonwealth ex rel. McCuff v. McCuff 196 Pa. Super. 320, 175 A.2d 124; Commonwealth v. Williams, 178 Pa. Super. 313, 116 A.2d 297. The amount which the husband should be ordered to pay in a nonsupport case is largely within the discretion of the trial judge who is not restricted to the husband's actual earnings, but may also consider his earning power and standard of living, and the Superior Court will not interfere with the order unless the amount awarded for support is grossly inadequate or excessive under the circumstances. Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Brown, 195 Pa. Super. 324, 171 A.2d 833; Commonwealth ex rel. Edelman v. Edelman, 193 Pa. Super. 570, 165 A.2d 92; Commonwealth ex rel. Trichon v. Trichon, 189 Pa. Super. 395, 150 A.2d 176.
Even if we disregard the appellant's net worth, the income from his profession and his admitted additional income of $3,900 for the next four years from his investments are sufficient to warrant the amount of the support order entered by the lower court.
The appellant further contends that the lower court, without mention of any specific items it may have questioned, arrived at a lower amount than the requested one of $315 per week, and in doing so failed to indicate the method by which it reached its independent award, which indication, the appellant declares, is required by Commonwealth v. Gleason, 166 Pa. Super. 506, 72 A.2d 595. In that case it was held that orderly procedure indicated the necessity for additional testimony as to the husband's actual income, or his earning power in terms of potential income and the entry of an order based upon specific findings from that testimony. In the present case the lower court had before it the husband's own testimony and other evidence of his earnings, income and net worth; the detailed evidence of the needs of the wife and child; and testimony which clearly established the relatively high standard of living to which the family was accustomed. The court stated that it did not accept the itemized necessities of the wife at face value and also questioned the veracity of the appellant as to the disclosure of his entire income. The lower court has obviously made its own specific findings and deductions based on the evidence and accompanying circumstances, and the record fully substantiates its decision and order.
Order affirmed.