Superior Court 6/24/08 - ANNETTE SIRIO, Appellant at 1179 v. CARL A. SIRIO, Appellant at 1068

ANNETTE SIRIO, Appellant at 1179 v. CARL A. SIRIO, Appellant at 1068
No. 1068 & 1179 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 133 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/24/2008
Appeals from the Order entered May 18, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family Court, at No. FD 00-008000-008.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
In these appeals, the parties challenge the trial court’s award of child support and attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Father raises the following issues:
A. Did the trial court commit an error of law by entering a confiscatory and anomalous child support award that relieved Mother of any financial responsibility for the children’s reasonable needs, bore no relationship to the Guideline amount for child support or to the prior child
support order, and effectively compelled Father’s current wife to contribute more than Mother?
B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by adopting the Hearing Officer’s miscalculation of Father’s budget, thereby leading the court to conclude that the children’s needs were greater than reasonably necessary?
C. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to find that Mother’s budget for the children was excessive and unreasonable where it included (a) capital and nonrecurring expenses (including her legal fees); (b) projected, duplicative and aspirational expenditures; and
(c) household expenses that were not properly allocated among the members of Mother’s household?
D. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding counsel fees to Mother both (a) as an element of Mother’s budget for the children in her household and (b) as an award of legal fees, where there was insufficient proof of the requisite elements for Mother’s legal fee claim?

Mother raises the following issues in her cross-appeal:
E. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to Order [sic] that the increase in child support should be retroactive to 2003.
F. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to award counsel fees to Mother pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §4351(a) under the circumstances.
G. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to apply the law in the calculation of Father’s income and expenses.

.....
In sum, we affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand the case for a reconsideration of the children’s monthly reasonable expenses when in Mother’s care, in accordance with Bulgarelli, supra, and reconsideration of Mother’s claim for counsel fees pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4351, in a manner consistent with this memorandum.