# Ball v. Minnick

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 8, 1992 · 414 Pa. Super. 242

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763035

## Case

- **Full name:** Teresa BALL, Appellant, v. Thomas MINNICK
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 8, 1992
- **Citations:** 414 Pa. Super. 242; 606 A.2d 1181; 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1185
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sole
- **Judges:** Wieand, McEwen, Olszewski, Sole, Beck, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson, Hudock
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763035

## Opinion text

*264 DEL SOLE, Judge,
concurring:
I join the Concurring Opinion of my colleague, Judge Phyllis Beck. However, I believe it is necessary to further answer the argument that the Melzer formula has viability in support cases that fall within the Support Guideline ranges.
Melzer begins by requiring that the “reasonable expenses of raising the children involved, based upon the particular circumstances — the needs, the custom, and the financial status — of the parties” must be determined. 505 Pa. at 471, 480 A.2d at 995. Next the ability of the parents to support the children must be determined, based upon the reasonable living expenses of the parent. After these findings are made, the court then applies the formula set forth Melzer.
In my view, the legislatively mandated guidelines, are designed to comply with Melzer. Inherently, they determine the reasonable needs of the children and the reasonable living expenses of the parent. This determination is developed from the Income Shares Model used in their creation. Thus the findings and calculations required by Melzer are no longer necessary in cases that fall within the guidelines.
In cases where evidence is presented that establishes a particular need of the child that warrants additional financial support, or where a need of the non-custodial parent beyond normal living expenses is present, a court may depart from the guideline amount. In those cases, the court must make a specific finding setting forth the factors that warrant departure, or the reason why the suggested departure is not warranted.
In the case before us, I would remand for the entry of the guideline amount. I cannot assume, as do some of my colleagues, that the needs of these children are being met by the award entered by the trial court simply because the custodial family is destitute. Rather, I believe that the guideline amount would help provide additional benefits for *265 these children, exactly what the guidelines were intended to accomplish.
Therefore, to the extent that there are cases which view the application of Melzer as still viable in guideline cases, they should be expressly overruled. Trial courts should apply the guideline amount, departing only where it is determined that particular needs of a child require a greater award, or where particular needs of the non-custodial parent limits the ability to meet the guideline amount. The language in the comment accompanying Pa.Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-1 at B(l) is particularly enlightening. “A party will not be rewarded for making unnecessary expenditures for his or her own benefit by having his or her support obligation reduced. Neither will a party be penalized for living frugally by receiving less support.”
Therefore, I would remand this case to the trial court with directions to impose an award based on the application of the guidelines.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763035. Public record. Not legal advice.