- 9 -
guidelines is the correct amount of support to be awarded."
(Emphasis supplied.) The presumption can be rebutted if the
trier of fact makes a written finding that the guideline amount
would be either unjust or inappropriate. See Pa. R. Civ. P.
1910.16-1(b); Ball v. Minnick, supra.
For various net income levels of the parties and the number
of their children (up to 4), the grids provide two numbers, one
amount for child support only and one amount that is combination
of spousal and child support. Merely by consulting the grids,
petitioner insists, the portion of the total amount of support
she received that is child support can be determined.
Amounts Must Be Fixed in the Instrument
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a simple
reference to the grid1 would produce an accurate figure for what
portion of the amounts she received was for child support,
petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of section
71(c)(1). The amount of child support must be fixed by the terms
of the instrument. See sec. 71(c)(1). The Supreme Court stated
1Respondent appears to raise an evidentiary objection to the
use of the grids of Pa. R. Civ. P. 1910.16-2, on which petitioner
bases part of her argument. Our holding in the case moots the
objection. But see Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 6 (1885)(law
is known to the Court as law alone, needing no averment or
proof); Advisory Committee's Note on judicial notice of law, Fed.
R. Evid. 201, 56 F.R.D. 183, 207 (1973)(the rules are founded on
the assumption that law is "never a proper concern of the rules
of evidence but rather of the rules of procedure").
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011