[¶ 21.] Reversed and remanded to adopt the recommendation of the referee. [¶ 22.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SEVERSON, WILBUR, and KERN, Justices, concur. 1 . This matter was considered by the referee on two occasions. On the first occasion, the referee recommended a credit for a number of things, including the mortgage payments and food. The circuit court remanded for reconsideration. The referee conducted a new evidentiary hearing and affirmed his pri- or recommendation. 2 . Mother also contended that any 623 N.E.2d 711, 718 (1993) (finding no error in permitting a deviation from the child support guidelines for the payment of the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance for the former marital residence); Bradley v. Bradley, 387 Pa.Super. 503, 564 A.2d 504, 507 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Knudson v. Utah State Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
holding that the court erred in failing to credit fathers child support account for the entire amount that he paid for the mothers mortgage holding that mortgage payments should not be regarded as child support because it was a contractual legal obligation that built fathers equity holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments holding that the department was not entitled to reimbursement for support payments when the fathers housing payments during the pendency of the divorcee exceeded what was due even though it augmented the fathers own equity holding that it was within the courts discretion to credit fathers arrearages for onehalf of the mortgage payments that he made