Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 569
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Father and Mother divorced; settlement agreement fixed Father’s initial weekly child support at $430 and created a true-up mechanism tied to annual tax-year income and a line-1 calculation on the Child Support Obligation Worksheet.
- The true-up required annual recalculation using that year’s gross income divided by 52 weeks, with other factors unchanged, and a true-up payment by Father by May 1 each year.
- The 2009 Guidelines formula produced a proposed true-up for 2009 of $6,556, which Father paid, consistent with the 2009 Guidelines.
- Mother challenged the true-up amounts, arguing the 2010 Guidelines (and later) should govern true-ups for the years in which payments were made.
- The trial court ruled that true-ups should apply the annual Guidelines in effect for the year the true-up is performed, leading to a $88,376 arrears finding for 2010; the court partially granted and partially denied summary judgments.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part (holding 2010 true-up should use 2009 Guidelines; remanding for a consistent order), held Mother could not relitigate modification on remand, and denied appellate attorney’s fees to Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What Guideline formula applies to each true-up year | Schwartz (Father) argues the 2009 formula remains “the factor” each year | Heeter (Mother) argues the applicable year’s Guidelines should govern each true-up | The 2009 formula applies until modification is sought; remanded for 2010 true-up using 2010 Guidelines |
| Remand relief for modification petitions | Mother seeks modification relief based on previously filed petitions | Father contends court already ruled or denied mod; waivers apply | Mother’s modification requests remain denied on appeal; trial court to decide consistency on remand |
| Appellate attorney’s fees | Mother seeks fees under Rule 66 due to frivolity | Father argues appeal not meritless | Appellate fees denied; discretion of court to award only in meritless appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Mann, 895 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. 2008) (settlement agreements interpreted by ordinary contract principles)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 920 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2010) (contract interpretation; extrinsic evidence if ambiguity)
- Reuille v. E.E. Brandenberger Constr., Inc., 888 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 2008) (intent of parties; extrinsic evidence may be used)
- First Federal Sav. Bank v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600 (Ind. 1990) (contract interpretation principles apply to settlement terms)
- Town of Plainfield v. Paden Eng’g Co., 943 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (interpretation of contracts; standard review on appeal)