Daniel Sandlin v. Tamara Sandlin
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 378
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- dissolution of marriage between Daniel and Tamara Sandlin; Father sought emergency hearing and modification of custody; Mother petitioned to modify child support; trial court modified child support; on appeal, Father challenges income imputation, current income calculation, clothing allowance, and parenting time credit; reverse and remand with instructions to adjust calculations and orders
- 2009 dissolution order awarded Mother sole physical custody and Father visitation under Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines; 2009 order set Father’s support at $278/week and energy around medical and tax provisions
- August 2010 mediated agreement modified parenting time and finances, including a $600/year clothing allowance ($100 per child, twice yearly)
- September 2011 order modified Father’s weekday parenting time and child support; Mother’s income and Father’s income calculated as part of the support calculation; court did not impute income to Mother
- This appeal addresses whether the court erred (i) by not imputing income to Mother, (ii) by miscalculating Mother’s current income, (iii) by not explicitly terminating the clothing allowance, and (iv) by miscalculating Father’s parenting time credit; court reverses and remands to correct these issues
- The court ultimately holds that income should not be imputed to Mother, but Mother’s current income must be recalculated, the clothing allowance must be eliminated, and Father’s parenting time credit reduced to 113 overnights, with recalculation of support without a new hearing
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of income to Mother | Mother should not be imputed | Not imputing is correct | No imputation of income to Mother (upheld) |
| Calculation of Mother's current income | Income miscalculated; evidence shows ~$1,067/week | Evidence supports calculation; remand | Remand to determine Mother’s current income |
| Clothing allowance elimination | Court should end ongoing clothing allowance | Agreement to clothing allowance exists | Must explicitly order no clothing allowance |
| Father's parenting time credit | Agree credit should be reduced; 113 overnights | Credit should be adjusted | Set credit at 113 overnights; remand for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- McGill v. McGill, 801 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (guidelines-based child support calculations; presumption of validity)
- Carter v. Dayhuff, 829 N.E.2d 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in modification of child support)
- Homsher v. Homsher, 678 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (considerations for imputing income; work history and earning potential)
- Paternity of Buehler, 576 N.E.2d 1354 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (guidelines on imputing income for voluntary unemployment/underemployment)
- Grant v. Hager, 868 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. 2007) (parenting time credit under Indiana guidelines)