David v. Taylor v. Sheryl Crowder Taylor
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 579
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Father and Mother divorced; a 2009 child support order required Father to pay $107.82/week; one child is now emancipated, one remains minor.
- On April 15, 2011 Father filed a statutorily required notice of intent to relocate to Alabama and a petition to modify custody for the remaining child, but did not request a child support modification.
- Mother objected to the custody petition on May 4, 2011 and later (March 6, 2013) filed a motion titled to “Complete Pending Modification of Custody and Support,” which was the first filing that expressly sought modification of child support.
- The trial court, concluding the relocation notice and custody proceedings put support before it, entered an order (Nov. 5, 2014) modifying child support retroactive to May 4, 2011 and assessed arrearages; it denied Father’s motion to correct error.
- On appeal Father argued the retroactive modification was contrary to law because no petition to modify child support had been filed before March 6, 2013; the court of appeals reversed and remanded, directing arrearages to be recalculated from March 6, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a relocation notice (or a custody petition filed with it) suffices to place child support modification before the court so the court may retroactively modify support to the date of relocation | Relocation notice alone (and custody petition that did not request support relief) does not satisfy statute; a party must file a petition to modify child support before the court may retroactively modify support | The relocation notice + custody petition put the court and parties on notice that support was at issue; trial court retains discretion and record deficiencies mean abuse‑of‑discretion review | Reversed: statute requires an actual petition/motion to modify child support; relocation notice alone is insufficient and the earliest date for retroactive modification is March 6, 2013 (when Mother first sought support modification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Haley v. Haley, 771 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court discretion to make modification relate back to petition filing date)
- Carter v. Dayhuff, 829 N.E.2d 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (retroactive modification improper only if it relates back earlier than the petition date)
- Reeves v. Reeves, 584 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (same principle on retroactivity of support modifications)
- Smith v. Mobley, 561 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (letter construed as petition to modify support; retroactivity limited to date of that communication)
- Fridley v. Fridley, 748 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (purpose of relocation notice is to allow courts to address visitation and support made unreasonable by long distance moves)
- Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation v. Town of Brownsburg, 32 N.E.3d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (procedural prerequisites must be satisfied even when court has subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Becker v. Becker, 902 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2009) (discusses circumstances permitting retroactive modification)
- Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2001) (courts must follow plain statutory text)