Heath R. Shenefield v. Mindy E. Shenefield (mem. dec.)
85A04-1605-DR-1150
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Heath and Mindy Shenefield separated after a short marriage; they share two young children. Father (Heath) is a disabled veteran who provided most weekday care while Mother worked.
- Father filed for dissolution and sought equal/shared custody; provisional orders named Mother custodial for Parenting Time Guidelines but established a shared parenting schedule giving Father weekdays (8:30–5:30), Thursday overnights, and alternate weekends.
- At the final dissolution hearing, the court ordered joint legal custody but designated Father as the "physical custodian for parenting time and school matters," and continued the provisional parenting-time schedule.
- Father filed a post-judgment motion (treated as a motion to correct error) seeking clarification and later reconsideration, claiming the orders were ambiguous about who had custody and that the court failed to include Mother’s vehicles in the marital estate.
- The trial court repeatedly explained the order: joint legal custody; Father the designated custodial parent for Parenting Time Guidelines (holidays) and school matters; parenting schedule to remain. The court denied Father’s second motion to correct error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Father’s second motion to correct error was an abuse of discretion | Father: order is ambiguous who has custody; effectively reduces Father to Mother’s work-day caregiver and court deviated from Parenting Time Guidelines without written reasons | (Respondent/Mother did not file a brief; trial court: order is clear—joint legal custody, Father designated for parenting-time guidelines and school matters, parenting schedule continues) | Court: No abuse of discretion; orders are not ambiguous—joint legal custody; Father is custodial parent for parenting-time guidelines and school/scheduling; denial affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred by excluding Mother’s Jeep and Dodge from marital estate | Father: value of Mother’s vehicles should be included in asset division | Mother: Jeep predated relationship; Dodge purchased after separation; court only considered GMC truck value | Held: Issue waived—Father failed to raise at dissolution hearing; not preserved for motion to correct error |
| Whether trial court failed to provide written reasons for deviation from Parenting Time Guidelines | Father: court deviated but gave no written reasons | Trial court: Father did not identify any specific deviation from the Guidelines | Held: No identified deviation; claim fails |
| Whether issues raised for first time in motion to correct error are procedurally barred | Father: raised vehicle and tax allocation issues in motion to correct error | Trial court: such issues must be raised at trial; cannot be raised first in motion to correct error | Held: Court: these issues are waived for appeal because not raised previously |
Key Cases Cited
- Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate court may reverse for prima facie error when appellee fails to file brief)
- Kladis v. Nick’s Patio, Inc., 735 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (court may exercise discretion to decide case on merits despite appellee default)
- Hedrick v. Gilbert, 17 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (a motion for clarification of a judgment is treated as a motion to correct error)
- Old Utica School Preservation, Inc. v. Utica Tp., 7 N.E.3d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard: review of motion to correct error is abuse of discretion)
- Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (distinction between motions to reconsider before final judgment and motions to correct error after final judgment)
- Chidester v. City of Hobart, 631 N.E.2d 908 (Ind. 1994) (issues available at trial cannot be raised for first time in motion to correct error)
- Krueger v. Bailey, 406 N.E.2d 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (issues not raised in motion to correct error are waived on appeal)