Holtzleiter v. Holtzleiter
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 234
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Father and Mother divorced Aug. 22, 2008; Mother awarded primary physical custody; Father to have parenting time and pay child support.
- At decree, Father earned about $89,239/year; Mother was unemployed and imputed income at minimum wage for child support calculations.
- Afterwards, Mother found employment; Father later lost a job, remarried, and had a newer child with increased costs; Father relocated to Fort Wayne for work, earning about $60,000.
- Father filed a petition to modify child support on Sept. 24, 2009, asserting a substantial and continuing change in circumstances; he submitted a worksheet showing his current obligation 43.5% above the Guideline amount.
- Trial court denied modification, concluding changes existed but did not render the current order unreasonable under subsection (1); and found the obligation was not at least 20% above the Guideline as required by subsection (2).
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Father did not waive the subsection (2) argument and reversed, remanding for a new order reflecting modification under subsection (2) and consideration of illustrative factors such as relocation bonus and work-related child care costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §31-16-8-1(2) supports modification of child support | Father's worksheet shows >20% deviation from Guidelines. | Trial court treated only subsection (1); (2) not properly invoked. | Yes; subsection (2) satisfied; reversal and remand. |
| Whether the denial rested on an abuse of discretion given the evidence | Modification warranted under 20% deviation. | No clear showing of unreasonableness. | Abuse of discretion; reverse and remand. |
| How irregular income and non Guideline factors ( relocation bonus, daycare) affect the modification | Relocation bonus and daycare should be included; increase support obligation. | Such amounts should be treated differently or offset. | Relocation bonus properly includable; daycare costs add to basic obligation; supports modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saalfrank v. Saalfrank, 899 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (burden-shifting and modification standards under Indiana Code §31-16-8-1)
- In re H.M.C., 876 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court awareness of modification statutes; policy considerations in support orders)
- Knisely v. Forte, 875 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (irregular income and methods to include it in child support)
- Payton v. Payton, 847 N.E.2d 251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (guideline purpose to preserve children's standard of living; consideration of irregular income)
- Harris v. Harris, 800 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (treatment of one-time settlements as irregular income in child support)