James W. Klenner v. Lisa M. Klenner (mem. dec.)
41A01-1701-DR-71
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- James and Lisa Klenner divorced after separation; they have three children (born 2000, 2002, 2005). Mother filed for dissolution on April 30, 2014.
- Parties mediated some property issues; remaining disputes included child support, parenting time, and alleged contempt matters. The trial court awarded joint legal and physical custody with a split-week schedule and other parenting provisions.
- Trial court found Father’s gross weekly income $1,639.07 (Indiana University wages plus other work) and Mother’s gross weekly income $1,308.05 (employment plus long-term disability); ordered Father to pay $101/week child support and $99/week toward a $9,898 arrearage (retroactive to Jan 1, 2015). Father retained responsibility for children’s insurance and additional expense allocations were set.
- Father appealed pro se, alleging (1) improper calculation of his income using Mother’s evidence, (2) improper arrearage calculation, (3) court failed to consider children’s wishes, and (4) court abused discretion by not finding Mother in contempt on several items.
- Father did not provide a transcript or the evidentiary exhibits on appeal; appellate court treated issues requiring review of the evidentiary record as waived or inadequately developed.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by calculating Father’s income using Mother’s evidence | Trial court used Mother’s evidence that overstated Father’s IU 2016 income and his consulting income | Trial court credited the evidence presented and acted within its fact‑finding role | Affirmed — appellant failed to supply transcript; court will not reweigh credibility or evidence |
| Whether trial court miscalculated Mother’s income by including disability benefits | Father argued disability was untaxed and akin to net income, so should not be included in gross income | Child Support Guidelines define gross income to include disability benefits | Affirmed — inclusion of disability benefits correct under Guidelines |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to consider children’s wishes (in‑camera interview) | Father argued children’s preferences were not considered and requested in‑camera interviews | Trial court denied in‑camera interview; record does not show wish evidence was omitted and appellate court cannot take new evidence | Affirmed — no transcript/evidence to show error and appellate court won't accept new evidence |
| Whether arrearage calculation (retroactive to Jan 1, 2015) was improper | Father claimed court improperly included support starting Jan 1, 2015 and failed to credit other support contributions | Mother/petition date was April 30, 2014; Jan 1, 2015 is after petition date; supporting documents not in record on appeal | Affirmed — retroactive date permissible and father waived claims relying on exhibits not in record |
| Whether trial court erred by not holding Mother in contempt on multiple issues | Father argued Mother should be held in contempt for taking items, HOA dues, and unpaid utility bills | Trial court declined contempt for most items (found contempt only re: house condition); contempt requires willfulness and credibility determinations for which trial court is deferential | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Father failed to provide transcript to challenge factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- McGill v. McGill, 801 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (support calculations use the Child Support Guidelines and appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (trial court best positioned to assess family dynamics and credibility)
- In re Marriage of Duckworth, 989 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (deferential review of family law findings)
- Mitten v. Mitten, 44 N.E.3d 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (initial child support may be retroactive to petition date but not earlier)
- Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016) (contempt requires proof of willfulness; trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference)
- Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004) (appellate court may refuse to consider claims unsupported by the record on appeal)