Jennifer R. Quinn v. Daniel P. Quinn
62 N.E.3d 1212
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married in 1993; three children (two daughters, one son D.Q. born 2002). Mother temporarily left the home in Jan 2013, obtained a protective order against Father, and took exclusive possession of the marital residence per a preliminary agreement.
- Preliminary agreement (May 2013) gave Mother physical custody, ordered Father to pay child support ($250/week) and certain debts; disputes and contempt petitions followed; Father later sought custody and modification.
- Father, who had historically been the primary caretaker and was very close to D.Q., requested custody after interference by Mother under the protective order limited his parenting involvement; M.Q. moved in with Father in Nov 2014.
- Trial court (Aug 14, 2015) awarded sole physical custody of M.Q. and D.Q. to Father, recalculated child support (resulting in an overpayment finding of ~$5,303 payable to Father by Mother over time), and divided marital assets.
- On property division, the court included the portion of Father’s pension earned during marriage but omitted the pre-marriage portion of the pension and failed to include the marital residence value in the marital pot; Mother appealed custody, child support, and property distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Quinn (Mother) Argument | Quinn (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody of D.Q. | Mother claimed she was better able to meet D.Q.’s needs and that custody to Father was error | Father argued he was primary caretaker, close to D.Q., and Mother’s conduct (protective order enforcement) harmed father–child relationship | Court affirmed: trial court’s best‑interest findings supported awarding custody to Father; no abuse of discretion |
| Inclusion of Father’s overtime in income | Mother argued overtime should be included in Father’s gross weekly income for support | Father testified overtime was occasional, not guaranteed | Court affirmed: trial court reasonably excluded overtime as not guaranteed |
| Mother’s weekly income for guideline calculation | Mother argued trial court erred using $577/week (she testified $525) | Father pointed to Mother’s paystub showing $577.50/week | Court affirmed: paystub supported $577/week and court did not reweigh evidence |
| Property distribution (marital pot) | Mother argued trial court failed to include all marital assets (entire pension, marital residence) in marital pot | Father’s position implicitly accepted trial court valuation | Court reversed in part: trial court erred by omitting pre‑marriage portion of pension and failing to include marital residence value; remanded for recalculation and redistribution without new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddux v. Maddux, 40 N.E.3d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (two‑tiered review when Trial Rule 52 findings requested)
- Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court custody findings entitled to deference)
- Sexton v. Sexton, 970 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court discretion in child support matters; appellate review limited)
- Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (all marital assets must be placed in the marital pot before division)
- Montgomery v. Faust, 910 N.E.2d 234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (one‑pot theory and requirement to value assets before division)
- Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court may be instructed to include pension portion in marital pot on remand without new hearing)
- Becker v. Becker, 902 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2009) (trial court’s discretion to make child‑support modification retroactive to petition date)
- McGinley‑Ellis v. Ellis, 638 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 1994) (purpose of special findings under Trial Rule 52 to disclose trial court’s theory)