935 N.E.2d 1235
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Mother and Father divorced in 2003; dissolution decree issued.
- Children: B.M. (born 1999) and M.M. (born 2000).
- A 2007 modification set support at $106 weekly and arrears of about $2,446.06; retroactivity ordered to petition filing date.
- Father’s employment history includes Tyson Foods termination in July 2008; later became a full-time student.
- Father filed a petition to modify support in 2008; trial court imputed $480 weekly income to Father after finding unemployment/absences.
- Court found Father not in contempt in 2010 for failure to pay, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that portion and affirmed denial of modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied modification of child support | Father argues imputation of income was improper and that voluntary unemployment/education should not dictate support. | Mother contends Father had the ability to earn more and that modification was warranted given changed circumstances and arrearage. | Denied modification; imputed income appropriate; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the trial court properly found Father in contempt | Father contends there was no willful nonpayment or demonstrated ability to pay. | State asserts willful noncompliance due to choosing full-time schooling over employment. | Contempt reversed; no clear finding of ability to pay or willfulness |
Key Cases Cited
- Pettit v. Pettit, 626 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 1993) (contempt requires willful noncompliance and financial ability to pay)
- Thomas v. Orlando, 834 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (education may be work-related; can affect income considerations)
- Bojrab v. Bojrab, 810 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (case-by-case weighing of reasons to reduce employment to meet support)
- In re Marriage of Turner, 785 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (discretion in imputing potential income; case-specific factors)
- Macher v. Macher, 746 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (imputation of income not clearly erroneous under circumstances)
- Meredith v. Meredith, 854 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (modification of support; credibility and findings reviewed)
- Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (imputation of income supported by record; not clearly erroneous)
- Esteb v. Enright by State, 563 N.E.2d 139 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (contempt standard and negative judgments framework)
- Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in contempt rulings)