Karen B. Salser v. Gregg A. Salser
75 N.E.3d 553
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Karen Salser (Mother) and Gregg Salser (Father) divorced after a long marriage; they adopted son Derric (college freshman) and have a younger daughter E.S. (13).
- Mother is a licensed nurse practitioner who worked part-time (2–3 days/week) in integrative medicine; her recent annual earnings averaged about $46k–$48k.
- Father is a pharmaceutical sales rep with a $95,000 base salary and potential annual bonus up to $27,000; Derric has an ROTC scholarship covering tuition and fees but out‑of‑pocket costs (~$10k–$12k/year) remained.
- Trial court imputed full‑time potential income to Mother ($2,200/week ≈ $114,400/yr), excluded bonuses from base support calculations as ‘‘uncertain,’’ set child support at $0 given equal parenting time, and ordered parents to split post‑secondary expenses 50/50 (with Derric responsible for 34%).
- Mother appealed, challenging (A) imputation of potential income to her, (B) exclusion of bonuses from income, and (C) equal allocation of Derric’s college costs. The appellate court reversed and remanded on all three issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputing potential income to Mother | Court wrongly doubled Mother’s historical earnings; she legitimately worked part‑time and wishes to remain in current practice | Mother voluntarily underemployed; has prior full‑time history and can earn more; younger child is older and parenting time is equal | Reversed: imputation was clearly erroneous; Mother not shown voluntarily underemployed without just cause; remand to use actual earnings |
| Treatment of bonuses in income | Bonuses should be included or treated by percentage method; ignoring them understates income | Bonuses are irregular and unpredictable; court permissibly excluded them with stated reason | Reversed: exclusion of Father’s substantial potential bonus was not persuasive; remand to include bonuses per Guidelines (e.g., periodic percentage method) |
| Allocation of post‑secondary expenses | Mother lacks ability to pay given her actual income and budget; court erred relying on imputed income to order 50/50 split | Both parents able to contribute; parties historically agreed to help and Mother received substantial marital assets | Reversed: order rested on erroneous imputation; remand to apportion education expenses considering actual incomes, assets, student contributions, scholarships and loans |
| Child support (zero order) | Zero support resulted from imputed parity and exclusion of bonuses; erroneous | Equal parenting and guideline deviation justified nominal support | Reversed in part: remand required to recalculate child support without imputing Mother’s potential income and including bonuses per Guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinn v. Quinn, 62 N.E.3d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App.) (two‑tier review where findings requested)
- Sandlin v. Sandlin, 972 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (child support guidelines and imputation principles)
- Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2008) (standard for reversal of child support calculations)
- Turner v. Turner, 785 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (imputing income to voluntarily underemployed parent affirmed)
- In re Paternity of Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (imputation and college expense allocation analysis)
- Panfil v. Fell, 19 N.E.3d 772 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (educational support is discretionary; separate from child support)
- Gilbert v. Gilbert, 777 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (courts may order parental contribution to college costs)
- Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (appellate deference to trial court in family matters)