Kevin Gertiser v. Anne Stokes f/k/a Gertiser, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 955

After 25 years of marriage, Kevin and Anne Gertiser divorced in 2007; Anne was awarded incapacity maintenance of $1,182.50 per month due to legal blindness and limited earning ability, with Kevin earning about $144,000 annually.
Anne remarried to Paul, who brought substantial assets and income into the new marriage, while Anne’s own income remained Social Security Disability and minimal earnings.
Kevin moved to modify the maintenance, seeking termination arguing Anne’s remarriage and Paul’s resources substantially changed her finances so the maintenance was unreasonable.
The trial court found no substantial and continuing change to justify revoking maintenance, noting Anne’s continuing incapacity and lack of earning improvement, despite Kevin’s increased income and Paul’s higher earnings.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court ignored undisputed asset increases and should terminate maintenance given Anne’s remarriage to a wealthier spouse.
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of revocation, held that the change in Anne’s finances was not substantial enough to render the maintenance unreasonable, and affirmed the attorney-fee award in Anne’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May incapacity maintenance be revoked when recipient remains incapacitated?	Gertiser argued remarriage and new assets justify termination.	Gertiser contends substantial and continuing change warrants revocation.	Revocation not warranted; substantial change not proven.
Did trial court properly weigh the parties’ finances to determine modification?	Anne’s remarriage and assets should show substantial change.	Trial court disregarded undisputed asset evidence favoring termination.	Findings supported by evidence; no abuse of discretion; maintenance remains.
Was the attorney-fee award properly grounded given the maintenance ruling?	Fees should be reduced if finances are balanced.	Fees justified by disparity in resources.	Attorney-fee award affirmed alongside maintenance denial.

Haville v. Haville, 825 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. 2005) (permits revocation under the statute’s grounds when change is substantial and continuing)
Voigt v. Voigt, 670 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1996) (defines three narrow maintenance options including incapacity maintenance)
Myers v. Myers, 560 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1990) (modification standard requires substantial and continuing change)
Gertiser II, 24 N.E.3d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Court of Appeals reversal addressing remarriage and finances; retroactive termination discussed)
Roberts v. Roberts, 644 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (remarriage does not automatically terminate maintenance)
Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (deference to trial court findings; standard for reviewing judgments)
T.L. v. Adoption of T.L., 4 N.E.3d 658 (Ind. 2014) (treatment of mixed questions of fact and law on support matters)