Kurt Brenneman v. Lisa Brenneman and State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A05-1508-DR-1074
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Kurt Brenneman (Husband) and Lisa Brenneman (Wife) divorced in 2002; Husband remained under a child support order for five children.
- In Sept. 2014 Husband (pro se) filed a verified petition to modify child support and a motion to emancipate certain children, claiming changed circumstances (college enrollment, potential enlistment, and children reaching majority).
- Husband served interrogatories seeking information about the children (ages, emancipation, schooling); Wife did not answer.
- Husband moved to compel; the trial court ordered responses within 30 days (Mar. 11, 2015), but Wife still did not respond.
- At the June 3, 2015 modification hearing Husband refused to testify or materially participate, asserting he could not proceed without the requested discovery; the trial court dismissed his petition.
- The State conceded error in proceeding without completed discovery; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new hearing, directing the trial court to order Wife to answer the interrogatories and, if needed, hold a show-cause hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed Husband’s petition to modify child support after he refused to participate because discovery was incomplete | Husband argued his petition required discovery responses (ages, emancipation, military service) and he could not proceed without them | State/Wife argued hearing could proceed; Husband could testify from personal knowledge | Court held dismissal was improper; remanded for new hearing after Wife is ordered to answer interrogatories |
| Whether Husband met burden to show changed circumstances warranting modification (including emancipation and child relocation) | Husband asserted change >20% and that some children were emancipated or living with him (college) | State contended evidence was insufficient at hearing without proper discovery | Court remanded to allow development of evidence; burden remains on Husband to prove statutory requirements |
| Whether emancipation (e.g., military service) can terminate support effective earlier than petition filing | Husband claimed children (including one who allegedly enlisted) were emancipated by operation of law | State acknowledged emancipation claims may be meritorious | Court noted emancipation is effective as of date of emancipation and directed further fact-finding on emancipation dates |
| Whether retroactive modification of support is permitted | Husband sought modification potentially affecting past payments | State and court noted general rule limits retroactivity to post-petition dates | Court reiterated rule that retroactive modification is generally improper, but emancipation takes effect as of emancipation date (not petition filing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovold v. Ellis, 988 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion framework for child support modification)
- Hedrick v. Gilbert, 17 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (burden on party seeking modification to establish statutory requirements)
- Hirsch v. Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. 2012) (emancipation must be established by competent evidence)
- Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014) (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys)
- Donegan v. Donegan, 605 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. 1992) (retroactive modification of support is generally erroneous; emancipation effective as of emancipation date)