Lisa Haynes Whorley v. John F. Whorley, Jr. (mem. dec.)
29A05-1611-DR-2637
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Parties married 2003, separated 2014; two children; extended dissolution hearing in 2016 with final findings issued Nov. 9, 2016.
- Provisional agreement (2015) gave each party $1,000,000 pre-distribution and set joint legal/physical custody with equal parenting time under Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.
- Father employed long-term, substantial pre-marriage assets; Mother left workforce, was stay-at-home parent for ~10 years and has a history of alcoholism but has been sober since 2012 with monitoring.
- Father operated Core Principle (startup) after retirement, invested marital funds and received a convertible note from third party; Core Principle later closed and was valued at negative $400,000 by the trial court.
- Trial court: awarded joint legal custody but named Father ultimate decision-maker for disputes; limited "additional parenting time" to overnight childcare needs and treated Father’s housekeeper/nanny (Ortega) as a household family member; calculated child support without accounting for Father’s irregular 2016 bonuses/equity awards; divided marital estate 57.5% to Father, 42.5% to Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Whorley (Mother) Argument | Whorley (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Award of joint legal custody with Father as ultimate decision-maker | Trial court should not award joint legal custody / should not vest final authority in Father because parents are unable to cooperate and Father is unsuitable | Joint custody with decision-making fallback is appropriate; Father sought sole legal custody at trial | Affirmed: joint legal custody is supported; naming Father tie-breaker not an abuse of discretion given parents' provisional agreement and evidence |
| "Additional parenting time" triggering person-category (household family member) | Ortega (live-in nanny/housekeeper) is not a "household family member"; Mother must be offered additional parenting time when Father unavailable even if Ortega is available | Ortega is a household member and her availability can displace Mother from additional parenting time offers | Reversed in part: Ortega is not a "household family member" under Guideline I(C)(3); Mother must be offered additional parenting time when Father unavailable regardless of Ortega’s availability; trial court’s overnight threshold otherwise acceptable |
| Child support — treatment of Father’s irregular income (bonuses/equity) | Trial court erred by excluding 2016 irregular income; some portion of bonuses/cash awards should be included or handled by periodic percentage payments | Irregular income is variable and maybe non-vested; exclusion permissible; Mother waived by procedural default | Reversed: trial court clearly erred by failing to consider irregular income; remanded to account for bonuses/equity or set an equitable mechanism consistent with Guidelines |
| Marital property valuation and unequal division | Trial court undervalued or mischaracterized certain assets (possible repayment from Lintzenich, Core Principle injections) and improperly relied on dissipation (household help, treatment) to justify unequal split | Trial court’s valuations are supported by record; Father rebutted presumption of equal division via contributions, pre-marriage assets, dissipation | Trial court’s asset valuations (Core Principle, Lint. loan, Tennessee land) affirmed, but overall unequal 57.5/42.5 distribution reversed—trial court failed to consider/evidence several statutory factors (economic circumstances/earning ability and improper dissipation finding); remanded for equal division |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelton v. Shelton, 840 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2006) (interpreting scope and purpose of Parenting Time Guideline I(C)(3) and emphasizing parental priority over non-family caregivers)
- Walker v. Walker, 539 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (joint custody may be awarded despite parental hostility where potential to cooperate exists; court may provide decision-making fallback)
- Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2011) (trial court has superior position to determine children's best interests based on direct interactions)
- Salser v. Salser, 75 N.E.3d 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (child support guidelines require consideration of bonus/irregular income; courts should include irregular income when appropriate)
- Helm v. Helm, 873 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court may not rely on a single statutory factor to justify unequal property division)