243 N.E.3d 1121
Ind. Ct. App.2024Background
- Marcos Coronado (Father) and Connie Coronado (Mother) divorced, with child support and college expenses issues arising later.
- In March 2022, the trial court ordered Father to pay a majority share of their child M.C.'s post-secondary education costs.
- In December 2023, Father filed a motion seeking various child-related modifications, including emancipation, custody, and modification of support, without first consulting Mother.
- The trial court struck Father's motion for failing to comply with Lake County Family Law Rule 9 (FLR 9), which requires parties to consult before filing motions or to state specific reasons for not consulting.
- Father argued his reason for not consulting was to preserve his right to retroactive modification per Indiana law.
- On appeal, Mother did not file a response, and the appellate court reviewed for prima facie error.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was striking Father's motion for noncompliance with FLR 9 an abuse of discretion? | He gave a specific reason for noncompliance—to preserve retroactivity of support modifications as allowed by Indiana case law. | Not filed | Yes; Father's stated reason was sufficient under FLR 9, and striking his motion was an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Taylor, 42 N.E.3d 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (date of filing controls when child support modification may begin)
- Beehler v. Beehler, 693 N.E.2d 638 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (child support modification cannot be retroactive prior to filing date)
- Carter-McMahon v. McMahon, 815 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (rules are construed to give effect to underlying intent and harmonize their provisions)
- Williamson v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 55 N.E.3d 906 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (decision to strike a motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Adoption of E.B., 163 N.E.3d 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (if appellee does not file a brief, court will reverse if appellant shows prima facie error)