Mark H. Miller, II v. Leigh Anne Miller
72 N.E.3d 952
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Married 1999; four children born 2004–2011. Mother became primary earner in 2009; Father lost insurance job in April 2010 (previous base salary plus commissions) and became primary caregiver.
- Father and Mother agreed during the marriage that Father would attend college part-time beginning fall 2010; Father applied student loan funds to household/child expenses.
- Father lived apart from Mother in 2014; Mother filed for dissolution in September 2014. At final hearing Father was a part-time student (11 credit hours), worked 15 hours/week at his father’s cleaning business, and cohabited with a girlfriend.
- Trial court found Father voluntarily underemployed, imputed income at $600/week based on his prior earnings, and ordered child support and arrearage payments.
- Father appealed, arguing the underemployment finding was erroneous (enrollment was by mutual agreement) and that imputation lacked evidence on two Guideline factors (prevailing job opportunities and community earnings levels).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father is voluntarily underemployed | Father contends his part-time schooling was mutually agreed and not a scheme to avoid support; his earnings have been stable since 2010 | Mother and trial court contend Father was primary caregiver during schooling but is no longer, and he now has time to work full time | Court affirmed: not clearly erroneous to find Father voluntarily underemployed given changed caregiving duties and continued limited work hours |
| Whether trial court properly imputed income and the amount ($600/week) | Father argues imputation lacks evidence on prevailing job opportunities and community earnings levels required by Guideline 3(A)(3) | Mother relies on Father’s work history and qualifications to support imputation | Court reversed the $600/week imputation and remanded for evidentiary hearing on prevailing job opportunities and community earnings levels |
| Proper application of Child Support Guideline 3(A)(3) | Father urges that imputation should require showing of intentional income reduction to avoid support or stable long-term earnings precluding imputation | Mother points to Guideline factors and Father’s prior salary as basis for potential income | Court clarified imputation does not require proof of intent to evade support; court may impute based on potential income factors but must consider all four factors including community data |
| Whether trial court may revisit other support determinations after adjusting imputed income | Father implicitly argues adjustments may be necessary if imputed income is revised | Mother did not contest trial court’s discretion to adjust | Court held trial court may re-evaluate and adjust other child support determinations after appropriate evidentiary hearing on imputed income factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (imputation may be proper without finding intent to evade support; Guideline factors govern)
- Trabucco v. Trabucco, 944 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses limits where unemployment/underemployment is for legitimate purposes)
- Sandlin v. Sandlin, 972 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (Guidelines do not force career choices based solely on pay; discretion required)
- Buehler v. Buehler, 576 N.E.2d 1354 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (longstanding career choice during relationship may preclude finding of underemployment)
- Scoleri v. Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (addresses when relatively constant earnings over time undermine underemployment finding)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007) (contextual discussion of imputing income to incarcerated parents and commentary examples)