Matthew Banks Ashworth v. Kathryn (Ashworth) Ehrgott
982 N.E.2d 366
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant-Respondent Matthew Ashworth challenges Marion County trial court modification of his child support to Mother Kathryn Ehrgott.
- Divorce decree (Tennessee) awarded Mother sole custody; alimony of $306,000 payable as $1,500/month with a $9,500 deferral and 8% interest, and child support of $2,500/month.
- Indiana-registered Tennessee support order led to 2009–2010 modification proceedings, including a 2010 modification reducing Father’s weekly support.
- Ashworth v. Ehrgott, 934 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) previously limited how alimony is treated for child-support calculations and set remands for credits.
- Mother sought modification based on Father’s undisclosed bonuses; court found irregular income and fraud upon the court, and ordered lump-sum and ongoing adjustments.
- Court reversed in part, remanded for recalculation using updated CSOWs and a new irregular-income ratio, and for addressing scrivener’s errors and potential credits from prior overpayments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2012 child support calculation properly accounted for alimony | Ashworth argues alimony should reduce Father’s gross income as in Ashworth. | Ehrgott argues the court correctly applied alimony treatment and that withholdings reflected current arrears. | No abuse; alimony treated as in Ashworth; scrivener’s error remanded for correction. |
| Whether irregular income bonuses were properly allocated | Ashworth contends the 0.1841 ratio based on 2010 CSOW is incorrect for 2012+ bonuses. | Ehrgott contends the ratio was within court discretion and aligned with guidelines. | Partially reversed; remand to apply corrected irregular-income ratio (0.1549) using the 2012 Order’s CSOW. |
| Whether 2011 and 2010 bonuses were retroactive modifications | Ashworth claims retroactive modification by awarding 2011 bonus amount. | Ehrgott argues no impermissible retroactivity; bonuses may be allocated under irregular-income method. | No improper retroactive modification; 2011 bonus affirmed; 2010 bonus upheld as proper under fraud-based relief. |
| Whether Father overpaid and credits should be awarded | Ashworth argues prior overpayments should be credited. | Ehrgott contends Father failed to raise timely and equitable credits; estoppel applies. | Court cannot determine extra credits; estoppel bars further credit claims; remand limited to other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashworth v. Ehrgott, 934 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (readdress alimony treatment in child-support calculations; remand for credits)
- Knisley v. Forte, 875 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (regular vs. irregular income; guidance on income treatment)
- Meredith v. Meredith, 854 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (irregular income treatment; ratio method via Guideline 3, comment 2(b))
- Martinez v. Deeter, 968 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for child-support calculations; determinations presumptively valid)
- R.R.F. v. L.L.F., 935 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (retroactive payments allowed under specific circumstances)
- Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (equitable credit considerations in domestic-relations)