Michael Dwain Neal v. Amanda Lee Austin
20 N.E.3d 573
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2000; Settlement Agreement required Father to pay $200/week child support; agreement said nothing about college expenses.
- On July 17, 2012 the parties submitted an Agreed Order (approved after June 30, 2012) modifying custody and reducing Father’s support to $75/week; A.N. was 17 then.
- A.N. turned 19 on January 30, 2014 (emancipated by operation of law); Father filed for termination of support the next day.
- Mother filed a Petition for Educational Expenses on February 28, 2014; trial court denied Father’s motion to dismiss and, after a hearing, ordered Father to pay a portion of A.N.’s college costs.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked statutory authority under Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 to order educational support because the controlling support order was entered after June 30, 2012 and A.N. was over 19, and (2) the award amount was an abuse of discretion. Court reversed on statutory-authority grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had authority under Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 to order post‑secondary support for A.N., who was 19 when petition filed and where the most recent support order was issued after June 30, 2012 | Mother argued the petition for educational needs was permissible despite A.N. being 19 because the original divorce order (2000) predated the 2012 amendment and public policy favors college support | Father argued subsection (d) applies because the most recent order establishing child support was entered after June 30, 2012, so a petition must be filed before the child turns 19; otherwise court lacks authority | Court held the controlling order is the most recent order establishing support; because the Agreed Order was entered after June 30, 2012 and A.N.’s petition was filed after he turned 19, the court lacked authority to award educational support — reversed |
| Whether the amount of educational support ordered was an abuse of discretion | Mother argued the ordered amount was reasonable given costs and factors supporting contribution | Father contended the award was excessive and an abuse of discretion | Not reached: court reversed on lack-of-authority grounds and did not decide the abuse‑of‑discretion question |
Key Cases Cited
- Hirsch v. Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. 2012) (standard and principles for ordering post‑secondary educational expenses)
- Maurer v. Cobb‑Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate treatment when appellee fails to file brief)
- Svenstrup v. Svenstrup, 981 N.E.2d 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (de novo review of legal questions despite absent appellee brief)
- Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2012) (statutory‑interpretation principles)
- Novak v. Chicago & Calumet Dist. Transit Co., 135 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1956) (no common‑law duty for a parent to support an able‑bodied adult child)
- Haag v. Haag, 163 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1959) (no common‑law duty to contribute to a child’s college education)
- Tittle v. Mahan, 582 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. 1991) (statutes in derogation of common law are construed narrowly)