Pala v. Loubser
943 N.E.2d 400
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pala, an achondroplastic dwarf, and Loubser married in August 1994 and separated; dissolution decree issued January 23, 2003, awarding Pala approximately 73% of marital property and maintenance to Pala.
- Decree found Pala physically incapacitated with limited ability to work; Loubser had substantial net earnings and operated Relieve Therapy Services, Inc.
- Maintenance was set at $1,200 per month during incapacity, with potential for court review; Pala had minimal other income and significant disability benefits.
- By 2003–2002, Loubser’s income rose and her business earned substantial amounts; Pala’s health and employability were variably described, with some evidence of potential passive income and assets.
- In 2010, Loubser moved to terminate maintenance; after a hearing, the court reduced and then terminated maintenance, effective 2010–2011, citing improved financial situation of Pala and continued ability of Loubser to support herself.
- On appeal, Pala challenged the termination of incapacity maintenance; this court affirmed, distinguishing the statutory framework for modification of maintenance and the trial court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did changed circumstances justify terminating incapacity maintenance? | Pala argues no substantial, continuing change; employability unchanged and assets do not show improvement. | Loubser contends court properly found improved finances for Pala and ongoing capacity to modify maintenance under statute. | Yes; modification/termination upheld. |
| Was the modification consistent with the statutory standards for incapacity maintenance? | Maintenance should last during incapacity; court overreached by terminating. | Court properly weighed factors and applied three statutory maintenance options, incl. incapacity. | Court's statutory framework applied and maintenance terminated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. 2001) (analysis of three maintenance forms; incapacity, caregiver, rehabilitative)
- Voigt v. Voigt, 670 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1996) (limits trial court's maintenance authority absent agreement)
- Farthing v. Farthing, 382 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (burden to show changed circumstances by preponderance)
- Cox v. Cox, 882 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (modification standard; substantial and continuing change)
- McCormick v. McCormick, 780 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard in modifying maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Erwin, 840 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (clear error review of findings of fact)
- Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (credibility and evidentiary review in findings)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm is the most important factor for a preliminary injunction)