Reinhart v. Reinhart
938 N.E.2d 788
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Father and Mother dissolved their marriage on October 17, 2008, following mediation that produced a Settlement Agreement incorporated into the Decree.
- The Agreement provides joint custody and defines parenting time as four days with Mother and three days with Father, with holiday times governed by Indiana guidelines if the parties cannot agree.
- Child support was to be paid as Father covering mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital home for five years, after which monthly support would be recalculated if necessary and would align with the Guidelines.
- Real estate terms: the marital residence would become Wife’s sole property, Father would execute a Quitclaim Deed, and Father would continue mortgage payments for five years or until refinance, after which Wife would pay the mortgage, taxes, and insurance.
- Modification clause: any modification of terms must be in writing, signed by both parties and approved by the Court.
- On January 2, 2009 the Decree dissolved the marriage and incorporated the Agreement; on January 11, 2010 Father petitioned to modify child support; an evidentiary hearing occurred February 18 and the court denied the petition, with a motion to correct error following.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal standard for modification of child support | Reinhart argues the court misapplied the statute and failed to follow the plain language. | Reinhart argues the modification standard allows modification under either substantial change or 20% deviation. | Court held invited error; modification requires substantial change. |
| Whether the court abused discretion in denying modification | Reinhart contends the order differed by over 20% from guidelines and was over 12 months old. | Reinhart acknowledges the 20% differential but argues a modification is warranted by changed circumstances. | Court affirmed denial; no substantial, continuing change in circumstances shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hay v. Hay, 730 N.E.2d 787 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (agency of discrepancy between agreement and guidelines requires independent change in circumstances)
- Kraft v. Kraft, 868 N.E.2d 1181 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (conflicts with Meehan on statutory standards for modification when there is an agreement)
- Meehan v. Meehan, 425 N.E.2d 157 (Ind.1981) (statutory modification standard considered in prior law)
- Knight v. Knight, 702 So.2d 242 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (independent change in circumstances required beyond deviation from guidelines)
- Flannery v. Flannery, 950 P.2d 126 (Alaska1997) (15% deviation can demonstrate materiality but is not a definition of change in circumstances)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind.2005) (recognizes consideration of agreements post-recodification of modification statute)