Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson
2013 Ind. LEXIS 968
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Eric and Gillian Johnson divorced in 1999; decree awarded Gillian custody of two children and required Eric to pay weekly child support and maintain health insurance; parties later modified the decree in 2003 after Eric retired.
- In 2011 Eric began receiving Social Security Retirement benefits that produced direct benefits to the children; he sought modification to (1) credit those benefits against his child support, (2) change contribution to higher education, and (3) adjust parenting time and transportation allocations.
- Gillian obtained family health coverage through her employer (covering three children, including a third child from another relationship) and sought a credit for the portion of the premium attributable to the two children; employer plans priced individual, individual+one, and family tiers.
- Trial court (1) treated the children’s Social Security benefits by including them in Gillian’s adjusted income on the worksheet, (2) awarded Gillian a credit of $76.67/week for health insurance (two-thirds allocation of the children portion), and (3) adjusted support and other provisions, reducing Eric’s support modestly.
- Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, reversing the trial court on the health-insurance credit and the Social Security credit; both parties sought transfer to Indiana Supreme Court.
- Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court on both the health-insurance credit and the Social Security benefits treatment, summarily affirming the Court of Appeals in other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eric) | Defendant's Argument (Gillian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper credit for custodial parent’s employer-sponsored health premium | Credit should equal difference between family plan and individual+one plan (reflecting that Gillian needed coverage for her other child) | Credit should reflect two-thirds of the per-child cost (apportion family premium equally among three children; two-thirds for the two children) | Affirmed trial court: credit of $76.67/week (two-thirds per-child apportionment) was within court’s discretion |
| Treatment of children’s Social Security Retirement benefits in support calculation | Benefits received by children should be credited to Eric (entered as a credit to his obligation on the worksheet), which could negate support | Trial court should consider benefits as a factor; court can include benefits in custodial parent’s adjusted income for allocation purposes rather than a dollar-for-dollar credit to noncustodial parent | Affirmed trial court: Social Security Retirement benefits are discretionary to credit; including them in custodial parent’s adjusted income for purposes of allocating obligation was appropriate |
| Whether dollar-for-dollar credit for Social Security Retirement is required | Dollar-for-dollar credit is proper and should reduce Eric’s obligation substantially | Automatic dollar-for-dollar credit is not required and is generally disfavored because it can eliminate support and produce inequitable results | Dollar-for-dollar credit is not required and generally inappropriate; trial court’s middle-ground methodology upheld |
| Standard of review for trial court’s factual and discretionary determinations | (Implicit) Errors in credit calculations warrant reversal | Trial court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; discretionary allocations allowed under Guidelines | Trial court’s findings not clearly erroneous; deference affirmed to trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 1995) (Social Security Retirement benefits are not automatically credited dollar-for-dollar; courts have discretion)
- Poynter v. Poynter, 590 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (Social Security Disability benefits treated as a credit against child support)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 868 N.E.2d 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (encourages intermediate methodology between automatic credit and total denial; adopts Stultz footnote approach)