20 N.E.3d 158
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Arbitration under Indiana Family Law Arbitration Act resolved dissolution, asset division, custody, and support.
- Arbitrator found Husband income of $80,000 and ordered multiple payments, including a $95,000 attorney’s-fee award to Wife.
- Trial court reduced arbitrator’s findings to judgment; Husband appeals challenging the attorney’s-fee award.
- Wife cross-appeals on relocation-related findings and parenting-time transportation issues; appellate fees sought by both sides.
- This court reverses and remands the attorney’s-fee award for lack of demonstrated Husband's ability to pay, and affirms other aspects.
- Arbitrator’s fee award treated as clearly erroneous; coins/undisclosed assets and other factors not shown to justify the fee order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees award validity | Masters argues the award ignores ability to pay. | Masters contends award reasonable given resources. | Fee award reversed; remand for reasonable award consistent with ability to pay. |
| Relocation notice and parenting time rulings | Wife contends arbitrator failed to address relocation objections. | Arbitrator implicitly resolved or rejected objections via findings. | Cross-appeal on relocation issues rejected; no reversible error. |
| Transportation arrangement for parenting time | Arbitrator erred by ordering agreement on transportation without authority. | Arbitrator properly left transportation to parents with possible contempt remedies if needed. | No reversal; not a basis to overturn arbitrator’s findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (trial court has broad discretion in attorney’s fees; review for reasonableness)
- Selke v. Selke, 600 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. 1992) (factors in determining attorney’s fees in dissolution)
- Carrasco v. Grubb, 824 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (ability to pay as a factor in fee awards)
- Connolly v. Connolly, 952 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (not required to rationalize reasons for fee determinations)
- Gerstbauer v. Styers, 898 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (objective reasonableness of attorneys’ fees; analysis of circumstances)
- Fumo v. Med. Group of Mich. City, 590 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (factors for assessing reasonableness of fees in dissolution)