Robert Schuyler v. Donna Schuyler (mem. dec.)
48A02-1603-DR-627
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Robert and Donna Schuyler divorced in 2011; the court ordered Robert to pay Donna $175/week spousal maintenance because Donna’s health (Crohn’s disease, GERD, depression/anxiety, etc.) limited her ability to support herself.
- At divorce Donna was unemployed and living rent-free with relatives; after divorce she moved to Plainfield, secured a part-time daycare job, and began receiving Social Security (~$18,000/year total income).
- In November 2015 Robert petitioned to terminate maintenance, arguing Donna became eligible for Social Security and Robert had new financial obligations after remarriage.
- At the February 2016 modification hearing Robert introduced Donna’s income/expense statement showing a monthly shortfall (~$624) without counting maintenance; no evidence showed Donna’s medical condition had improved.
- Donna testified she had previously been denied SSD, had higher living expenses after moving, kept private insurance, and had not applied for other public assistance; she remains limited in ability to work full time.
- The trial court denied Robert’s petition; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no substantial and continuing change warranting termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal maintenance should be terminated | Robert: Donna’s new Social Security income and his changed circumstances make maintenance unnecessary | Donna: Income remains insufficient and medical limitations persist; maintenance still needed | Maintenance not terminated — no substantial and continuing change shown |
Key Cases Cited
- McKibben v. Hughes, 23 N.E.3d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- In re Marriage of Erwin, 840 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court has broad discretion to modify maintenance)
- Lowes v. Lowes, 650 N.E.2d 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (burden on mover to show substantial and continuing change; factors to consider)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 644 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (court should consider factors underlying original award when assessing modification)
- Pala v. Loubser, 943 N.E.2d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (example affirming termination where recipient’s circumstances materially improved)
- In re Marriage of Gertiser, 45 N.E.3d 363 (Ind. 2015) (revocation requires change so substantial and continuing the award is unreasonable now and foreseeably)