Rrf v. Llf
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1864
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Father and Mother divorced; E.F. is the son whose post-secondary expenses are disputed.
- Mother sought modification of child support to reflect E.F.'s college enrollment and emancipation of A.F.
- The initial dissolution order rejected Father’s requested setoff for Mother's anticipated education tax credits.
- Appellate court remanded to consider Mother's tax credits before apportioning the college expenses.
- On remand, the dissolution court ordered both parents to apply for tax credits and to reimburse each other a percentage of the tax credit subsidy, proportional to their shares of E.F.'s expenses.
- State (Title IV-D) intervened; cross-appeal challenged finality of the remand order; court held remand order is a final judgment and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the remand order a final judgment subject to appeal? | R.R.F. contends the remand order is final and appealable. | State argues the remand order is not a final judgment and lacks jurisdiction. | Yes; remand order is an appealable final judgment. |
| Whether tax credits should reduce parental obligation before apportionment of E.F.'s college expenses. | Father: tax credits should lessen each parent's share before apportionment. | Mother: credits should be considered, but not necessarily as upfront setoff. | Tax credits must be considered in apportionment, not necessarily as upfront setoff. |
| Did the remand order correctly allocate the tax credit subsidy between parents? | The percentage allocation should track each parent's proportional share of expenses. | The court can implement a method using actual subsidies without upfront setoff. | Order upheld; proportional subsidies mechanism consistent with prior guidance. |
| Does law-of-the-case limit the amount of tax credits or rely on a fixed credit amount? | Mother's $4,000 credit figure should control as law of the case. | Tax credits vary yearly; law-of-the-case doctrine not controlling for fixed amount. | Law-of-the-case does not fix a particular credit amount; annual variation allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.R.F. v. L.L.F., 935 N.E.2d 243 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (guidance on considering tax credits before apportionment of college expenses)
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind.2003) (final judgment disposes of all claims; subject matter jurisdiction principle)
- Carson v. Carson, 875 N.E.2d 484 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (clearly erroneous standard for apportionment of educational expenses)
- Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 891 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (law-of-the-case doctrine described and applied)
- Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (treatment of irregular income analogies in calculations)