Sexton v. Sedlak
946 N.E.2d 1177
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Father and Mother divorced in 1998; they shared joint legal and physical custody with no child support due to equal incomes.
- 2002 order required Father to pay $153.85/week; abatement occurred when all three children resided with Father for certain periods.
- Mother filed a petition to modify support in 2005; Farmers Court advised need for support worksheets; no final modification entered.
- In 2006 the parties executed a notarized custody and child support agreement (not filed with court) stating T.S. and L.S. would reside with Father; S.S. age 18 not addressed.
- In 2009 Father filed petition to emancipate T.S. and modify custody and support; trial court later issued an order in 2010 modifying support to $117/week for T.S. and L.S., with credits for prior periods and arrearage calculations.
- Court found Father entitled to income imputation at $500/week due to voluntary unemployment; held T.S. not emancipated and continued support; remanded to determine support considering T.S.'s income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does modification of child support retroact? | Sexton argues retroactivity should date to 9/7/2005 or 8/13/2006, or even earlier. | Sedlak argues retroactivity should begin at 6/12/2009 (petition to modify). | Modification date set at 6/12/2009; retroactive exceptions do not apply here. |
| Should child support for T.S. be terminated upon emancipation? | Sexton claims emancipation terminates support under statute. | Sedlak argues continued support is appropriate absent emancipation. | Emancipation not found; support for T.S. continues. |
| Was Father's support amount properly calculated, including imputed income and consideration of T.S.'s income? | Sexton contends the court erred by imputing $500/week and not considering T.S.'s income. | Sedlak contends imputation was proper and adequate given evidence of unemployment. | Imputation of $500/week affirmed; but court abused by not considering T.S.'s income, requiring remand to recalculate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Becker, 902 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2009) (retroactive modification generally disallowed; exceptions apply)
- Donegan v. Donegan, 605 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. 1992) (retroactive modification rule explained)
- Whited v. Whited, 859 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 2007) (exception for permanent change of custody when both parties concede and execute alternative support arrangement)
- Haley v. Haley, 771 N.E.2d 743 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (trial court may relate back modification to petition date under Indiana statute)
- Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (standard for evaluating child support modification and retroactivity)
- Redd v. Redd, 901 N.E.2d 545 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (emancipation standards and when child support ends)