120 N.E.3d 565
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Child born in 2004 to nonmarried parents; Mother has sole legal custody and Father acknowledged paternity. Father provided ongoing financial and in-kind support through 2014 and retired in 2014, after which Child and Mother received Social Security Retirement (SSR) derivative benefits.
- Mother filed a petition to establish child support in 2016 (later withdrawn) and again on July 5, 2017. At an initial hearing on January 19, 2018 the parties’ counsel signed a child support worksheet showing a $180/week obligation effective January 1, 2018; the court’s verbal record of a stipulation was imperfect and the written order did not mention SSR benefits.
- Father moved to correct errors, arguing the $180/week award failed to account for SSR benefits already being paid to Mother/Child and that those benefits exceeded the support amount.
- After a May 25, 2018 hearing, the trial court concluded the parties had no mutual, enforceable agreement about whether SSR benefits would be offset and that the court erred by not considering SSR benefits in its February 14, 2018 order.
- The trial court recalculated support using its discretion under Indiana Guidelines, credited Father for the SSR benefits, set Father’s weekly support at $57, and made the effective date July 5, 2017 (the filing date of Mother’s second petition), denying retroactivity to birth or to the 2016 filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties formed an enforceable agreement that Father pay $180/week in addition to SSR benefits | Barrand: The worksheet and counsel’s statements show a clear agreement that $180/week would be paid separately in addition to SSR benefits (gifts to child) | Martin: Counsel’s statement that SSR benefits were “over and above what we’ve agreed” meant SSR would satisfy/support obligations; parties had different understandings | Court: No enforceable agreement — no mutual assent on the essential term (treatment/offset of SSR) |
| Whether SSR retirement benefits must be credited/offset against Father’s child support obligation | Barrand: The $180/week was intended to be paid in addition to SSR; SSR are gratuities and should not reduce Father’s obligation | Martin: SSR benefits paid to Mother/Child should be credited against his obligation because they already satisfy/exceed it; court may exercise discretion to offset | Court: Applied Guidelines and Johnson flexibility — SSR can be credited at court’s discretion; here court credited SSR and reduced Father’s weekly obligation to $57 |
| Proper effective date / retroactivity of support obligation | Barrand: Support should be retroactive to Child’s birth (or to filing of 2016 petition) | Martin: Retroactivity not warranted given continued support while family intact, SSR coverage after retirement, and Mother’s failure to pursue the 2016 petition | Court: Exercised statutory discretion; denied retroactivity to birth and 2014–2016 period; effective date set to July 5, 2017 (date of second petition) because the 2016 petition was not prosecuted/served |
Key Cases Cited
- Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 1995) (discusses treatment of Social Security benefits and limits strict offset for SSR)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 999 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. 2013) (endorses flexible, discretionary methodology for crediting SSR benefits under child support guidelines)
- Paragon Family Restaurant, Inc. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (standard of review for rulings on motions to correct errors)