Tina Carmer v. Scott Carmer
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 698
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Tina and Scott Carmer divorced after ~20 years of marriage; they have two minor children (one emancipated) and had foster children removed after CPS found the home unsanitary.
- Scott suffers long‑term injuries from a pre‑marriage accident; his primary income is monthly structured settlement/annuity payments (~$6,500/mo) plus part‑time Walmart wages (~$450/wk). Large lump sums from the settlement were spent during the marriage.
- The parties signed a prenuptial agreement providing Tina one half of jointly held property and a $70,000 payment if divorce occurred after 14 years, plus other waivers of claims.
- Trial court awarded Tina the $70,000 but reduced it by (a) credits for vehicles/furniture she received as nonmarital property and (b) $15,000 taken from Scott’s settlement that Tina used to pay CHINS‑related attorney/investigator fees (deemed dissipation). The court also ordered sale of real estate and allocated certain debts.
- For child support the trial court calculated Scott’s obligation based on Walmart wages and imputed income to Tina, but excluded the structured settlement payments citing the Internal Revenue Code’s tax exclusion for personal‑injury damages. The appellate court remanded on this issue.
Issues
| Issue | Tina's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott’s structured settlement/annuity payments must be included in weekly gross income for child support | Include the structured settlement as income; it benefited the family and fits Guideline 3(A)’s broad income definition | Exclude the payments because they are excluded from federal gross income (IRC §104(a)(2)) and are non‑taxable personal‑injury damages | Court reversed trial court: structured settlement payments must be considered in calculating gross income or the trial court must justify any deviation from the Guidelines; remanded for recalculation and consideration of retroactivity |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly modified the prenuptial agreement by deducting repairs/depreciation from Tina’s $70,000 | Prenup fixed $70,000 payment; court cannot reduce it by post‑agreement deductions | Court can account for dissipation and offset value of nonmarital property awarded to Tina | Court affirmed: trial court did not modify the prenup; it properly offset amounts (value of vehicles/furniture and costs from Tina’s dissipation) against the $70,000 to make Scott whole |
| Whether deducting $15,000 (used by Tina to pay CHINS attorney/investigator fees) from Tina’s prenup payment was improper | Argues prenup bars recovery of attorney’s fees from the other spouse | Scott argues Tina unilaterally took funds from his settlement to pay fees; deduction restores dissipated marital assets | Court affirmed: deduction was proper as compensation for dissipation; the prenup fee‑waiver provision did not preclude offset for assets Tina spent without entitlement |
| Whether trial court abused discretion assigning Tina responsibility for ~ $5,000 on two credit cards | Tina contends charges were for children and the court misallocated marital liabilities | Scott (and trial court) contend Tina managed finances and primarily incurred the debt | Court affirmed: evidence supports finding Tina primarily incurred the credit card debt; allocation was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2008) (child support calculation presumptively valid)
- Harris v. Harris, 800 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (weekly gross income broadly defined; trial courts may include potential or imputed income)
- Knisely v. Forte, 875 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (personal‑injury settlement may be considered in child support calculation)
- Rider v. Rider, 669 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 1996) (antenuptial agreements are valid if not procured by fraud, duress, or unconscionability)
- Haley v. Haley, 771 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court has discretion to make child support retroactive to date of filing)