Case Information
*1 FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DEBORAH M. AGARD ROBERT C. ROTHKOPF DANIEL W. KIEHL THOMAS L. LANDWERLEN Law Office of Deborah M. Agard Landwerlen & Rothkopf, L.L.P. Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BARBARA J. POHL, )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
) vs. ) No. 32A04-1304-DR-163 )
MICHAEL G. POHL, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. ) APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Mark A. Smith, Judge Cause No. 32D04-1209-DR-593
November 26, 2013
OPINION–FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
In this case, appellant-respondent Barbara Pohl apрeals the trial court’s order denying her Petition to Terminate Post-Dissolution Spousal Maintenance. Barbara argues that because appellee-petitioner Michael Pоhl’s disability was a basis on which the court has the authority to issue spousal maintenance without the agreement of the parties, the trial court had the authority to modify the spousal agreement if circumstances have changed in such a manner as to render the original agreement unreasonable. Barbara contends that the trial court used the incorrect legal stаndard when it required her to show fraud, duress, or mistake at the time the spousal maintenance Addendum was signed. We conclude that, in considering the evidence, the trial court could have refusеd to modify the agreement under a standard requiring a showing of fraud, duress, or mistake or a standard requiring a substantial and continuing change of circumstances. We therefore affirm the decision оf the trial court.
FACTS
In March 2009, Barbara and Michael Pohl ended their eighteen-year marriage, which resulted in one son, M.P, a minor. The parties entered into a Custody, Support, and Property Settlement Agreement, which was approved and incorporated into the parties’ dissolution of marriage decree. This Agreement made no mention of spousal maintenancе. During the marriage Michael had been receiving social security income payments for a disability caused by a back injury. Barbara testified that to ensure Michael’s financial security dеspite his disability and to keep the peace in the house in which they were currently cohabitating, she agreed to sign an Addendum to provide *3 Michael with spousal support. On May 11, 2009, the parties submitted an Addendum to the Custody, Support, and Property Settlement Agreement to provide for spousal maintenance. That Addendum stated:
the parties herein stipulate and agree thаt the Wife shall pay to the Husband the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) per month as post- dissolution spousal maintenance, commencing the 5th day of June, 2013, and continuing on the 5th day of each sucсessive month thereafter until further order of the court or agreement of the parties.
Appellant’s App. p. 33. Those payments have been stayed pending the outcome of this аppeal.
On October 26, 2012, Barbara filed a Petition to Terminate Post-Dissolution Spousal Maintenance. She later clarified that she was asking the trial court to modify, rather than terminatе, her spousal maintenance obligation. She argued that there had been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances that made it unreasonable for her to pay $4,000 a month in sрousal maintenance. Barbara testified that, while her income had risen from approximately $127,000 to $182,783.64 since the Addendum providing for spousal maintenance was filed in 2009 because she began a new career as a pharmacist, Michael’s circumstances had also changed, in that his social security income had increased substantially and that his fiancée now pаys the couples’ rent. [1] Michael’s fiancée testified that he pays approximately $500 to $1000 dollars a month in utilities, helps pay for the family’s groceries, and also pays her $700 monthly car payment. *4 Barbara argued that, based on these changed circumstances, the amount of spousal maintenance should be modified. She requested that spousal maintenance be reduced to $1,000 per month, to begin when child support for M.P. ceases.
The trial court found that Barbara failed to present evidence of fraud, duress or mistake at the time the Addendum was signed. The trial court also stated that Barbara had knowingly declined representation by counsel at the time she signed the Addendum, and that she was not an unsophisticated party. In addition, the trial court noted the basis for the maintenance payments: “There is a basis in evidence to support maintenance. The evidence established that Petitioner is disabled and his only source of income is from social security disability. Respondent did not dispute his disability.” Appellant’s App. p. 5. Based on its findings, the trial court refused to modify the order.
Barbara now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
Where, as here, the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusion of law sua sponte, the specific findings control only the conclusions they cover, while a general judgment standard applied to any issue on which the cоurt has not entered findings. Scoleri v. Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). In reviewing the judgment, we will determine if the evidence supports the findings, and then, whether those findings support the conclusion and judgment. Id. This Court will only reversе a judgment when it is shown to be clearly erroneous. Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, 849 N.E.2d *5 636, 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). In determining the validity of the findings or judgment, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonablе inferences to be drawn from that evidence; we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard tо properly found facts. Id. A general judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the evidence presented at trial. Id
II. Modification of Spousal Maintenance
There are two ways in which a party to a dissolution of marriage may be obligated
to make spousal maintenance payments. Either the trial court may order the payments, or
the two parties may provide for maintenance payments in a negotiated settlement
agreement. Zan v. Zan,
Here, spousal maintenance was agreed to by the parties in an addendum, and,
because the trial court found that Michael’s disability “materially affected” his ability to
support himself, a trial court would also have had the authority to award Michael spousal
incаpacity maintenance under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-2(1). Therefore, the trial
court had the authority to modify the agreement under a standard that required her to
show fraud, duress, or mistake оr a substantial and continuing change in circumstances.
Lowes v. Lowes,
However, while Barbara is correct in her assertion that the court could have modified the agreement under a stаndard that required to her to show fraud, duress, or mistake or a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, the trial court’s findings show that she failed to meet either burden. The burden of showing a substantial and continuing change in circumstances such as to render the previous maintenance unreasonable is on the moving party, Barbara. Id. In considering whether there has been *7 a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, the trial court should consider the factors underlying the original award. Id. Here, as Barbara concedes, she signed the Addendum because Michael was disabled and living on social security. Tr. p. 85. The trial court found that Michael was presently disabled, and that his only source of income was social security. Appellant’s app. p. 14. The trial court’s determination that there was “a basis in evidence to support maintenance” is supported by the evidence.
III. Conclusion
We have determined that the trial court’s findings support its decision to deny modification of the Pohls’ spousal maintenance Addendum. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
BAILEY, J., and MAY, J., concur.
Notes
[1] Michael did not provide a verified financial declaration, and the record dоes not contain exact information concerning his income. Michael did testify that he received $22,392 as yearly income. Tr. p. 109. It is unclear what other income or expenses may exist.