ILNews

COA orders a new child support order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a father’s petition to modify child support. The judges held he didn’t waive his argument for modification because he made a prima facie showing he qualified for a modification under one subsection of the statute, even though he argued before the trial court that he qualified based on the other subsection.

In Brian Holtzleiter v. Angela Holtzleiter, No. 48A02-1006-DR-736, Brian Holtzleiter sought to modify his child support obligation a little more than a year after the original obligation was entered. In his petition he claimed an ongoing and substantial change in circumstances, subsection (1) under Indiana Code Section 31-16-8-1. The trial court denied the petition, finding the changes in circumstances don’t render the current support order unreasonable.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Brian that he met his burden under subsection (2) of that statute. That subsection requires that the petition for modification be at least 12 months after the order requesting to be modified or revoked was issued, and that the party has been ordered to pay an amount that differs by more than 20 percent from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines.

Brian submitted a child support worksheet that proposed his child support obligation should now be $178.89 a week due to a change in job with a lower salary and a remarriage and new child to take care of. His current obligation was $317 a week for his two children from his marriage with Angela.

The judges went against their colleagues’ decision in Hay v. Hay, 730 N.E.2d 787, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), and ruled Brian preserved his argument on appeal. Hay held that a father waived his argument that his obligation should be modified pursuant to subsection 2 because he failed to make that argument to the trial court. In the instant case, the judges believed the trial court and opposing party have been provided with sufficient notice that Brian called into play subsection (2) by submitting his child support worksheet showing his current obligation is 20 percent more than the amount he would be ordered to pay by applying the guidelines.

“Given the bright-line test set forth in subsection (2), we can discern no basis for punishing someone with a support order that otherwise statutorily qualifies for modification simply because the party failed to utter the magic words. The Guidelines are not meant to be a trap for the unwary but are intended to lead the way to a fair result in a complicated area of law,” wrote Judge Terry Crone.

After examining the evidence, the judges reversed the denial of his petition to modify and ordered on remand for the trial court to adjust the child support order accordingly. They also agreed that Brian’s $15,000 relocation bonus and the fact that Angela’s child care expenses have increased due to her employment outside of the home should be considered in determining his child support obligation.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT