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. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT