ILNews

COA upholds father’s $1,419 weekly child support obligation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In affirming the trial court’s decision to increase a father’s weekly child support obligation to four times the amount he and his ex-wife initially agreed to, the Indiana Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court to determine how Indiana Code 31-16-8-1 should be interpreted.

Mark and Melissa Rolley have one daughter from their marriage. They agreed during divorce proceedings that Mark Rolley would pay $350 a week, which was not based on the Child Support Guidelines but an amount they believed was fair. A year later, Melissa Rolley filed a petition to modify child support, claiming she learned after the agreement was entered into that Mark Rolley’s income was much greater than she had previously been told.

At the time of the petition, Melissa Rolley was a student and worked part-time, earning $290 a week. Mark Rolley owned Advanced Network Computer Services in Evansville and made more than $21,000 a week. The trial court granted her petition, ordering Mark Rolley to pay $1,419 a week. The court ordered the modification because the $350 payments were “vastly” less than the amount he owed under the Child Support Guidelines.

Mark Rolley appealed, arguing that his ex-wife invited the error of receiving less child support when she agreed to the terms under the settlement agreement and she was required to show there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying the modification.

The judges examined I.C. 31-16-8-1, which outlines two grounds for modification. Subsection 1 says upon a showing of a change in circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; or under Subsection 2, if 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 and the request to be modified was issued at least 12 months before the petition requesting modification was filed.

The judges examined caselaw involving modifications of child support ordered under support agreements and found differing results. Some have held that a petitioner must prove both subsection 1 and 2 in order to have an existing order modified; others have held that a support order based on a support agreement may be modified based on a showing of the grounds listed in subsection 2 alone.

“[D]ifferent panels of this Court have had conflicting interpretations of Indiana Code 31-16-8-1(b)(2), and we would like to draw our Supreme Court’s attention to this conflict for resolution. However, in light of the facts of this case and several general principles guiding issues of child support, we conclude that the Kraft Court’s interpretation is the most appropriate here,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote in Mark Rolley v. Melissa Rolley, 87A01-1307-DR-330.

In Marriage of Kraft, 868 N.E.2d 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), a panel held that the court should interpret I.C. 31-16-8-1 as it is written, regardless of whether the child support order has been entered through a settlement agreement and whether the agreement to pay child support is in excess of the guidelines. The judges Tuesday noted that the plain language of the statute does not create a distinct standard for modification of child support orders that are a result of agreements.

“The ‘or’ separating subsections (1) and (2) clearly indicates that the two subsections establish separate grounds for modification, and there is not any internal or subsequent language limiting the independence of those subsections,” Pyle wrote.

The judges also noted that the doctrine of invited error may be justifiable in instances when a parent has agreed to pay more than what the parent must pay, but it is not justifiable in instances – such as in the Rolley case – where a parent has agreed to pay less than required.

They upheld the $1,419 in weekly child support, rejecting Mark Rolley’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by deciding not to consider Melissa Rolley’s mortgage-free house as imputed income. Despite her lack of mortgage, she still must pay other living expenses such as utilities, maintenance and taxes, and she makes only $290 a week, Pyle wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • excessive child support award solution
    The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT