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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT