ILNews

Court clarifies original ruling on spousal maintenance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On rehearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the issue of an ex-husband’s ability to pay incapacity maintenance to his spouse, but affirmed its original opinion in all respects.

In Richard M. Clokey v. Penny M. Bosley Clokey, No. 84A01-1009-DR-450, Richard Clokey petitioned for rehearing following the appellate court’s Sept. 1 decision that the Vigo Superior Court hadn’t abused its discretion when it awarded his ex-wife, Penny Bosley Clokey, incapacity maintenance. The COA originally ruled that the trial court was within its discretion to determine that Richard had transferred and commingled funds from the marital pot to a trust that only he had access to. The appellate court also found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in ruling that Richard had dissipated funds when the court determined the appropriate distribution of the marital pot.

The COA granted the rehearing to clarify the issue of Richard’s ability to satisfy the maintenance obligation, which wasn’t directly addressed in the original opinion. The judges found the trial court clearly considered Richard’s earnings, and even though it did not state so explicitly, the trial court considered his sources of income and his ability to pay the maintenance award.

 

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

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT