ILNews

Court: father not responsible for late payment

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court denial of a father's post-dissolution motion for rule to show cause why his ex-wife shouldn't be held in contempt, and remanded for the court to enter a new order.

In John L. Richardson v. Susan E. Hansrote, No. 72A01-0706-CV-288, Richardson appealed the trial court denial, raising three issues: whether the trial court erred when it determined he had a child-support arrearage; whether the error by the court clerk, who mistakenly applied Richardson's child support payment to another account, is attributable to Richardson; and whether the trial court erred in determining a child support obligation paid by income withholding is not paid until it's received in the clerk's office.

In the original divorce decree, Richardson was ordered to pay $168 per week to the Scott Superior Court clerk every Friday. The dissolution court also found Richardson to be in arrears, ordering him to pay $32 a week until the arrearage was paid in full; the court never mentioned how much he owed in arrears. Finally, the court allowed Richardson to claim the minor children on his taxes in odd-numbered years as long as he was current on his child-support payments. Hansrote was allowed to claim the children on her taxes in even-numbered years.

Three years later, the parties executed an agreed modification of the original decree, which lowered Richardson's payments to $142 per week, and allowed for the payments to be taken out by an income withholding order. Until the order took effect, he was required to continue to pay the clerk's office directly.

In early 2006, Hansrote told Richardson she was claming the children on her taxes for 2005 because the child-support payments were in arrears that year. Richardson discovered the clerk's office had credited two of his payments to another person's account. The clerk adjusted one payment because Richardson had a receipt, but he did not have one for the other payment. The second payment was credited to his account in February 2006.

Both parents filed their 2005 tax returns claiming the children, and the IRS ordered Richardson to file an amended return and imposed penalties against him.

In January 2007, Richardson filed a motion for rule to show cause to hold Hansrote in contempt for claiming the children on her taxes in an odd-numbered year. The court denied his motion, finding he was in arrears for $510.

The Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence to support the determination Richardson had accrued a child-support arrearage. The trial court relied on the clerk's records to show Richardson owed $510. In the original decree, Richardson was found to be in arrears, but at the hearing on Richardson's motion, both parties agreed there was no arrearage at the time of the decree.

Because the trial court never stated the amount of money owed in arrearage, it's impossible to determine how much Richardson would have owed as of Dec. 31, 2005. Relying on the clerk's record was an error by the trial court because the clerk is not responsible for calculating arrearages, just for maintaining a record of payments received, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

Also, Richardson should not be held accountable for the clerk's error in applying his payments to the wrong account. At the time he made the payments, Richardson was entitled to receive credit for them as if he had paid them directly to Hansrote.

Finally, the Court of Appeals found the trial court erred when it determined Richardson's last payment of the year through income withholding was late because it was not received by the clerk's office until Jan. 3, 2006. The last payment of 2005 was due Dec. 30; however, his employer did not send the payment by electronic funds transfer until the following week. Because New Year's Day fell on a Sunday, the office was closed Monday, Jan. 2. The appellate court determined that Richardson is not at fault for the one business day delay in the payment that was due Dec. 30, wrote Judge Najam.

The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to reconsider the arrearage issue and enter a new order on Richardson's motion for rule to show cause; the court should also revisit whether Hansrote was in contempt of the decree by claiming the children on her 2005 taxes.
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT