Ex-wife not required to pay attorney fees under FDCPA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman does not have to pay the attorney fees for her ex-husband after she sought more than $135,000 in owed child support after he failed to pay for 16 years, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. The trial court ordered her to pay the fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Jill and Mark Finfrock divorced in Porter County in 1994. Mark Finfrock only paid child support for about seven months after the divorce because he lost his job.

Jill Finfrock didn’t attempt to collect on the owed support until 2011, when she used National Child Support, a child support-collection firm based in Ohio. By that time, the children were emancipated.

The exes agreed in December 2011 that Mark Finfrock owed $135,856.74, which was reduced to judgment. He would pay $280 each week to his ex-wife through an income withholding order.

Mark Finfrock has not missed a payment since, but Jill Finfrock sought a qualified domestic relations order to be attached to his 403(b) retirement account. The trial court initially signed the order, but later rejected Jill Finfrock’s request and ordered her to pay $1,645 in attorney fees to her ex-husband.

The attorney fee order was an error because the award was based on perceived violations of the FDCPA, the Court of Appeals decided in Jill Finfrock a/k/a Jill Bastone v. Mark Finfrock, 64A05-1209-DR-489.

“It is clear that an attorney who regularly engages in consumer debt collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation, is a ‘debt collector’ as defined by the FDCPA,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote. “However, Mother appears to be correct that the FDCPA is not applicable to ‘debt’ that is the result of a child support arrearage, even if that arrearage has been reduced to a judgment.”

The judges affirmed the refusal by the trial court to issue a qualified domestic relations order attaching to Mark Finfrock’s retirement account. The parties agreed he would pay nearly half of his weekly income to erase the arrearage. In addition, it’s up to the discretion of the trial court whether his pension plan may be attached or garnished to satisfy the support arrearage.

The COA did not address Jill Finfrock’s claim on appeal that the court erred in ordering her ex-husband to pay his weekly payment to the Indiana State Central Collections Unit instead of National Child Support.

“The trial court did not actually alter Father’s income withholding order to direct that the payments go to INSCCU, and we need not consider whether the trial court erred in opining that Father’s income withholding order should be altered to comply with new federal rules,” Mathias wrote in remanding for further proceedings.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues