ILNews

High court expands Lambert decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court issued two opinions today dealing with incarceration being considered as a substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying a child support order and what date a modification may take place.

In Todd Allen Clark v. Michelle D. Clark, No. 35S05-0809-CV-506, the justices used the same reasoning it employed in Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007), to justify modification of an existing child support obligation. Todd Clark went to prison after his original child support order had been instituted; he claimed he is unable to pay the $53 a week due to his incarceration. He filed a verified petition for abatement and/or modification order requesting it reduce, revoke, or abate his child support obligation until his release in 2013.

The trial court denied his petition and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding his incarceration constituted a substantial change in circumstances that could justify a modification.

Lambert only addressed whether pre-incarceration income shouldn't be imputed to an imprisoned parent when setting an initial child support order, but today's ruling extends to petitions to modify support based on the incarceration of a parent.

In Gary Becker v. Heather Becker, No. 49S04-0903-CV-113, the justices determined the effective date of modifying an existing child support order because of incarceration may not take effect on a date earlier than the date on which the petition to modify is filed.

Gary Becker petitioned for divorce in 1997 while he was incarcerated. The trial court set his weekly child support obligation at $110. In 2002, he filed a petition to modify because he received only $16 a month in prison. The trial court denied his request.

Becker invoked Lambert to request another modification of his child support obligation in 2007. The trial court reduced it to $25 a week effective the date of the Lambert decision; Becker appealed, arguing it should have been reduced retroactively to the date of the divorce.

The Supreme Court ruled the modification of a support obligation may only relate back to the date the petition to modify was filed and not an earlier date.

"We now hold that Lambert and Clark do not apply retroactively to modify child support orders already final, but only relate to petitions to modify child support granted after Lambert was decided. A trial court only has the discretion to make a modification of child support due to incarceration effective as of a date no earlier than the date of the petition to modify," wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

The high court vacated the trial court's abatement of Becker's obligation to the extent that it was ordered retroactive to the date of Lambert and remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • child support
    in lambert v. lambert did this man have a job pryor to incaration? was he up to date on his child support oblagation?oy

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT