ILNews

Indiana order doesn't modify Florida order

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed that a Vanderburgh Superior Court's order requiring a father to pay less than the full amount of a Florida support obligation, which allowed him to avoid incarceration, didn't impermissibly modify the foreign judgment.

In Suzanne Herbert Hamilton v. Richard Wayne Hamilton, No. 82S01-0904-CV-149, Suzanne Hamilton appealed the trial court's decision and affirmation by the Indiana Court of Appeals regarding the Vanderburgh Superior Court's order finding her ex-husband Richard Hamilton not to be in contempt because he met the conditions imposed by an earlier order from the Indiana court. Richard had relocated to Evansville following their divorce and was found in contempt by a Florida court for not fulfilling his child support obligations. Suzanne registered the Florida support judgment and contempt order in Indiana.

The Vanderburgh court found Richard to be in contempt but stayed his jail sentence upon his meeting certain conditions. The trial court later ruled he wasn't in contempt of the Indiana orders and explained that under the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, he already had the maximum amount of income withheld.

Using the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that the trial court's orders were enforcement mechanisms, not modifications of the original Florida support order.

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the Florida order and didn't alter the amount, scope, or duration of Richard's nearly $1,500 a month obligation, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm. The arrearages also continued to accrue in accordance with the Florida order.

The trial court's orders are consistent with the UIFSA and the requirements of the Federal Constitution, he continued.

"We are obligated to give the Florida order the same effect it would receive in a Florida court. But we are directed to no principle of Florida law that mandates imprisonment for contempt for violation of a support order, or precludes orders that attempt to maximize compliance in light of realistic prospects of payment," he wrote.

The Supreme Court concluded it would be erroneous for the trial court to base its support-related contempt finding on the garnishment limitations imposed under the FCCPA. The record is sufficient to support the trial court's findings; however, the high court isn't sure if the findings were on the basis of the trial court's ruling or whether the trial court felt constrained by the FCCPA in reaching its decision, wrote Justice Boehm.

"Most of the trial court's order that is the basis of this appeal deals with the FCCPA, as opposed to the evidence and conditions at issue in the case. To the extent the trial court's ruling was based on the FCCPA garnishment limitations, it was predicated on an erroneous view of the law. We therefore remand to the trial court to render a contempt determination without reference or deference to the FCCPA," the justice wrote.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the denial of Richard's request for appellate attorney fees because the appeal isn't frivolous or vindictive.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT