ILNews

Judges affirm man must pay $5,000 in attorney fees to ex-wife

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Allen County man was unsuccessful in his attempts to persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse the order he pay $5,000 in attorney fees to his ex-wife in litigation over their child’s contact with the ex-wife’s new husband.

When Kelley Kelly and Tiffany Kravec divorced, they shared legal custody of T.K. with Kelly having primary physical custody. After a petition to modify custody was filed, Kelly, Kravec and their spouses underwent psychological evaluations. T.K.’s stepfather was required to have an independent evaluation based on his answers and was not to be alone with T.K. There was an allegation that he had used an abusive punishment with his own child. The stepfather immediately completed the evaluation, which found the claim unsubstantiated. But Kelly for two years continued to resist removing the provision that T.K. only be allowed supervised contact with her stepfather.

The issue eventually went to mediation, where the parties agreed T.K. could be left alone with her stepfather. Over the course of the two years, Kravec sought attorney fees from Kelly, but that was not mentioned in the stipulation.

The trial court awarded Kravec $5,000 for attorney fees.

In Kelley L. Kelly v. Tiffany L. Kravec, 02A05-1304-DR-158, Kelly argued that the trial court’s award of attorney fees was erroneous because Kravec’s conduct was the cause of her attorney fees; her attorney fee request was barred by res judicata; and the trial court did not hold a separate hearing on the reasonableness of Kravec’s attorney fees.

“Father’s argument that the trial court’s award of attorney fees was improper because Mother’s misconduct was responsible for the delay in resolving the supervised contact issue is nothing more than a request that we reweigh the evidence and witness credibility, which we will not do,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote.

“The 2012 Agreed Stipulation did not contain any provision regarding attorney fees but noted that all pending matters were scheduled for a future hearing. The trial court entered an order approving the parties’ 2012 Agreed Stipulation, but that order was not a final judgment because there were still matters pending before the trial court and because it did not dispose of all issues. Accordingly, claim preclusion does not apply because the 2012 Stipulated Agreement was not a final judgment,” he continued.

Lastly, the COA held because Kelly did not object to the admission of the fee affidavit, the reasonableness of the fees, or the lack of a separate evidentiary hearing, he waived appellate review of any argument challenging the lack of separate hearing or reasonableness of the fees.
 

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. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT