Judges disagree on applicable child support guideline

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Against the advice of their attorneys, a divorcing couple entered into a settlement agreement that included a “true up” provision for calculating child support each year. That provision is now at issue before the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Cortney Schwartz and Jodi Heeter entered into a marital settlement agreement in which the two agreed that Schwartz would pay Heeter $430 a week in child support. The agreement also contained the “true up” provision, which read: “At the conclusion of each calendar year, starting with 2009, the parties’ respective weekly child support obligation shall be adjusted and recalculated by taking the amount of their gross taxable income from their tax return(s) for that year, dividing it by 52 weeks, and using this amount at line 1 of the [Child Support Obligation Worksheet], with all other factors remaining the same for purposes of calculating the parties’ adjusted child support obligation.”

For the 2009 and 2010 years, Schwartz calculated his “true up” payment using the 2009 Child Support Guidelines and paid Heeter approximately $6,000 more a year. Heeter argued that Schwartz should have used the guideline that was applicable at the time he was paying, so for the 2010 year, he should have used the 2011 guidelines, resulting in an additional $44,000 or more.

The trial court ruled that Schwartz correctly paid for the 2009 year, but his “true up” payment for 2010 should have been based on the 2010 guidelines.

In Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter, 02A03-1109-DR-401, the Court of Appeals was divided over what guideline to use, focusing on the word “factors” in the agreement. The majority concluded that the 2009 guidelines should be used until a modification is made to the child support order, so the trial court was correct regarding the 2009 calculation, but erred on the 2010 calculation.

Judge Paul Mathias dissented on this point, finding the trial court’s determination to be the correct one. He believed the provision in the agreement meant that the other “factors” that will remain the same are the other variables that go into calculating the “true up” amount, not the child support obligation worksheet or formula itself.

The appellate court ruled that Heeter may not on remand seek rulings from the trial court on her prior motions for modification of Schwartz’s support obligation because she didn’t comply with Appellate Rule 46(A)(8), and it denied her request for appellate attorney fees.

The case was remanded 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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?