ILNews

Judges rule on 'contentious' child support dispute, again

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the second time, a “contentious” child support dispute has come before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The judges upheld most of the obligations imposed on the father but ordered the trial court to use a different income allocation factor regarding certain bonuses.

In Matthew Banks Ashworth v. Kathryn (Ashworth) Ehrgott, 49A02-1205-DR-412, Matthew Ashworth appealed the order on modification of child support entered in favor of his ex-wife Kathryn Ehrgott. Ashworth contended that the trial court abused its discretion in calculating his 2012 and subsequent child support obligation and income withholding order; in determining his additional child support obligation based on his 2010-2012 bonuses and future irregular income; and that the court erred by declining to credit him for his overpaid child support obligations.

The couple married in 1999 and have two minor children. They divorced in 2006, with Ehrgott having sole legal and physical custody. The calculation of Ashworth’s child support obligation first came before the Court of Appeals in 2010, in which the judges remanded for recalculation of his weekly gross income and to calculate credits against his child support payments. A December 2010 modification of child support petition filed by Ehrgott led to this latest appeal.

The judges upheld the calculation of Ashworth’s 2012 and subsequently weekly child support obligation and the trial court’s use of an income allocation ratio to determine the amount of additional child support. But the court did abuse its discretion by using an irregular income factor based upon the parties’ prior financial declarations to determine Ashworth’s additional child support for his 2012 and subsequent irregular income.

The COA ordered the trial court to apply the income allocation factor of 0.1549 to his 2012 and future bonuses and correct the scrivener’s error in the April 24, 2010, income withholding order that resulted in overpayment of $8.54 per week. The trial court should calculate the credit owed to Ashworth and its repayment method.

They also held that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in calculating his child support obligation based on his irregular income for 2010 and 2011.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT