Lawyers’ divorce battle divides COA on joint custody ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lengthy divorce proceeding involving two Fort Wayne attorneys that raised numerous issues on appeal was mostly affirmed Tuesday, but a dissenting judge cautioned that joint custody was not in the interest of the of the feuding parents’ daughter.

Phillip J. and Tracy L. Troyer’s divorce involved more than four days of hearings in Allen Superior Court, and the final decree contained extensive findings including joint custody of the couple’s child and equal division of marital assets. The 35-page case is Phillip J. Troyer v. Tracy L. Troyer, 02A03-1207-DR-319.

The husband appealed and wife cross-appealed, and the Court of Appeals majority ruled as follows: “(1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing and dividing the marital estate; (2) the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in retroactively increasing Husband’s child support and healthcare expenses; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Husband’s petition for attorney fees; (4) the trial court did fail to rule on Husband’s request for Wife to reimburse him for her share of (the child’s) private school expenses; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the parties joint legal custody of K.T.; and (6) Husband’s appeal is neither frivolous nor in bad faith, and therefore Wife is not entitled to attorney fees pursuant to Appellate Rule 66(E).”

“We reverse the trial court’s retroactive modification of Husband’s child support and healthcare expenses and remand with instructions to amend the Final Decree accordingly,” Judge Terry Crone wrote in the majority opinion joined by Judge Elaine Brown. “On remand, the trial court shall also amend the Final Decree to include an order directing Wife to reimburse Husband for her share of K.T.’s private school expenses pursuant to the Provisional Order. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.”

Judge James Kirsch sided with the majority in all aspects except for the custody ruling. Kirsch said the court was correct in ruling that the child’s best interests would be served by parents working together in a unified manner.

“There is nothing in the record before us, however, that reveals that the trial court’s statement was supported by the evidence or was a realistic expectation. Rather, the record repeatedly demonstrates that these parents cannot currently work together in such a manner,” Kirsch wrote.

“Here, the trial court: determined, and Husband agreed, that no parenting time should be currently allocated to Husband because that would ‘endanger’ (the child’s) physical health or significantly impair her emotional development; ‘seriously considered’ ordering parents to participate in classes for ‘high conflict parents’ and in individual and joint counseling; considered therapeutic parenting time; and appointed a Parenting Coordinator to provide support, assistance, and guidance. Given these very real and very serious concerns, it was error to order joint custody,” Kirsch wrote.

“Moreover, following the dissolution, Husband filed a grievance with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission against Wife ensuring that the adversarial nature of his relationship with the Wife will be continued,” he wrote in his two-page dissent. “I would reverse the trial court’s decision to grant parents joint legal custody.”



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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.