ILNews

Man didn’t prove ex-wife misappropriated child support payments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sidestepping a question of first impression in a child support case, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the modification of child support due to insufficient evidence. The father in this case believed his ex-wife was using child support money to fund her veterinary practice.

James Krampen sought to modify his $3,000 per week child support payment for his four children, alleging Carrie Krampen used child support funds to establish and subsidized her veterinarian clinic. He sought an accounting under I.C. 31-16-9-6 and establishment of a constructive trust. In his deposition, James Krampen said his children were properly housed, clothed and fed by his wife and he didn’t believe she overspent in those areas.

His attorney submitted Carrie Krampen’s 2011 income tax return that showed an adjusted gross income of negative $72,148 and checks from her bank account that purport to show his child support paid for the business. The trial court ruled in favor of the father, reduced his child support payments and ordered Carrie Krampen to provide an accounting of future child support expenditures.

In Carrie A. Krampen v. James J. Krampen, 45A05-1212-DR-628, the COA cited Kovenock v. Mallus, 660 N.E.2d 638, 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) in reversing the accounting order, in which the court held that party must be able to show evidence of impropriety that negatively impacts the child’s basic needs. The trial court should not have relied on Carrie Krampen’s tax filing, and she introduced bank statements showing large deposits into her account in addition to the money received from her ex-husband. The trial court erred in finding she misappropriated funds.

The judges also disagreed with James Krampen’s claim that opening the veterinarian practice and using child support funds to do so constitutes a substantial and continuing change warranting a reduction in support he pays.

“ … the question of whether misuse of funds by the custodial parent creates a substantial and continuing change is an issue of first impression not addressed by our court. Yet, we need not address it,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote. “Having just found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that child support had been misappropriated, the trial court’s modification of child support on that basis was also inappropriate.”  

The trial court must enter a new support order consistent with this opinion. Judge James Kirsch dissented without opinion.
 

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