ILNews

Non-custodial parent must still pay arrearages to cover funeral expenses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An emancipated child will be able to collect child support arrearages to pay for her custodial parent’s funeral but she and her sibling will not be allowed to accept the remainder of the accrued support payments, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

When Dean Buchanan died, his ex-wife Debra Roop owed about $9,400 in child support payments. The trial court granted the oldest child Tina Buchanan’s request that she be allowed to collect the arrearages to cover the expenses of her father’s funeral and that the rest of the money be divided between her sibling and herself.

Roop appealed, asserting the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to continue to make payments toward her child support arrearage even though the recipient was deceased. Because no estate has been established, the court improperly earmarked the support arrearage to pay for Dean Buchanan’s funeral expenses that had been incurred by the adult child.

In Debra A. Roop v. Dean A. Buchanan, 88A01-1304-DR-171, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court properly ordered Roop to pay the accrued child support obligation to cover the funeral costs.

The COA pointed out that Dean Buchanan likely could not save for his funeral because he had to use his own money to offset any deficit caused by Roop’s unpaid child support while the children were minors. Now, since Tina Buchanan has to assume the funeral costs, the Court of Appeals did not find that the lower court abused its discretion.

However, the appellate court did reverse the award of the arrearages leftover after the funeral expenses are paid to the emancipated children. It ruled in the absence of an estate, the trial court abused its discretion in allowed the siblings to receive the rest of the unpaid debt.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT