COA decision in dueling-precedent case affirmed by Supreme Court

Reviewing a conflict in precedent in state caselaw regarding child support, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the resolution reached by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Mark Rolley appealed the ruling by the Warrick Superior Court to increase his child support obligation.

His former wife, Melissa Rolley, had petitioned for modification on the grounds that more than 12 months had passed since the support order was issued. In addition, she noted there was more than a 20 percent difference between the amount Mark Rolley was paying and the amount called for under the Indiana Child Support Guidelines.

Mark Rolley argued the child support terms could not be modified without a substantial and ongoing change in his circumstances that would render the original terms unreasonable.

The Indiana Court of Appeals pointed to the conflicting precedent. In two cases the court found a support court could be altered only upon a showing of substantial and continuing change in circumstances while in another case the court ruled child support could be modified if a 20 percent deviation exists after 12 months.  

In a per curiam opinion issued in Mark Rolley v. Melissa Rolley, 87S01-1412-DR-739, the Supreme Court agreed with Judge Rudolph Pyle’s analysis and the opinion of the Court of Appeals.


Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}