Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

FILED
Dec 31 2008, 9:06 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANT PRO SE: BRENDA SAALFRANK Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: HEIDI K. KOENEMAN Christoff & Christoff Fort Wayne, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRENDA SAALFRANK, Appellant, vs. SCOTT SAALFRANK, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02A04-0803-CV-143

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Thomas J. Felts, Judge The Honorable Craig J. Bobay, Magistrate Cause No. 02C01-0109-DR-800

December 31, 2008

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Brenda Saalfrank (Mother) appeals the trial court`s Order regarding Child Support, Modifying Parenting Time, and regarding Contribution to Post-Secondary Education (Modification Order). We affirm. Issues Mother presents four issues, which we consolidate and restate as follows: I. II. Whether the trial court clearly erred in not modifying child support; Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying parenting time; and Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Mother to pay attorney fees to Father.

III.

Meanwhile, Scott Saalfrank (Father) raises the sole issue of whether he should recover appellate attorney fees. Facts and Procedural History Mother and Father had two children, B.S. born in 1989 and A.S. born in 1992. Their marriage was dissolved in 1998. Mother received custody of their two children, and Father was ordered to pay $195 per week in child support. In 1999, child support was modified to $183 per week. Father also paid $25 per week for the children`s health care insurance. Father moved to Indianapolis in 2001 and then relocated to Dixon, Illinois in 2007 for a higher-paying job. The drive between Dixon and Mother`s home in Ft. Wayne is approximately five hours. Mother, a registered nurse, entered a relationship with a doctor (Doctor); they

2

resided together and had two subsequent-born children (Subsequent Children). She worked full-time at a hospital through 2002. From 2003 through 2006, she worked part-time for the Doctor, doing collections, bookkeeping, and scheduling. She earned no income in 2007. Mother and Father each filed a petition to modify parenting time. In addition, Mother filed a petition to modify child support, while Father filed a petition for college expenses and a request for sanctions arising from discovery violations.1 An evidentiary hearing was conducted on February 5, 2008. After the hearing, the trial court entered its Modification Order and ordered Mother to pay Father $4070 in attorney fees. Mother now appeals, pro se. Discussion and Decision I. Child Support Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in not modifying child support. As a general matter, the trial court found that the circumstances had not changed substantially. However, in light of the trial court`s findings as to B.S.`s aptitude and ability, the trial court ordered support for his college education expenses. The trial court therefore performed two child support calculations, differing only in whether B.S. attended a college away from home. Appendix at 14. If so, Father`s child support would be reduced to $143 per week, effective September 1, 2008. Otherwise, child support would remain unchanged.

1

On appeal, the parents do not contest the Modification Order`s provisions regarding college expenses.

3

In fact, the trial court`s updated calculation produced a child support obligation of $183 per week, precisely the same amount Father was already ordered to pay. A trial court`s calculation of child support is presumptively valid. Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2008). We reverse a decision regarding child support only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence and consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Tirey v. Tirey, 806 N.E.2d 360, 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Modification of child support may be made only if the circumstances changed so substantially that the terms became unreasonable or if child support under the existing order differed by more than twenty percent from a calculation of child support under the new circumstances. Ind. Code

Download Brenda Saalfrank v. Scott Saalfrank.pdf

Indiana Law