Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Jun 21 2012, 9:08 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SHANA D. TESNAR Noblesville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RODNEY T. SARKOVICS KEVIN G. KLAUSING Campbell Kyle Proffitt LLP Carmel, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GLENDA A. WILSON, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. ROLAND B. WILSON, JR., Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 29A04-1112-DR-666

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Paul A. Felix, Judge Cause No. 29C01-1002-DR-374

June 21, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge

Glenda A. Wilson ("Mother") appeals the trial court's order regarding payment of educational expenses by Roland B. Wilson, Jr. ("Father") for the parties' minor daughter Hannah. On appeal, Mother contends that the trial court erred in failing to order Father to pay Hannah's educational expenses for college when Hannah had a grade point average ("GPA") of 2.499 and the parties' settlement agreement conditioned the payment of educational expenses on Hannah maintaining a GPA of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale. Appellant's App. at 24. We reverse and remand with instructions. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 Father and Mother (together, "the parties") were married in May 1976, and are the parents of five children. Tr. at 66. In March of 2010, Mother filed a petition for legal separation. Two months later, Father filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. At that time, two of the parties' children were over the age of eighteen, but under the age of twentyone. The parties' son enlisted in the military and thereby became emancipated; therefore, their daughter Hannah was their only unemancipated child. Father is a self-employed physician and, according to his Child Support Obligation Worksheet, makes $4,751.20 gross income per week. Respondent's Ex. B. During their marriage, Mother was employed by Father. She is now unemployed. Mother is diabetic and

On April 5, 2012, this court held in abeyance Father's "Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Appellant's Statement of Facts" and Father's "Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Appellant's Argument." On April 10, 2012, Mother filed "Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Appellant's Statement of Facts" and "Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Appellant's Argument." Having reviewed the matter, Father's two motions, which were previously held in abeyance, are now denied.
1

2

on an insulin pump. Additionally, she has a rare foot disease that causes her foot to shatter; when this happens, Mother is required to be in a cast from six months to a year. Mother receives unemployment compensation in the amount of $170.00 per week. On or about October 26, 2010, the trial court approved the parties' "Verified Waiver of Final Hearing, Mediated Settlement Agreement and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage" ("the Settlement Agreement"). On that date, Hannah was a freshman at Anderson University. In Paragraph 3.04 of the Settlement Agreement, Father agreed to pay Hannah's college expenses in lieu of child support, "limited to a four year undergraduate education and [] conditioned upon Hannah maintaining no less than a 2.5 [GPA] on a 4.0 scale." Appellee's App. at 10. Paragraph 4.01 of the Settlement Agreement required Father to pay Mother rehabilitative spousal maintenance in the amount of $1600.00 per month for thirty-six months. Id. Hannah's transcript from Anderson University, which Father introduced during the hearing, reveals that the University accepted six hours of college credit, which Hannah had earned at Ivy Tech Community College ("Ivy Tech") in Kokomo, three hours of which was "Intro to Microcomputers," and three hours of which was "English Composition." Respondent's Ex. A. Although the University accepted the Ivy Tech credits, Hannah's grades, which Mother testified were "a B average or better," did not transfer. Tr. at 67. Hannah received from Anderson University a 2.400 GPA in the fall of 2010, a 2.410 GPA in the spring of 2011, and a 4.000 GPA in the summer of 2011. Respondent's Ex. A. These grades, excluding the grades from Ivy Tech, constituted a total cumulative GPA of 2.499 for

3

Hannah's freshman year at Anderson. Id. Father paid Hannah's educational expenses for the first two semesters at Anderson, but citing her inadequate GPA under Paragraph 3.04, Father did not pay for those expenses after her freshman year. On or about June 15, 2011, Mother filed a "Verified Petition for Additional Relief," which included requests for relief related to numerous issues, some of which are not relevant to this appeal.2 Appellant's App. at 5-6. In response, Father filed a motion to dismiss, and following a hearing, the trial court ordered Mother to break up her petition into separate "petitions/motions." Id. at 6. Thereafter, Mother filed six additional pleadings.3 On or about September 26, 2011, an evidentiary hearing was held on all pending issues, and the trial court made its initial findings in an entry dated that same date. Appellant's App. at 10-11. In that order, the trial court, in pertinent part: (1) found Father was not in contempt for failure to pay college expenses "pursuant to the Court finding the Child did not meet the [GPA] criteria as specified in the [Settlement Agreement]"; and (2) ordered Father to pay child support in lieu of college expenses. Id. at 10. The trial court also encouraged the parties to "work towards an agreement to resolve remaining issues" and "to submit either an Agreed Entry or Proposed Orders electronically to the court reporter by

In addition to requesting that Father pay for Hannah to attend Anderson University, Mother requested in the petition that Father: (1) pay for Hannah's other school-related expenses, including her laptop computer, transportation, choir dress and music books; (2) return Mother's personal property of a fishing jacket, desk, and gun; (3) convey title to certain vehicles and pieces of property; (4) pay certain bills; and (5) change his mailing address with the post office. The pleadings included the following: (1) "Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause"; (2) "Verified Petition to Add Additional Party"; (3) "Motion to Clarify Decree [of] Dissolution"; (4) "Petition to Modify Child Support"; (5) "Verified Petition to Distribute Omitted Property"; and (6) "Verified Petition for Attorney Fees." Appellant's App. at 6-7, 26-52; Appellee's App. at 36-45.
3

2

4

October 11, 2011." Id. at 10-11. When the parties failed to reach an agreement, the trial court entered its final order on October 18, 2011. The pertinent portions of that order were as follows: (1) Father shall pay child support to Mother in the amount of $58.00 per week; and (2) in the event Hannah achieves a GPA of 2.5 for a semester of twelve credit hours or more, Father shall pay college expenses in lieu of child support. Id. at 12-13. The trial court also reiterated its previous finding that Father was not in contempt for failing to pay Hannah's college expenses. Id. at 14. In her motion to correct error, Mother argued that the trial court erred by finding that Father did not have to pay for Hannah's college because her 2.499 GPA at the start of the 2011 fall semester did not meet the required 2.5 GPA set forth in Paragraph 3.04 of the Settlement Agreement. Father responded that the Settlement Agreement is a contract, the terms of which were not ambiguous, and therefore the trial court cannot look to extrinsic evidence. On November 21, 2011, the trial court summarily denied Mother's motion to correct error. Mother now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Father was not required to pay Hannah's educational expenses for her sophomore year of college. Provisions for the payment of educational expenses are in the nature of child support. Schacht v. Schacht, 892 N.E.2d 1271, 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). "A trial court's decision regarding child support will be upheld unless the trial court has abused its discretion." Sexton v. Sedlak, 946 N.E.2d 1177, 1183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. "A trial court

5

abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and the effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law." Id. When dissolving a marriage, "the parties are free to craft an agreement providing for the maintenance of either party, the custody and support of the parties' children, and the disposition of property." Bailey v. Mann, 895 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind. 2008) (citing Ind. Code

Download Glenda A. Wilson v. Roland B. Wilson, Jr..pdf

Indiana Law