Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JANICE E. SMITH Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DANIEL F. ZIELINSKI Steuerwald, Zielinski & Witham Danville, Indiana

FILED
May 22 2009, 9:12 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEFFREY MOSLEY, Appellant-Respondent, vs. JULIE MOSLEY, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 32A01-0812-CV-583

APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Stephenie LeMay-Luken, Judge Cause No. 32D05-0809-DR-119

May 22, 2009

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge

Jeffrey Mosley ("Husband") appeals from the trial court's provisionary order in his dissolution case with Julie Mosley ("Wife"). He raises the following issue on his interlocutory appeal:1 whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered

Husband to pay certain marital obligations during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Husband and Wife were married in September 2000, and two children were born during the marriage. Wife filed a petition for dissolution on September 5, 2008, and Husband filed a cross-petition for dissolution on September 22, 2008. At the time of the dissolution petition, Husband's weekly gross income was $1,031.00, and Wife had a weekly gross income of $1,092.00. The parties had two mortgages on their marital residence, one which had a monthly obligation of $1,936.20 and the other with a monthly obligation of $260.71. The parties also had a mortgage on a rental property with a monthly obligation of $720.50. At the time of the dissolution proceedings, a tenant was leasing the property for $1,000.00 per month. The parties also had four vehicles: a 2004 Honda Civic; a 2007 Toyota Tacoma, a Nitro bass boat; and a motorcycle; the only one on which money was owed was the Toyota Tacoma with a monthly obligation of $400.01. The parties also had an account at Best Buy, toward which they had been paying $100.00 per month.

Husband's appeal is an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A) as it is an appeal from an interlocutory order for the payment of money.
1

2

On November 12, 2008, after a preliminary hearing was held, the trial court issued a provisional order, which assigned custody of the children, parenting time, child support, and the marital debt for the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. Wife was allowed to retain possession of the marital residence, and the two mortgages were to be shared equally between the parties, making their monthly obligation $1,098.46 each. Wife was given possession of the 2004 Honda Civic and the motorcycle. Husband was given possession of the Nitro bass boat and the 2007 Toyota Tacoma and was responsible for the $400.01 monthly obligation on the Toyota. Husband was ordered to be solely

responsible for the Best Buy account. As to the rental property, Husband was ordered to be responsible for collecting the rent due each month and insuring that the mortgage payment was timely paid regardless of whether the tenant paid rent in a timely manner. Husband now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION "Initially, we note that a provisional order is designed to maintain the status quo of the parties." Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). A provisional order is temporary in nature and terminates when the final dissolution decree is entered or the petition for dissolution is dismissed. Ind. Code

Download Jeffrey Mosley v. Julie Mosley.pdf

Indiana Law