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
Sep 13 2011, 8:44 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN A. KRAY LaPorte, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JOHN M. RHAME, III NATHAN D. VIS Rhame & Elwood Portage, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH N. MEADE, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. KATHLEEN F. MEADE, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 64A03-1101-DR-56

APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable William E. Alexa, Judge The Honorable Katherine R. Forbes, Magistrate Cause No. 64D02-0804-DR-4064

September 13, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge

Joseph N. Meade ("Joseph"), the custodial parent, appeals the trial courts order granting Kathleen F. Meades ("Kathleen") petition for modification of her child support obligation. Joseph presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as: whether the trial court erred by granting Kathleens petition for modification of her child support obligation. We reverse and remand. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Joseph and Kathleens marriage was dissolved on September 10, 2009, and Joseph was awarded primary physical custody of their three minor children. Kathleen, who had worked for British Petroleum for approximately twenty-seven years, and who earned approximately $72,000.00 per year at the time of the dissolution, was ordered to pay child support to Joseph in the amount of $324.08 per week. During the course of the dissolution proceedings, Kathleen learned that her position as shareholder services manager with British Petroleum was being relocated from Indiana to Texas, and was offered the opportunity to relocate in order to retain her position. Ultimately, Kathleen lost her employment with British Petroleum in August 2010, after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and began receiving $356.00 per week in unemployment compensation through the Texas Workforce Commission. Kathleen also received a severance package of $96,000.00 from British Petroleum, which she accepted. Kathleen relocated to Indiana in February 2011 and petitioned the trial court for a modification of her child support obligation. At the time of the hearing on her petition,

2

Kathleen remained unemployed and considered returning to college in an effort to improve her future employment opportunities. Kathleen requested that the trial court modify her child support based upon her unemployment income. She also requested that the trial court make the modification retroactive to the date she filed her petition, June 2010, and exclude from her income the severance pay she received. After the hearing during which Kathleens petition was considered, the trial court issued an order in which it found that her severance pay was income in 2010 and, as such, did not reflect a substantial change in circumstances for purposes of modification of child support for that year. However, the trial court found that, beginning January 1, 2011, there was a substantial change in Kathleens income, as she was receiving $356.00 per week in unemployment compensation. The trial court modified Kathleens obligation to $100.00 per week, with the support order subject to review upon Kathleens successful employment. Joseph now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Modification of a child support order requires a showing of "changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable." Ind. Code

Download Joseph N. Meade v. Kathleen F. Meade.pdf

Indiana Law