Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER A. CAGE Anderson, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JONATHAN C. GOEHRING Anderson, Indiana

FILED
Mar 17 2008, 9:32 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
REBECCA COX, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. HARRY J. COX, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 48A02-0708-CV-668

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Fredrick R. Spencer, Judge The Honorable Joseph Kilmer, Master Commissioner Cause No. 48C01-0404-DR-00302

MARCH 17, 2008 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION SULLIVAN, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant Rebecca Cox ("Wife") appeals the trial court's grant of Appellee Harry Cox's ("Husband") petition for modification of a maintenance order. We reverse and remand. ISSUE Wife raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it modified Husband's obligation to provide insurance coverage for Wife. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties' marriage was dissolved by decree of the Madison Circuit Court in January, 2005. In response to separate motions to correct error and following argument, the trial court, on March 15, 2005, ordered that Husband "shall maintain [Wife] on his insurance or pay for her COBRA coverage until she shall qualify for [M]edicaid or [M]edicare." Appellant's App. at 14. Later in 2005, Wife sought a contempt citation alleging that Husband had failed to maintain insurance coverage for her. At that time, an appeal by Husband of the

dissolution decree, as modified by the ruling on the motion to correct error, was in progress. The subsequent memorandum decision by this court made no mention of any obligation on the part of Husband to provide insurance or pay for COBRA coverage for Wife. See Cox v. Cox, No. 48A02-0506-CV-495 (Ind. Ct. App. February 2, 2006).1

Although the memorandum decision recited that Wife had testified that "she suffered from severe arthritis and heart disease, making it difficult to obtain employment and health insurance," there was no reference to any order from the trial court concerning an obligation on Husband's part to provide

1

2

On April 2, 2007, Husband filed a petition to modify the dissolution decree, asserting that the trial court had ordered him "to provide insurance coverage for [Wife] until she qualified for Medicaid or Medicare." App. at 10. He further alleged that he paid COBRA coverage premiums of "approximately $18,000" and that such premiums "now amount to over $700 per month." Id.2 He sought relief from the insurance

obligation on grounds that his financial situation had changed in that although (1) he and his girlfriend (now wife) had lived together in a residence owned by her and (2) he was not on the mortgage, he was nevertheless now making the mortgage payments as her spouse. He also alleged that Wife had not produced evidence that she "has applied for Medicaid or has attempted to secure other health coverage." Id. At the May, 2007 hearing on Husband's petition to modify, Husband conceded that his income from his pension and from Social Security had not diminished. At the hearing, Wife testified that she had been denied Social Security Disability benefits and also had been denied Medicaid benefits because she had a $10,000 life insurance policy with a cash value of $700. She also testified that she had approximately $3,000 in an IRA. She stated that although she had worked for the State for a short period in 2005, and was physically able to do the work at the time, she had been laid off because of government restructuring. She testified that she had not worked since 2005 because of her medical conditions and that she is supported through assistance from her

coverage as mandated by the trial court's order on the motion to correct error. The indication is that Husband presented no issue on appeal concerning the matter of insurance coverage. 2 Apparently, as a result of the dissolution, Wife was removed as a dependent insured under Husband's General Motors insurance policy.

3

family and by baking bread for her daughter's employer. Wife testified that she was fifty-seven years old at the time of the hearing and that she would not be eligible for Medicare for approximately nine more years. On May 17, 2007, the trial court's order of modification directed Husband to keep Wife "under COBRA through the end of July, 2007, at which time [Wife] shall either need to qualify for Medicaid or find her own medical insurance." App. at 6. Wife now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Wife contends that the trial court erred in terminating the maintenance insurance provision on the ground that there was no factual basis for doing so.3 She contends that she had, in fact, tried to obtain Medicaid and was unable to work by reason of her medical conditions. She further asserted that Husband's financial situation had not

actually changed because the evidence disclosed that his income had not decreased and that his allegedly "new" mortgage and utility obligations were in existence when he lived in the residence with his then girlfriend, whom he subsequently married. On appeal, Wife has cited to no authority other than a passing reference to Ind. Code

Download Rebecca Cox v. Harry J. Cox.pdf

Indiana Law