Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
APPELLANT PRO SE: STEPHANIE DEEL Greenwood, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: HENRY Y. DEIN Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Aug 05 2010, 8:45 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STEPHANIE DEEL, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. CONRAD DEEL, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 73A01-0912-CV-606

APPEAL FROM THE SHELBY SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jack A. Tandy, Judge Cause No. 73D01-9201-DR-23

August 5, 2010

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary Stephanie Deel ("Mother") and Conrad Deel ("Father") are divorced and have one child together, Ashley Deel. After Ashley graduated from high school, Mother petitioned for college expenses and a modification of support. Mother also sought to collect on an arrearage that had accrued under the original support order. Mother challenges several aspects of the trial courts judgment, including the effective date of the modification, calculation of college expenses, calculation of the arrearage, and attorney fees. We conclude that the trial court erred in calculating Fathers arrearage. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Issues Mother raises six issues, which we reorder and restate as: I. Is the trial courts finding that Mother was not seeking reimbursement for 2008 college expenses clearly erroneous? Did the trial court miscalculate Fathers arrearage by counting tax intercepts twice? Is the trial courts finding that Ashley started first grade in 1994 clearly erroneous? Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not awarding interest? Is the trial courts finding that Mother agreed to a modification retroactive to July 17, 2008, clearly erroneous? Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not awarding Mother the full amount of her attorney fees? Facts and Procedural History

II.

III.

IV. V.

VI.

2

Mother and Fathers marriage was dissolved on June 14, 1992. The dissolution decree ordered Father to pay child support in the amount of $800.00 per month. The payments were to be reduced to $350.00 per month when Ashley began first grade. Father was also ordered to provide medical insurance for Ashley and a clothing allowance of $350.00 per year. Ashley graduated from high school in May of 2007 and began attending IUPUI the following school year. On May 8, 2008, Mother filed a "Petition to Modify Support Order to Include Educational Expenses," as the original dissolution decree did not provide for college expenses. Appellants App. at 5. On July 10, 2008, the trial court held a hearing solely on the topic of college expenses. At that hearing, Mother indicated that she was not seeking reimbursement for expenses from the 2007-2008 school year; she was seeking only a prospective change. On July 15, 2008, the trial court entered an order providing that Ashley was to pay $2,000.00 per year toward her college expenses, that Father was to pay 82% of the remaining expenses, and that Mother was to pay 18%. On July 17, 2008, Mother filed another petition to modify the support order. A hearing was held on September 29, 2009. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the trial court that they had agreed that the monthly support should be modified to $358.00. However, they disagreed as to the effective date of the modification. Mother testified that Father had not paid all the support due under the original order and had never paid the clothing allowance. She stated that she was seeking interest on the arrearage. She acknowledged that in 2009, she received a federal tax intercept of $4,767.00 and a state tax intercept of $145.00. Mother testified that she had provided medical

3

insurance for Ashley for several years. She also offered into evidence billing statements from three different attorneys who had represented her in this matter. Father acknowledged that he had never paid Mother directly for clothing, but he claimed that he had taken Ashley shopping for clothes and had spent "well above" $350.00 per year. Tr. at 96. He acknowledged that there had been several years that he had not paid for Ashleys medical insurance. He admitted to having an arrearage beginning in 2007, but he claimed that he had paid in full prior to that. Both parties presented evidence concerning Ashleys college expenses and how they had been paid for. On October 16, 2009, the trial court issued an order on all pending matters. The court determined that Father should pay $358.00 in monthly child support, retroactive to July 17, 2008, the date the second petition for modification was filed. The payments were to terminate on Ashleys twenty-first birthday. The court determined that Father was not in arrears on the monthly child support obligation. The court concluded that Father had spent at least $350.00 a year on clothing, but owed Mother $10,528.00 for medical insurance. The court found that Father was delinquent in his share of the college expenses for the fall 2009 semester and ordered him to pay $2,516.68 to Mother. Based on the delinquent medical and college expenses, the court found Father in contempt and ordered him to pay $3,000.00 to Mothers attorney. Mother now appeals pro se. Discussion and Decision The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon. See T.R. 52. Therefore we apply a two-tiered standard of review: whether the evidence supports the

4

findings, and whether the findings support the judgment. Khaja v. Khan, 902 N.E.2d 857, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The trial courts findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, i.e., when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, but consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. (quoting Fowler v. Perry, 830 N.E.2d 97, 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). I. 2008 College Expenses The trial courts order states: The Court notes that Mother stated Father had paid his share of college expenses for 2008 in her pleading of March 4, 2009. The Mother has testified there were $3,026.12 in fees incurred for the fall 2009 semester. The Court orders Father to reimburse Mother 82% of this amount, $2,516.68. The Court orders the parents to pay their respective share of Ashleys tuition expenses directly to the school in the future. Appellants App. at 57. Mother argues that the trial courts finding that Father paid his share of the 2008 college expenses is clearly erroneous. At the hearing on July 10, 2008, Mother indicated that she was not seeking reimbursement for expenses from the 2007-2008 school year; she was seeking only a prospective change. Mother has not included in the record before us the March 4, 2009 filing referenced in the courts order. Therefore, the record is unclear as to whether Mother sought reimbursement for expenses from the fall 2008 semester. We cannot say that the trial courts finding is clearly erroneous. See Miller v. State, 753 N.E.2d 1284,

5

1287 (Ind. 2001) (stating that the appellant "has the responsibility to present a sufficient record that supports his claim in order for an intelligent review of the issues"). II. Tax Intercepts The trial courts order included the following calculation of Fathers alleged arrearage:

Fathers Obligation June 1992 - August 1994 September 1994 - July 2008 July 17, 2008 - July 1, 2009 Fathers Payments Direct payments Payments through Clerk Tax Intercept

$800.00/month

Download Stephanie Deel v. Conrad Deel.pdf

Indiana Law