Bogner v. Bogner
| Decision Date | 23 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 45A04–1310–DR–505.,45A04–1310–DR–505. |
| Parties | James BOGNER, Appellant, v. Teresa BOGNER, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Shana D. Levinson, Levinson & Levinson, Merrillville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Lynn Hammond, Law Office of Lynn Hammond, Valparaiso, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
PYLE
, Judge.
Appellant/Father, James P. Bogner (“Father”), appeals the trial court's modification of his child support obligations for his minor child, H.B. Father filed a petition to modify child support requesting the trial court to reduce his child support payments to his former wife, Teresa Bogner (“Mother”), from $135 per week to the $59 per week amount recommended by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. He argued that this amount was appropriate because H.B. no longer required support for childcare. The trial court found that the Child Support Guidelines created an unfair result and, instead, modified Father's child support obligation to $105 per week and eliminated Father's right to claim H.B. as a dependent on his taxes every other year. Father appealed, arguing that the facts did not support a deviation from the Child Support Guidelines and that the trial court abused its discretion when it modified Father's tax exemption without assessing his tax records. We determine that the trial court's conclusions were erroneous based on its oversight of Father's financial support of H.B. during his overnight visits with her, and accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in deviating from the amount the Child Support Guidelines recommended. We also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying Father's tax exemption absent any evidence of its financial ramifications.
We reverse and remand with instructions.
Mother and Father (collectively, “the Parents”) married on August 17, 2002. They had one child together, H.B., who was born in January 2005. On March 19, 2007, when H.B. was two years old, the Parents dissolved their marriage.
Pursuant to the dissolution of the Parents' marriage, the trial court ordered Father to pay $162 per week in child support and allowed the Parents to alternate claiming H.B. as a dependent every other year for tax purposes.1 Subsequently, on October 19, 2007, Mother agreed to allow Father to have an additional 78 overnight visits with H.B. per year, which meant that Father had a total of 158 overnights per year. However, Father's child support obligation remained at $162 per week.
On June 10, 2009, the Parents agreed to modify Father's child support obligation to $135 per week based on the Parents' child support worksheet and in light of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.2 Mother agreed to pay the first annual $750 in annual reasonable and necessary uninsured health expenses for H.B., after which Mother would pay forty percent (40%) of any remaining and necessary uninsured health costs, and Father would pay sixty percent (60%).
At the time of this modification, H.B. required daycare, which cost $135 per week. Father paid sixty percent (60%) of this amount, which totaled $81 per week. In the June 10, 2009 support agreement, the Parents recognized that H.B. was about to enter kindergarten, which would alter her childcare costs. As a result, the trial court set the matter to be reviewed the next year when H.B. entered kindergarten, and the Parents “waive[d] any requirement that there be a [twenty percent] 20% deviation” between Father's $135 per week support requirement and any subsequent change of circumstances related to daycare. (Father's App. 20).
In late 2011, Father, his current wife, and their child moved to Valparaiso, Indiana to live closer to H.B. Due to this move, Father was able to unofficially increase his parenting time. In addition to his previously-established overnights with H.B., he also began assisting Mother by taking care of H.B. before and after school three days a week on Mother's parenting days. On these days, he provided H.B. with breakfast and dinner, even though he was not required to do so by their child support agreement. He also supplied H.B. with clothing so that she did not have to bring any clothes with her when she traveled between the Parents' houses. As a result of this arrangement, H.B. did not require childcare before and after school. Still, Father continued to pay Mother $135 per week in child support for the following two years.
On July 9, 2013, Father filed a Petition to Modify Child Support, requesting that the trial court modify his child support requirements to reflect the decrease in childcare costs. At that time, Father's weekly income amounted to $1,236 per week, and Mother's income amounted to $926 per week. The Parents agreed to use 141–145 overnights per year as a basis for calculating Father's parenting time credit, and they also agreed that neither of them incurred daycare expenses for H.B. Father did not seek to claim credit for the two to three days per week that he took care of H.B. before and after school. The Parents completed a joint child support worksheet and agreed that, based on their respective incomes and Father's credits for his child with his second wife and overnight visitation, the child support worksheet recommended that Father pay $59 per week in support.
On September 9, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on Father's petition. At the hearing, the Parents submitted the joint worksheet as an exhibit. Father argued that the trial court should modify his child support obligation to the amount the worksheet recommended—$59 per week. Mother acknowledged that the worksheet recommended $59 in support, but argued that $59 was unjust in light of Father's tax credits—which she alleged amounted to $3,800 per year—and the fact that she might have to theoretically pay H.B.'s uninsured medical expenses. As a result, Mother argued that the trial court should deviate from the worksheet's recommendations. The trial court agreed and, instead of the worksheet's recommended amount of $59, modified Father's child support obligation to $105 per week. The court concluded that:
Common sense speaks to the outcome here to be unjust and unreasonable when applying all of Father's credits; Eighty ($80.00) Dollars from gross income for subsequent child; while Father pays Fifty–Nine ($59.00) Dollars per week for child, Mother has the child with her 220–230 nights per year, she has fixed expenses and pursuant to the Child Support Worksheet, she would pay 69% or Eight Hundred Dollars per week from Father[.] Mother is paying Two Hundred Thirteen (213.00) Dollars per week of the basic support.... Mother is paying One Hundred Twenty Dollars and 99/100 ($120.99) per week for the child[,] which equals Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety–One Dollars and 48/100 ($6,291.48) per year; Father is paying Fifty–Nine ($59.00) Dollars [ ] per week[, which] equals Three Thousand Sixty–Eight ($3,068.00) Dollars per year.
(Father's App. 11–12). Father now appeals the trial court's modification. We will provide additional facts as necessary.
On appeal, Father disputes the trial court's findings of fact concerning the Parents' respective child support payments and the trial court's conclusion that calculation of Father's child support through the Child Support Worksheet led to unjust results. He also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it eliminated Father's right to claim H.B. as a dependent child on his taxes every other year. We will address each of these arguments in turn. However, first we must note that when we review a modification of child support, we will reverse the trial court's decision only for an abuse of discretion. Cross v. Cross, 891 N.E.2d 635, 641 (Ind.Ct.App.2008)
. We review the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or reassessing the credibility of witnesses. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, including any reasonable inferences therefrom. Id.
In 1989, our Supreme Court adopted the Child Support Guidelines to “ ‘facilitate adequate support awards for children, to make awards more equitable by ensuring consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances, and to improve the efficiency of the process of determining support.’ ” Eppler v. Eppler, 837 N.E.2d 167, 174 (Ind.Ct.App.2005)
(quoting Garrod v. Garrod, 655 N.E.2d 336, 338 (Ind.1995) ). Our Supreme Court has advised that achieving these ends does not require treating the Guidelines as “immutable, black letter law.” Garrod, 655 N.E.2d at 338. There are situations that “call for flexibility[,] and courts should avoid the pitfall of blind adherence to the [Guidelines'] computation for support without giving careful consideration to the variables that require changing the result in order to do justice” in such circumstances. Id. Deviation is proper if strict application of the Guidelines would be “unreasonable, unjust, or inappropriate.” Id.
The Guidelines set forth an income shares model that apportions the cost of children between the parents according to their means and based on the premise that children should receive the same portion of parental income after a dissolution that they would have received if the family had remained intact. Glover v. Torrence, 723 N.E.2d 924, 936 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)
. A trial court's calculation of a child support obligation under the Child Support Guidelines is presumptively valid. Id. Reversal is merited only where the determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, and we will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bogner v. Bogner
...Guidelines created an unjust result and awarded Mother the right to claim the child for a tax exemption each year. Bogner v. Bogner, 16 N.E.3d 1031, 1036–37 (Ind.Ct.App.2014). The Court of Appeals indicated that the trial court improperly concluded that Father would only be contributing $59......
-
Hueston v. Hueston
...guided by the goal of making the maximum amount of support available for the child. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d at 596.Bogner v. Bogner, 16 N.E.3d 1031, 1036–37 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (emphasis original).Here, the trial court did not indicate in its order that it considered any of the above-listed fac......