In re Marriage of Dean, 18A02-0209-CV-737.
Decision Date | 30 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 18A02-0209-CV-737.,18A02-0209-CV-737. |
Citation | 787 N.E.2d 445 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Denise E. DEAN and Rollin Dean. State of Indiana, Appellant-Intervenor, Denise E. Dean, Petitioner, v. Rollin Dean, Appellee-Respondent. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Janet L. Parsanko, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Alan K. Wilson, Public Defender, Muncie, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
The State of Indiana, as assignee of a portion of the child support payments due to Denise E. Dean ("Mother"), appeals the trial court's determination of the amount of child support Rollin Dean ("Father") owes the State. The State raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the State's motion to correct error, which requested payment for a support obligation that accrued during the pendency of Mother's and Father's dissolution proceedings but was not reduced to a judgment in the final divorce decree.
We reverse and remand.
Mother and Father were married on February 21, 1992. During their marriage, they had one child, K.E.D. On October 23, 1992, Mother filed a petition for dissolution. On November 6, 1992, the trial court ordered that, during the proceedings, Father would pay $37.00 per week in child support to Mother, who would have custody of K.E.D.
Between November 6, 1992 and March 18, 1994, Father accumulated a child support arrearage totaling $2,248.35. On March 8, 1994, the parties filed a custody, support and property settlement agreement. On March 18, 1994, the trial court entered its final dissolution decree, which incorporated the parties' agreement by reference and provided that Mother would keep custody of K.E.D. and Father would pay $37.00 per week in child support. However, neither the decree nor the incorporated agreement mentioned the $2,248.35 child support arrearage.
On June 8, 2001, the State filed a motion to intervene, claiming that Mother, pursuant to "being a Title IV-D, non-welfare case," had assigned child support payments to the State. (Appellant's App. at 16.) On July 17, 2001, the State filed a petition for citation claiming Father's child support arrearage was $16,342.36 and requesting the court order Father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support.
At a hearing, Father acknowledged that his total arrearage to the State was $7,425.36, but he claimed the State could not collect the $2,248.35 arrearage that accumulated under the temporary order in place during the pendency of the proceedings because that arrearage amount had not been set out in the final divorce decree. After the hearing, the trial court found Father owed $5,177.00 to the State and ordered Father to pay $13.00 per week toward the arrearage in addition to his regular support payments.
The State filed a motion to correct error in which it alleged that the trial court erred because it did not order Father to pay the $2,248.35 arrearage that accumulated during the divorce proceedings. The trial court denied that motion with the following findings and conclusions:
4. That the IV-D Commissioner ruled that arrearage that accrued under the provisional order was not enforceable, pursuant to the "merger" doctrine.
(Appellant's App. at 23-24.) The State appeals.
A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion to correct error, and we reverse its decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 759 N.E.2d 1162, 1165 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001). An abuse of discretion has occurred if the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.
The State claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to correct error because the trial court erroneously determined that the doctrine of merger prohibited the State from bringing an action against Father for the delinquent temporary child support payments that were not mentioned in the final dissolution decree.
Merger has been defined as "[t]he effect of a judgment for the plaintiff, which absorbs any claim that was the subject of the lawsuit into the judgment, so that the plaintiff's rights are confined to enforcing the judgment." Black's Law Dictionary 1002 (7th ed.1999).
The general rule of merger is that when a valid and final personal judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the original debt or cause of action, or underlying obligation upon which an adjudication is predicated is said to be merged into the final judgment, and the plaintiff cannot maintain a subsequent action on any part of the original claim, because the doctrine of merger operates to extinguish a cause of action on which a judgment is based and bars a subsequent action for the same cause.
46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 501, pp. 762-63 (1994) [hereinafter "Judgments""]. When a cause of action merges into a judgment, the judgment is "conclusive as to all matters which were litigated, which properly should have been litigated, or might have been litigated in the original action." Id. § 501, p. 763. "[T]he mere fact that a judgment is erroneous or irregular does not preclude the operation of the doctrine of merger, if it thereafter remains in full force and unreversed." Id. § 507, p. 768 (citing Citizens' State Bank of Carmel v. Perisho, 77 Ind.App. 70, 130 N.E. 857 (1921)).
Merger can be thought of as a part of the doctrine of res judicata, because "merger determines the scope of claims precluded from relitigation by an existing judgment." Judgments § 502, p. 764. Essentially, merger is identical to the concept of claim preclusion. Id.; see also In re Marriage of Moser, 469 N.E.2d 762, 765 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1984)
(). Both merger and claim preclusion prevent parties from splitting causes of action, id., and thereby prohibit excessive litigation between parties. Judgments § 503, p. 765.
We have previously held that an order for temporary child support "merges" into the final dissolution decree.1Dillon v. Dillon, 696 N.E.2d 85, 87 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998). "Nevertheless, an obligation accrued prior to the final decree survives." Mosser v. Mosser, 729 N.E.2d 197, 200 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Consequently, if Mother had appealed the final decree, we would have required the trial court to modify the decree to include an order for Father to pay the temporary support arrearage. See Crowley v. Crowley, 708 N.E.2d 42, 57 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)
( ); DeMoss v. DeMoss, 453 N.E.2d 1022, 1025-26 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) ( ).
However, Mother did not appeal to this court to have the trial court modify its order to include the amounts that Father owed under the temporary order. Presumably, then, the doctrine of merger would prohibit Mother from suing Father for the arrearage because the final divorce decree, which is the conclusive document regarding the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to the dissolution proceeding, does not mention any arrearage arising under the temporary order. See, e.g., Bryant v. Owens, 232 Ind. 237, 243, 111 N.E.2d 804, 807 (1953)
( ); Neese v. Kelley, 705 N.E.2d 1047, 1052 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) ( ). The question that remains is whether the doctrine of merger also prohibits the State from suing Husband for that amount.
The doctrine of merger is limited by concerns about justice. Judgments § 503, p. 765. We have previously said "the doctrine of merger is calculated to promote justice and equity and may be carried no further than the ends of justice require." Sisters of Mercy Health Corp. v. First Bank of Whiting, 624 N.E.2d 520, 523 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied. Therefore, a court may decline to apply merger if its application would not be just or equitable under the facts of a case. Judgments § 501, p. 763. For example, "one who is not a party to a suit may not claim the benefits of merger." Id. § 503, pp. 765-66. In addition, while all parties in both lawsuits need not be the same, the plaintiff whose claim may be merged should be the same in both lawsuits. Id. § 501, p. 763.
Under claim preclusion, a claim is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R.K.W. Homes, Inc. v. Hutchison
...operates to extinguish a cause of action on which a judgment is based and bars a subsequent action for the same cause. 787 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 501, pp. 762-63 (1994) ), trans. denied. "When a cause of action merges into a judgment, the ju......
-
Fuller v. Fuller
...the petition for dissolution is dismissed.”). However, an obligation accrued prior to the final decree survives. In re Marriage of Dean, 787 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. Wife was ordered to pay the debt on the trailer, acknowledged that obligation, and deliberately misl......
-
Hayden v. State
...to grant or deny a motion to correct error and we reverse its decision only for an abuse of that discretion. In re Marriage of Dean, 787 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the fac......
-
R.K.W. Homes v. Hutchison
...merger operates to extinguish a cause of action on which a judgment is based and bars a subsequent action for the same cause. 787 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (quoting 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 501, pp. 762-63 (1994)), trans. denied. "When a cause of action merges into a judgment, th......