Jahn v. Jahn, 1-478A89
Decision Date | 12 February 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 1-478A89,1-478A89 |
Citation | 385 N.E.2d 488,179 Ind.App. 368 |
Parties | Mary J. JAHN (Ward), Appellant (Petitioner), v. Linus O. JAHN, Appellee (Respondent below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Howard A. King, Jasper, John L. Niblack, Washington, for appellant.
Linus O. Jahn, in pro. per.
Before discussing the merits of this appeal, we note that appellee's counsel has not favored us with an answer brief; therefore, appellant need only make a Prima facie showing of reversible error in order to reverse the trial court's decision. 1
The marriage of Mary J. Jahn (Ward) (hereinafter Wife) and Linus O. Jahn (hereinafter Husband) was dissolved on March 14, 1974. The portions of that judgment pertinent to this appeal are as follows:
. . . that two children Phillip Matthew Jahn, born June 27, 1965 and Brenda Jane Jahn, born March 29, 1971 were born as the fruits of this marriage; that both Plaintiff and Defendant are fit and proper persons to have custody of said children; that plaintiff have care and custody of said children until further order of the Court; that defendant pay the sum of $50.00 per week for the support and maintenance of his children with the first payment due Friday, March 15, 1974 and a like payment each Friday thereafter until further order of the Court; That Defendant have reasonable visitation rights with his children, said visitation rights to include but not be limited to having his children visit with him two weeks out of each year. That defendant pay plaintiff the sum of $1,000.00 as property settlement herein.
and defendant should have the income tax exemptions of the two children as long as the payments herein are current; that defendant be responsible for the reasonable medical, dental and optometric expenses of his minor children; that defendant pay an additional attorney fee of $50.00 within 30 days of this date for use and benefit of plaintiff's attorney and defendant pay the costs herein.
The Husband paid the child support except for those times when the children were in his custody for more than a weekend. Wife filed a Petition for Citation to hold Husband in contempt for support arrearages in the amount of $345.00. Wife also prayed in her petition for an increase in the amount of support, for attorney's fees, and for a declaratory judgment entitling her to at least one tax exemption. The trial court denied Wife's petition in all respects and Wife appeals the denial of each. 2
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
The trial court found that Husband was not in contempt since he was not responsible for paying support when the children were in his custody.
In Biedron v. Biedron, (1958) 128 Ind.App. 299, 148 N.E.2d 209, the Appellate Court of Indiana said, "in this state after support installments have accrued, the court is without power to reduce, annul or vacate such orders retrospectively, and therefore, the court committed error in attempting to do so." (Citations omitted). Therefore, payments must be made in the manner, amount, and at the times required by the support order embodied in the divorce decree until such order is modified or set aside. Stitle v. Stitle, (1964) 245 Ind. 168, 197 N.E.2d 174. Indiana does permit cancellation or modification of support orders as to future payments; but, all modifications operate prospectively. Kniffen v. Courtney, (1971) 148 Ind.App. 358, 266 N.E.2d 72; Haycraft v. Haycraft, (1978) Ind.App.,375 N.E.2d 252. We therefore find that Husband was in contempt of court, and that the trial court should provide him with an opportunity to purge himself of contempt by tendering the support arrearages owed.
Wife's second allegation is that she should be able to claim at least one child for tax exemption purposes.
The Internal Revenue Code, I.R.C. § 152(e) provides the "support test" for children of divorced parents. Subsection (e)(2) is the pertinent provision:
(2) Special rule. The child of parents described in paragraph (1) shall be treated as having received over half of his support during the calendar year from the parent not having custody if
(A) (i) the decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, or a written agreement between the parents applicable to the taxable year beginning in such calendar year, provides that the parent not having custody shall be entitled to any deduction allowable under section 151 for such child, and
(ii) such parent not having custody provides at least $600.00 for the support of such child during the calendar year, Or (our emphasis)
(B) (i) the parent not having custody provides $1,200 or more for the support of such child (or if there is more than one such child, $1,200 or more for each of such children) for the calendar year, and
(ii) the parent having custody of such child does not clearly establish that he provided more for the support of such child during the calendar year than the parent not having custody.
For the purposes of this paragraph, amounts expended for the support of a child or children shall be treated as received from the parent not having custody to the extent that such parent provided amounts for such support.
Appellant concedes that Husband provides more than $1,200.00 per annum for each child but contends that she "clearly established" that she provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morphew v. Morphew
...two prior cases in Indiana have dealt with the issue of which parent is to receive the income tax dependency exemption, Jahn v. Jahn, (1979) Ind.App., 385 N.E.2d 488; Flowers v. Flowers, (1972) 154 Ind.App. 377, 289 N.E.2d 797; however, neither case addressed the jurisdiction and statutory ......
-
Marriage of Cook, In re
...refused to consider retroactive child support modification. See Ferry v. Ferry (1978), 201 Neb. 595 271 N.W.2d 450; Jahn v. Jahn (1979), 179 Ind.App. 368, 385 N.E.2d 488; Gomez v. Gomez (1978), 92 N.M. 310, 587 P.2d 963; Worthley v. Worthley (1955), 44 Cal.2d 465, 283 P.2d 19; Gamble v. Gam......
-
Holman v. Holman
...The burden of proving the necessary change of circumstances is upon the party petitioning for modification. Jahn v. Jahn (1979), 179 Ind.App. 368, 385 N.E.2d 488. We will review the court's decision only for an abuse of discretion, Tucker v. Tucker (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 321, which oc......
-
U.S. Aircraft Financing, Inc. v. Jankovich
...the entire eight pages of the brief. Thus we may reverse if appellant has made a prima facie showing of reversible error. Jahn v. Jahn, (1979) Ind.App., 385 N.E.2d 488. This rule, however, is solely for the benefit of this court, Ligon Specialized Haulers, Inc. v. Hott, (1979) Ind.App., 384......