Lowes v. Lowes
| Citation | 650 N.E.2d 1171 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 67A01-9411-CV-362,67A01-9411-CV-362 |
| Parties | Grace B. LOWES, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward J. LOWES, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Delbert H. Brewer, Greencastle, for appellant.
Bruce D. Brattain, Brattain, Minnix & Young, Indianapolis, for appellee.
In this appeal we consider the relationship between a spousal maintenance obligation under the Dissolution of Marriage Act and an incapacitated spouse's eligibility for Medicaid. Grace B. Lowes appeals from the trial court's order terminating the obligation of her former husband, Edward J. Lowes, to provide spousal maintenance.
We reverse and remand.
The issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated all spousal maintenance based upon a finding that, without such maintenance, the disabled spouse could qualify for Medicaid.
Grace and Edward were married on October 1, 1966. There were two children born of the marriage. During the last 11 years of the marriage, Grace suffered from multiple sclerosis and became totally disabled as a result of the disease. The parties separated in early 1985, and the 19-year marriage of the parties was dissolved on January 29, 1986.
The parties reached a settlement agreement which was incorporated into the dissolution decree. The agreement provided in pertinent part:
10. That the Respondent is physically and mentally incapacitated to the extent that she cannot support herself and it is necessary for the Petitioner to provide for her continued maintenance in accordance with the provisions of IC 31-1-11.5-11(e)(1), subject to the further order of the court.
Record at 6. Accordingly, the agreement required Edward to make spousal maintenance payments to Grace in the amount of $100.00 per week. The agreement also provided that Edward would be responsible for all of Grace's uninsured medical expenses. At the time of dissolution, Grace was eligible for Medicare, and she continued to be insured under a policy provided by Edward's employer.
On December 31, 1993, Edward's employer changed health insurance providers which resulted in the termination of the private health insurance which had previously covered most of Grace's medical expenses. Due to the loss of coverage, Edward filed his petition to modify the decree of dissolution. After a hearing, the trial court entered findings which read in pertinent part as follows:
3. The respondent suffers from multiple sclerosis, was incapacitated at the time of the entry of the Decree of Dissolution and her incapacity continues at this time.
* * * * * *
7. The termination of health care coverage which covered the Respondent constitutes a substantial and continuing change in the circumstances of the parties which warrants a change in the maintenance obligations of the Petitioner. The Dissolution Decree is subject to modification even though it was entered into by agreement of the parties.
8. The Respondent currently receives Medicare benefits which provide for approximately 80% of her medical needs. The Respondent's medical needs vary from approximately $10,000 to as much as $14,000 per year.
9. Medicaid benefits are also available in Missouri, where the Respondent resides with her mother, and it provides 100% coverage for the medical needs of qualified applicants.
10. The Respondent would be eligible for Medicaid coverage if her income was below $446.00 per month and her assets were valued at less than $1,000.00.
11. The Respondent's current income is approximately $1,047 per month and her assets are valued at approximately $44,575.
12. If the Respondent's guardian or attorney-in-fact pursued what is commonly known as a "spend down" of Respondent's assets the Respondent could meet the asset and income requirements and admittance into the Medicaid program.
13. If the Petitioner's maintenance obligation was terminated the Respondent's income would drop to approximately $617 per month, thereby minimizing the amount of spend down required to meet the Medicaid income requirement.
14. The Petitioner will be unable to continue to meet the financial obligations currently imposed by the Dissolution Decree if the decree is not modified at this time.
* * * * * *
16. Based upon a review of the totality of the circumstances of the parties, the Court finds that it is fair and equitable to terminate the maintenance obligations of the Petitioner because the Respondent has the present ability to take appropriate steps to qualify for Medicaid coverage.
Record at 14-16 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The trial court then entered its order terminating Edward's spousal maintenance obligation.
A trial court has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award, and we will reverse only upon an abuse of that discretion. Myers v. Myers (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 39, 42. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id. An abuse of discretion will also be found when the trial court has misinterpreted the law or when the trial court disregards evidence of factors listed in the controlling statute. Id.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement the trial court awarded spousal maintenance to Grace. A provision for maintenance is subject to modification whether it is based upon the decree of the court or upon an agreement of the parties. Roberts v. Roberts (1994), Ind.App., 644 N.E.2d 173, 177. The burden is on the party moving for modification to show "changed circumstances so substantial and continuing" as to make the previous maintenance order unreasonable. IND.CODE § 31-1-11.5-17(a); see Baker v. Baker (1990), Ind.App., 552 N.E.2d 525, 528, trans. denied.
In determining whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred which renders the original award of maintenance unreasonable, a trial court should consider the factors underlying the original award. Roberts, 644 N.E.2d at 178. Those factors include the financial resources of the party seeking to continue the maintenance, the standard of living established in the marriage, the duration of the marriage, and the ability of the spouse from whom the maintenance is sought to meet his or her needs while meeting those of the other spouse seeking maintenance. Id.
Here, the underlying medical and economic circumstances which supported the original maintenance award remained essentially unchanged. Grace continued to be totally and permanently incapacitated due to multiple sclerosis. Edward continued to be gainfully employed, and while his salary increases over the years were not substantial, his earnings had steadily increased since the original decree. Further, in the original decree Edward was awarded custody of the parties' twin sons, but at the time of the hearing on the petition to modify the sons were 24-years old and emancipated.
Edward's petition to modify was prompted by one event, the loss of his employer-provided health insurance coverage for Grace. The trial court found, and we agree, that the termination of that coverage constituted a substantial and continuing change in circumstances which warranted modification of Edward's maintenance obligation. While Grace receives Medicare coverage for approximately 80% of her medical costs, under the original decree 20% of those costs remained Edward's responsibility. In considering modification, the trial court concluded that due to the loss of coverage, Edward would be unable to continue to meet his obligation to pay Grace's uninsured medical expenses. The court determined that if Edward's maintenance obligation were terminated completely, Medicaid benefits could be available to Grace that would provide 100% coverage for all of her medical needs.
Nevertheless, Grace argues that the loss of health insurance, in itself, was insufficient to show a change in circumstances so substantial and continuing as to justify the termination of all spousal maintenance. Specifically, Grace asserts that the court abused its discretion when it based its decision upon the fact that if maintenance were terminated rather than simply modified, she could qualify for public assistance in the form of Medicaid.
The purpose of the Medicaid program is to provide medical assistance to needy persons whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the expenses of health care. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.; Harris v. McRae (1980), 448 U.S. 297, 301, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2680, 65 L.Ed.2d 784, 794. States participating in the Medicaid program must establish "reasonable standards ... for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance under the plan...." 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17).
To be eligible for Medicaid in Missouri, where Grace resides, an individual cannot exceed a minimum monthly income and cannot have total assets valued at more than $1,000.00. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 208.010.2(4) (1986). At the time of the modification hearing, the trial court found that Grace had a monthly income of $1,047.00 and assets valued at approximately $44,575.00. The court determined that if Grace followed a procedure commonly referred to as a "spend down" 1 of her assets, she could become eligible for Medicaid in Missouri. Record at 15. The court further determined it was necessary to terminate Edward's weekly maintenance payments so that Grace's monthly income would decline and would not exceed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlberg by Carlberg
- Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n., Inc. v. Reyes
- Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Reyes
-
McCormick v. McCormick
...has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award, and we will reverse only upon an abuse of that discretion. Lowes v. Lowes, 650 N.E.2d 1171 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). "Discretion is a privilege afforded a trial court to act in accord with what is fair and equitable under the facts of eac......