McCormick v. McCormick

• Decision Date: 14 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. 22A05-0206-CV-289.,22A05-0206-CV-289.
• Citation: 780 N.E.2d 1220
• Parties: Stephen D. McCORMICK, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Helen A. McCORMICK, Appellee-Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

780 N.E.2d 1220

Stephen D. McCORMICK, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Helen A. McCORMICK, Appellee-Respondent.

No. 22A05-0206-CV-289.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

January 14, 2003.

John A. Kraft, Young, Lind, Endres & Kraft, New Albany, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Matthew J. Schad, Schad & Schad, P.C., New Albany, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

Stephen D. McCormick filed a petition with the trial court seeking revocation of his spousal maintenance obligation to his former wife, Helen A. McCormick. The trial court denied the petition for revocation and slightly modified Stephen's maintenance obligation. Stephen presents the following restated issue for review: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Stephen's request to revoke his spousal maintenance obligation?

We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that Stephen and Helen were married on June 22, 1968, and two children were born of the marriage. During the marriage, Helen was first diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in 1979. The marriage was subsequently dissolved on May 14, 1990, at a time when Helen was not working. In addition to other matters relating to child support and property division, the court also provided for spousal maintenance in the dissolution order as follows:

That the Court finds that [Helen] is presently disabled due to Multiple Sclerosis and [Stephen] should pay [Helen] the amount of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) a month beginning June 1, 1990, said amount payable to the Office of the Floyd Circuit Court Clerk until [Helen] receives disability from a governmental agency at which time a hearing will be held to determine an amount for maintenance, if any, to be paid.

Appendix at 156.

Although it was slightly modified from time to time, Stephen continued to pay maintenance to Helen.¹ On April 7, 1995, Stephen and Helen entered into an Agreed Modification, which confirmed an earlier emancipation of their daughter, declared their son to be emancipated, and ceased all child support obligations. In addition, the court-approved agreement provided:

All other terms and conditions of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, as modified, should remain in full force and effect, including, but not limited to, [Stephen's] responsibility to pay to [Helen] $500.00 per month in maintenance.

Appendix at 172. At the time of this agreement, Helen was working part-time at a temporary agency. Her inability to work full-time was based in part on both the unavailability of work and on her medical condition. Helen was also one month away from obtaining a degree in business management from Ivy Tech State College, which she received in May 1995.

Three years later, in May 1998, Helen began working full-time at the United States Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) in Jeffersonville, Indiana, as a statistical clerk. Helen worked at the Census Bureau consistently for several years, earning a salary of $22,531 by 2001 and receiving health insurance benefits. On January 25, 2002, however, Helen was laid off from the Census Bureau. She was not called back to the Census Bureau until May 15, 2002. Further, as of May 29, Helen expected to be laid off again on May 31, 2002.

On July 16, 2001, Stephen filed a verified petition to terminate and/or modify maintenance. After several delays and a change of venue from judge, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Stephen's petition on May 29, 2002.

At the hearing, Helen acknowledged that her medical condition has slightly improved since her divorce and that she was now able to work full time. Helen explained that her physical limitations still include instability, limited mobility,² and inability to lift objects over five or ten pounds. She further noted that MS causes her loss of bladder control, nervousness, and difficulty concentrating. Helen testified that while there are higher paying jobs within the Census Bureau, they are not available to her because of her health condition. With respect to the Census Bureau, Helen testified that there is no guarantee that she will be called back to work and that her job prospects in the economy at large are "very much" limited due to her physical limitations. Transcript at 19. Helen further explained that despite her degree from Ivy Tech, she has not found any companies that would like to hire her, a fifty-two-year-old woman with MS, into their management structure.

At the time of the hearing, Helen was living in a mobile home that she was in the process of purchasing on contract. The parties' twenty-six-year-old son was living with her free of charge. When asked if she needed the maintenance payments, Helen replied, "It helps out quite a bit now that Doug's going to be living with me again. It will help out on the grocery bill." Transcript at 24. Helen acknowledged, however, that if she were to keep her job at the Census Bureau, she could probably support herself if Doug were not living with her.³

Stephen testified that his employment situation had recently changed. The Phillip Morris plant in which he worked closed in 2000, and Stephen opted to take early retirement. Prior to the plant closure, Stephen had been earning on average between $54,000 and $70,000 per year at Phillip Morris. Stephen received income of over $96,000 in 2000, which reflected his early retirement payout. In addition to his severance package, he earns $2,230.20 per month in retirement income. Stephen held a seasonal part-time job for a few months following his early retirement. While he was unemployed at the time of the hearing, Stephen testified that he planned to obtain another part-time job. At age fifty-two, Stephen explained that he did not intend to look for full-time employment saying, "Well, to be honest with you, I think I deserve it." Transcript at 50. Finally, Stephen acknowledged that his current wife's income makes it easier for him to plan not to work full time.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court made the following oral judgment:

You, yourself said that your MS has gotten better than it was ten years ago.

That's unusual. I think they have made some strides with medication with that. So that's a bit interesting. Um, I'm going to rule this way. I think it's the fairest thing to do. Um, when she is employed at a rate she is capable of being employed at. Uh, I think it was like $22,000.00 a year. She should still receive a $300.00 a month maintenance. In the times in which she is not employed, though I think it should remain at $500.00. Now, not employed can be laid off or the illness. Maybe she cannot—then it goes back to the original amount. And that's—seems to me to be fair at this particular point.

Transcript at 57. The trial court entered a written order on June 10, 2002, which provides in relevant part:

1. That [Stephen] shall continue to pay maintenance in the sum of $500.00 per month to [Helen] in those months when [Helen] is unable to work full time.

2. That [Stephen] shall pay maintenance in the amount of $300.00 per month for any month in which [Helen] is working full time.

* * *

Appendix at 12. Stephen now appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to terminate maintenance.

A trial court 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 each case." In re Marriage of Dillman, 478 N.E.2d 86, 88 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). We will find an abuse of discretion only where 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. Lowes v. Lowes, 650 N.E.2d 1171.

The trial court awarded incapacity maintenance to Helen in 1990 pursuant to Ind. Code Ann. § 31-15-7-2(1) (West 1998). Under that provision, a trial court may award maintenance if it finds the spouse to be "physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the incapacitated spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected[.]" Id. The burden is on the party moving for a subsequent modification of the maintenance award to show "changed circumstances so substantial and continuing" as to make the terms of the existing maintenance order unreasonable. IC § 31-15-7-3(1) (West 1998); see also Boruff v. Boruff, 602 N.E.2d 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1992)

.

Stephen argues that the only logical conclusion from the evidence presented at the hearing is that there have been changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms of the present maintenance obligation unreasonable. In particular, he observes that since entry of the 1995 modification, Helen has obtained a college degree, has worked full time for several years at the Census Bureau with a current salary of $22,531, has employer-provided health insurance coverage, and can now support herself. Stephen notes further that his employment situation has changed due to the plant closure.

On the other hand, Helen contends that the trial court's judgment is amply supported by evidence that her MS materially affects her job opportunities, both at the Census Bureau and with other employers. With respect to Stephen's economic circumstances,...