Mourfield v. Mourfield

• Decision Date: 18 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 48A05–1111–DR–666.,48A05–1111–DR–666.
• Parties: Sandra MOURFIELD, Appellant–Respondent, v. Melvin MOURFIELD, Appellee–Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

969 N.E.2d 631

Sandra MOURFIELD, Appellant–Respondent,
v.
Melvin MOURFIELD, Appellee–Petitioner.

No. 48A05–1111–DR–666.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

June 18, 2012.

Appeal from the Madison Superior Court; The Honorable Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge; Cause No. 48D03–0609–DR–871.
Wesley D. Schrock, Anderson, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary

Sandra Mourfield (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's decision in favor of her former husband, Melvin Mourfield (“Father”). Mother contends that the trial court erred by granting Father's petition for modification of child support due to his retirement. We conclude that the trial court erred by decreasing Father's child-support obligation on the basis of his retirement and corresponding decrease in income because that retirement was necessitated by Father's intentional criminal misconduct. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

By February 2011, Father and Mother's relationship was strained and Father was charged with stalking Mother.¹ Shortly thereafter, the parties' marriage was dissolved, and Mother was granted legal and physical custody of the parties' two daughters. Father was ordered to pay $167 per week in child support.

When Father's employer, a railroad company, learned that Father had been charged with stalking Mother, they suspended him. See Tr. p. 38. The railroad company then asked Father, who was fifty-nine years old at the time, to retire. He agreed to do so. Id. (“So the railroad company basically pulled me out of service and forced me to retire.”). In March, Father filed a petition to modify his child-support obligation. He claimed that $167 per week was no longer an appropriate amount of child support because he had retired and his income was reduced. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order reducing Father's child-support obligation to $116 per week. No findings accompanied the trial court's order. Mother filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

At the outset, we note that Father did not file an appellee's brief. Under that circumstance, we do not undertake to develop the appellee's arguments. Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind.2011). Rather, we will reverse upon an appellant's prima facie showing of reversible error. Id.

Mother raises one issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred when it found that Father had shown a substantial and continuing change in circumstances that warranted a modification of support. Mother contends that Father committed an intentional act of criminal misconduct that caused the reduction in his income, and for this reason, it was error for the trial court to reduce Father's child-support obligation.

In reviewing a decision regarding a petition to modify child support, we will reverse if there is a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. ²Meredith v. Meredith, 854 N.E.2d 942, 947 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court, including any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id.

Indiana Code section 31–16–8–1, which governs the modification of support orders,...