Olson v. Olson, 2-881A264
| Docket Nº | No. 2-881A264 |
| Citation | 445 N.E.2d 1386 |
| Case Date | March 09, 1983 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 1386
v.
Marilyn OLSON, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Second District.
Page 1387
M. Anne Wilcox, Ralph Ogden, J. William DuMond, Wilcox, Ogden & DuMond, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Judith S. Proffitt, Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt, Carmel, for appellee.
SULLIVAN, Judge.
Charles Olson, respondent below (Father), appeals the trial court's judgment relating to his duty to pay child support to Marilyn Olson, petitioner below (Mother), on behalf of his son, Gary.
Father presents one issue for review: did the trial court err in refusing to credit child support payments paid for Gary after the son reached age twenty-one against child support arrearages accrued prior to that time?
On December 31, 1974, the marriage was dissolved. Under the terms of the decree, custody of the three minor children--Gary, Bruce and Brian--was awarded to Mother, and Father was ordered to pay periodic child support, i.e. weekly, "until further order of Court." Record at 6. Father was also ordered to pay the college expenses of the children of the marriage, including tuition, room, board, books and fees, for a period of time not to exceed four years.
In due course, Gary entered college as a full-time student. On July 18, 1979, while still in college, he reached age twenty-one. Father continued to pay Mother weekly child support for Gary. Thereafter, on January 23, 1980, after consideration of Father's request for clarification of the dissolution decree 1 and Mother's petition to modify, the trial court entered a "partial order" determining that Father was in arrears in child support for all the children and in Gary's college expenses. In addition,
Page 1388
the trial court ordered Father to continue to pay child support for all the children.Gary graduated from college on May 18, 1980. Thereafter, on June 4, 1980, Father filed his motion for correction of the "partial order" in which he alleged for the first time that, with respect to Gary, the obligation to pay periodic child support (but not educational expenses) terminated on Gary's twenty-first birthday. Father therefore requested that he be given credit against his outstanding arrearages for support payments made on behalf of Gary after July 18, 1979.
On November 3, 1980, the trial court accepted the parties' agreed entry which disposed of all issues except the treatment of Father's periodic support payments made for Gary after July 18, 1979. This issue the parties agreed to submit to the trial court. Thereafter, on March 9, 1981, the trial court made its final entry, finding Father "responsible for the support of Gary, to and including May 18, 1980." Record at 72. From this entry, Father appeals.
Determinations of proper child support are committed to judicial discretion. Howard v. Reeck (2d Dist.1982) Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 727; Inkoff v. Inkoff (3d Dist.1974) 159 Ind.App. 239, 306 N.E.2d 132. Such determinations will not be disturbed unless either an abuse of discretion or contrary to law. Inkoff v. Inkoff, supra; Draime v. Draime (1961) 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N.E.2d 70.
The child support statute provides in part:
"(d) The duty to support a child under this chapter ceases when the child reaches his twenty-first (21st) birthday unless:
(1) the child is emancipated prior to his twenty-first (21st) birthday in which case the child support, except for educational needs, terminates at the time of emancipation; however, an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court; or
(2) the child is incapacitated in which case the child support continues during the incapacity or until further order of the court." I.C. 31-1-11.5-12(d)
(West Ann.Code 1979) (hereinafter "Section 12(d)").
In this case there are two separate provisions in the dissolution decree relating to child support: one provides periodic payments for the general support expenses of the children and the other provides for each child's higher educational needs.
Under Section 12(d), the duty to provide payments for the general support expenses of a child terminates at age...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Hunter, No. 4-285A33
...court and depends upon the particular facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence in each case. Olson v. Olson (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 1386; Howard v. Reeck (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 727; In re Osborne (1977), Ind.App., 369 N.E.2d 653. The trial court's determination will not ......
-
Goold v. Goold, No. 4650
...(Fla.App.1984); Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So.2d 1153 (Fla.App.1980); Davis v. Davis, 251 Ga. 391, 306 S.E.2d 247 (1983); Olson v. Olson, 445 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind.App.1983); Peterson v. Peterson, 365 N.W.2d 315 (Minn.App.1985); Klinge v. Klinge, 663 S.W.2d 418 (Mo.App.1983); Hadford v. Hadford, ......
-
Sebastian v. Sebastian, No. 27A02-8702-CV-00085
...Again, we will not reverse the trial court's decision absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Olson v. Olson (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 1386. Custody, support and visitation are always issues before the trial court in a dissolution proceeding when a child of the parties exists. Dorsey......
-
Marriage of Davidson, In re, No. 15A01-8807-CV-210
...and circumstances before the trial court, including any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Olson v. Olson (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 1386. IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-12(a) sets forth the appropriate considerations governing the determination of child support as Sec. 12. (a) In an action......
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 4-285A33
...court and depends upon the particular facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence in each case. Olson v. Olson (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 1386; Howard v. Reeck (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 727; In re Osborne (1977), Ind.App., 369 N.E.2d 653. The trial court's determination will not ......
-
Goold v. Goold, 4650
...(Fla.App.1984); Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So.2d 1153 (Fla.App.1980); Davis v. Davis, 251 Ga. 391, 306 S.E.2d 247 (1983); Olson v. Olson, 445 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind.App.1983); Peterson v. Peterson, 365 N.W.2d 315 (Minn.App.1985); Klinge v. Klinge, 663 S.W.2d 418 (Mo.App.1983); Hadford v. Hadford, ......
-
Sebastian v. Sebastian, 27A02-8702-CV-00085
...Again, we will not reverse the trial court's decision absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Olson v. Olson (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 1386. Custody, support and visitation are always issues before the trial court in a dissolution proceeding when a child of the parties exists. Dorsey......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. v. Boyd, 32A01-9003-CV-132
...Gas to our case, we find that a purported cross-claim filed without leave of court is a procedural nonentity. Id.; Ohio Valley Gas, 445 N.E.2d at 1386. A defendant can assert a cross-claim against a co-defendant by amending his answer only if leave of court is granted pursuant to Ind.Trial ......