Reinhart v. Reinhart
| Citation | 938 N.E.2d 788 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 36A01-1006-DR-276.,36A01-1006-DR-276. |
| Parties | Kerry REINHART, Appellant-Respondent, v. Kelli REINHART, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Travis J. Thompson, Farrow & Thompson, P.C., Seymour, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
R. Patrick Magrath, Alcorn Goering & Sage, LLP, Madison, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Kerry Reinhart ("Father") appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to modify child support ordered pursuant to a decree dissolving his marriage to Kelli Reinhart ("Mother"). We consider two issues on review:
We affirm.
On October 17, 2008, Mother filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Father. Pursuant to a trial court order, the parties, pro se, participated in mediation. As a result of mediation, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"), which was filed with their waiver of final hearing. The Agreement provides, in relevant part:
Appellant's App. at 8-10 (emphasis added). On January 2, 2009, the court entered a decree dissolving the parties' marriage ("Decree"), which incorporated the Agreement.
On January 11, 2010, Father filed a petition to modify child support. In that petition, he alleged a substantial change in circumstances based in part on the fact that the child support obligation in the Decree differs by more than twenty percent from the amount set by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Following an evidentiary hearing on February 18, the court denied Father's petition.
On March 16, Father filed a motion to correct error, and on March 18, the court ordered the parties to submit evidence of who receives the mortgage interest tax deduction. On April 29, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to correct error. The court took the matter under advisement, and then, on May 11, entered an order denying the motion. Father now appeals.
Father contends that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it denied his petition to modify child support. In particular, he argues that the trial court ignored the plain language of the statute governing the modification of child support. As such, Father frames the issue asa question of statutory construction. But we need not construe the statute. We conclude that Father may not take advantage of his own error, if any, in agreeing to a support amount greater than that provided by the Guidelines.
The modification of child support orders is controlled by Indiana Code Section 31-16-8-1. That statute provides, in relevant part:
Indiana Code Section 31-16-8-1 sets out alternative methods of seeking modification—compliance with Subsection (1) or, in the alternative, compliance with Subsection (2). In support of his motion to modify support, Father argued both a substantial change in circumstances, under Subsection (1), as well as a twenty-percent differential from the Guideline support amount in a request filed more than one year after the prior order, under Subsection (2). On appeal Father argues that he was required to demonstrate only one of these alternatives to qualify for a modification of child support and that he met his burden by showing that the existing support order is more than one year old and differs by more than twenty percent from the Guideline support amount. Relying on Hay v. Hay, 730 N.E.2d 787 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), Mother counters that, under either subsection, Father was required to show a substantial change in circumstances because he seeks modification from a support order entered pursuant to a mediated agreement.1 We agree with Mother.
Under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct. See Baugh v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (Ind.2010). That doctrine is grounded on estoppel. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind.2005). Here, Father agreed to pay as child support the mortgage, insurance, and taxes on Wife's home. In the Agreement, Father acknowledged that "this amount is in substantial compliance with the Indiana Child Support Guidelines." Appellant's App. at 9.
Father does not contend that he was unaware that the support amount he agreed to pay exceeded the guideline amount. Thus, he cannot now be heard to complain that support should be modified because the amount he agreed to pay differs by more than twenty percent from the guideline amount. That is not to say that Father may never petition for modification of child support. Rather, because he agreed to the support amount, Father may demonstrate grounds for modification only if he can show a substantial and continuing change in circumstances.
Our reasoning is in keeping with this court's decision in Hay. There, the parties' dissolution decree approved and incorporated a settlement agreement regarding custody, child support, and property settlement. In that agreement, the father had agreed to pay $50 weekly in child support, to carry medical insurance on the children, to pay all uninsured medical bills of the children, and to pay for the children's college educations. Eight years later, on October 16, 1996, the court modified the decree pursuant to the parties' agreement to increase the father's weekly support amount to $125, to require the mother to obtain medical insurance, and to divide the children's uninsured medical bills between the parties. Then, on July 30, 1999, the father filed a petition to modify child support, alleging that the intent of one child to enroll in college constituted a substantial change in circumstances and that the agreed support order differed by more than twenty percent from the guideline amount.
The trial court denied the father's petition to modify child support and, on appeal, we affirmed. Id. at 796. On the issue of modification based on the fact that the support amount differed by more than twenty percent from the guideline amount, this court reasoned:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Pickett (In re Pickett)
...that Father waived this argument because he failed to report any income and therefore invited any error. See Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (“[A] party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own ne......
-
Trabucco v. Trabucco
...of potential income, Husband invited the error by failing to present sufficient evidence of his actual income. See Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is......
-
P.P. v. J.C.
...for “seeking modification—compliance with Subsection (1) or, in the alternative, compliance with Subsection (2).” Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). The petitioning party “bears the burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification.” P......
-
Moell v. Moell
...Supreme Court stated in Meehan v. Meehan , 425 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. 1981), superseded by statute as stated in Reinhart v. Reinhart , 938 N.E.2d 788, 793 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), "the fact that a child support order has been entered pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, even where, a......