Reynolds v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 29A04–1505–DR–265.,29A04–1505–DR–265. |
| Citation | 48 N.E.3d 387 (Table) |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Thomas Todd REYNOLDS, Appellant–Petitioner, v. Tricia REYNOLDS, Appellee–Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Ryan H. Cassman, Cathy M. Brownson Coots, Henke & Wheeler, P.C., Carmel, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Eric J. Benner, Laurie D. Johnson Richards, Boje, Pickering, Benner & Becker, Noblesville, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
BROWN
, Judge.
[1] Thomas Todd Reynolds (“Father”) appeals from the trial court's order finding him in contempt. We reverse.
[2] On January 8, 2010, the court entered a decree of dissolution which dissolved the marriage of Father and Tricia Reynolds (“Mother”) and ordered that Father pay child support of $351 per week. Section 3.1 of the decree provided in part:
For tax years 2010 and thereafter so long as he has a support obligation, [Father], upon written request from [Mother], shall make available for inspection, at the office of his counsel, or another mutually agreed upon location, his 1040 and all supporting schedules, W–2s, 1099s, and K–1s. Provided, however, at the time [Mother's] counsel reviews [Father's] 1040, [Father's] counsel shall be provided a copy of [Mother's] 1040 and all support schedules, W–2s, 1099s, and K–1s.
[3] In an Agreed Order of Modification, signed by the court on March 12, 2013, and file-stamped on March 13, 2013, the court ordered that Father pay child support of fifty-one dollars per week through the Indiana State Central Collection Unit (“ISCCU”), and also that:
In addition to the weekly child support obligation set forth above, Father shall also pay to Mother as child support 38% of 12% of the gross amount of all income he receives over and above $61,233 .00 annually, and $15,305.00 quarterly.[ 1 ] This shall be reconciled quarterly, and annually following the fourth quarter. Quarterly payments shall be paid directly to Mother rather than through the ISCCU. Father shall pay this income to Mother within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the quarter. The first applicable quarter is the first quarter of 2013, January–March. Father shall also concurrently provide documentation of his income and calculation to Mother, including, the means by which the payment was calculated.
[4] In March 2014, Mother served a request for production of documents on Father requesting copies of income tax returns for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 including W–2s, 1099s, and other documentation illustrative of Father's income for those years from all sources, evidence of Father's year-to-date income received from all sources, evidence of the cost of health insurance attributable to the parties and their children, if any, and certain other financial documents. In May 2014, Mother's counsel sent a letter to Father's counsel stating that it had been almost two months from the discovery request and he had not yet received a response.
[5] On June 5, 2014, Mother filed a motion to compel discovery stating that the documents requested had not been received and that Father should be held accountable for attorney fees incurred by Mother in making the motion. On June 13, 2014, the court granted Mother's motion to compel, ordered Father to respond to the request for production of documents by June 16, 2014, and scheduled a compliance hearing for July 22, 2014, which was later rescheduled for August 5, 2014. On July 22, 2014, Father filed a motion for a protective order prohibiting Mother from independently contacting his employer.2 On August 5, 2014, the court held a hearing3 and issued an order stating that, “[a]s there is no petition before the court for modification or contempt, the court finds that both parties' motions regarding discovery shall be denied as moot.” Appellant's Appendix at 46.
[6] On August 8, 2014, Mother filed a Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause requesting the court to order Father to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of the court's orders. Mother's motion for rule to show cause alleged in part that pursuant to the dissolution decree, Father is obligated to provide his tax returns, W–2s, 1099s, K–1s, and other appropriate financial documentation upon the request of Mother; that Father willfully and knowingly failed and/or refused to comply with the dissolution decree and the agreed order of modification; that Mother had specifically requested Father's income documentation and had provided him with a detailed request for production of documents; that Father had refused to provide that documentation in spite of the fact there were two current court orders obligating him to do so; and Father should be ordered to pay her attorney fees.
[7] On November 17, 2014, Mother filed a motion to compel discovery which stated that, on or about August 13, 2014, Father was served with her request for production of documents,4 which again requested copies of Father's income tax returns for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 including W–2s, 1099s, and other documentation illustrative of Father's income for those years from all sources; that on or about October 27, 2014, the parties met at the office of Father's counsel to inspect certain documents requested in the request for production of documents;5 and that, on or about October 28, 2014, counsel for Mother sent Father's counsel a letter outlining the documents which still had not been produced. Mother also argued that Father should be held accountable for her attorney fees. The October 28, 2014 letter by Mother's counsel attached to the motion to compel stated in part “[t]hank you very much for meeting us to exchange documents on October 27, 2014” and:
[8] On December 16, 2014, the court held a hearing. Counsel for Mother argued in part that the motion for rule to show cause was filed based on Father's refusal to comply with the dissolution decree and the agreed order of modification and that Mother had made numerous attempts to obtain information. Mother's counsel stated that a time for inspection of documents was scheduled and ultimately took place on October 27, 2014, that he met at the office of Father's counsel, that “what we were provided was two pages from the partnership K–1 for [Father's] law firm, no supporting schedules, we had nothing signed, we had numbers indicating income and expenses, nothing supporting what those expenses are,” and that “[m]y client believes that some personal expenses are included in that, things like a $900.00 a month car payment, other things that benefit [Father] personally, but as we stand here today with all of this activity we still haven't be[en] given access to those schedules which we[']re entitled to.” Transcript at 6–7. Mother's counsel further argued that, while it was mid-December 2014, Father had not filed his 2013 taxes yet and that he had “nothing with any reliability, nothing that is official to provide us with information with regard to what his income is for 2013.” Id. at 7. Mother's counsel asked the court to assist Mother in obtaining the information she had been seeking for months, and presented an exhibit showing Mother had incurred $5,565 in attorney fees in her effort to obtain the documents to which she was clearly entitled under the decree and the agreed order of modification. Her counsel requested the court to compel Father to provide his income information, to find Father in contempt, and to award Mother attorney fees, and argued that “[i]t shouldn't be this hard to get what the parties worked so hard to negotiate for in their agreement and here we are going through all of this to get that information.” Id. at 9.
[9] Counsel for Father argued that the motion for rule to show cause was filed on August 8, 2014, prior to the motion to compel discovery, that the inspection was not discussed until he suggested it in October 2014, that the first attempted inspection occurred on October 24, 2014, that Mother did not bring her documents, and that a second inspection was scheduled. Father's counsel argued that he did not hear at the inspection that there was a problem with the documents he produced, and that the agreed modification order “requires very specifically in addition to weekly child support [F]ather[']s going to pay bonus support, gross over gross” and that “[w]ell, [Father] unfortunately has not exceeded his quarterly amounts so he has not owed any bonus income.” Id. at 14. His counsel stated that Father provided the quarterly documentation on which his bonus income would have been calculated and provided his firm's profit receipts, his distributions, and his K–1 for 2013, and that, at the inspection, Father provided the 2013 K–1 and 2010 through 2012 tax returns. He requested the court to deny the rule to show cause, to dismiss the motion to compel, and to consider awarding attorney fees in favor of Father. In response, Mother's counsel argued that he still had not heard when he would receive legitimate information for 2013, that Mother is entitled to specific documents and schedules, which she has not received, and that the quarterly information provided by Father was totally unreliable with much of it blacked out or redacted.
[10] The court entered an order dated December 16, 2014, and file-stamped December 18, 2014, which noted in part that Section 3.1 of the dissolution decree provided that Father would make available for inspection, upon written request by Mother, his tax information, including any 1040, W–2, 1099, or K–1 forms and supporting...
To continue reading
Request your trial