Roberts v. Pickett (In re Pickett)
| Decision Date | 23 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 29A02–1501–JP–9.,29A02–1501–JP–9. |
| Citation | 44 N.E.3d 756 |
| Parties | In re the PATERNITY OF Makayla Lauren PICKETT Gregg Roberts, Appellant–Respondent, v. Shonda Pickett, Appellee–Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Deborah K. Smith, Sugar Creek Law, Thorntown, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Andrea L. Ciobanu, Alex Beeman, Ciobanu Law, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
, Judge.
[1] Gregg Roberts (“Father”) appeals the trial court's order finding him in contempt for failing to pay child support to his child, Makayla Lauren Pickett (“Child”), and ordering him to contribute to her college expenses based on a motion filed by Shonda Pickett (“Mother”). As an initial matter, Father contends that the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions thereon are inadequate for appellate review. He also argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that Child repudiated him, requiring him to contribute half the balance remaining after Child's contribution toward college expenses is applied, basing his contribution toward college expenses on the cost of a private university rather than a public university, and ordering him to pay for college expenses incurred before Mother's motion for college expenses was filed. Finally, he asserts that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay part of the attorney's fees incurred by Mother as a sanction for being in contempt of court.
[2] We conclude that the trial court's findings and conclusions are adequate for our review. We also conclude the Father waived his argument that Child repudiated him and that the trial court did not err by ordering Father to pay half the remaining balance of Child's college expenses and part of Mother's attorney's fees. However, we conclude that the trial court erred by basing Father's contribution toward Child's college expenses on the costs of a private university rather than a public university and by ordering him to pay for college expenses incurred before Mother's motion was filed. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
[3] Child was born February 21, 1995, in Indianapolis. Mother filed a petition to establish Father's paternity and for child support. Father agreed to paternity, and Mother and Father agreed that Mother would have custody of Child and Father would exercise visitation. The trial court ordered Father to pay weekly child support of $78.00 and part of Child's uninsured medical expenses and purchase a life insurance policy on his own life with Child named as the beneficiary.
[4] Father exercised visitation with Child, but Mother and Father's relationship was hostile and turbulent. In 2001, following a custody evaluation by two doctors, the trial court issued an order in which it found that both parties engaged in conduct that was destructive to Child. The trial court ordered that Mother continue sole custody of Child conditioned upon her participation in reunification therapy with Father, that Father's visitation be as consistent as possible, and that the parties refrain at all times from speaking negatively about each other in or near Child's presence. Parents and Child engaged in reunification therapy, which was terminated by the counselor. Initially, Father exercised visitation with Child every other weekend and on Wednesdays, but at some point his visitation diminished.
[5] Child graduated from high school in the spring of 2013. Before Child graduated from high school, she and Father would go out to dinner every one or two weeks. At some point, Child informed Father that she was going to attend Butler University. Child's high school provided each graduate with six tickets to the graduation ceremony. Child offered Father one ticket. He accepted and attended her graduation. After Child graduated, they had no further contact with each other.1 In the autumn of 2013, Child began attending Butler.
[6] On February 18, 2014, Mother filed a motion for contempt and for college expenses. She alleged that Father had failed to pay child support and his share of Child's medical expenses and to maintain a life insurance policy. She also asked for “an Educational Support Order allocating the college expenses between the parties” and for attorney's fees. Appellant's App. at 73. On February 21, 2014, Child turned nineteen and became emancipated pursuant to statute.
[7] A hearing on Mother's motion was held. Mother's financial declaration showed that she earned a weekly gross income of $1393, or $72,436 a year. Petitioner's Ex. 6; Appellant's App. at 76. That amount does not include overtime. At the end of July 2014, Mother had grossed an additional $14,867.55 from overtime. Appellant's App. at 82–83. Mother testified that in the past she had earned over $80,000 with overtime. Tr. at 21
.
[8] Father's financial declaration showed that he had $0 income. Petitioner's Ex. 9; Appellant's App. at 94. Father's mother had ovarian cancer
, and his primary job was to take care of her. Tr. at 49. Father and his mother each owned a 50% interest in a company that rents storage units. Id. at 68–69. Approximately 60% of the storage units were occupied and producing rental income. Id. at 69. The company also had two rental locations. Id. at 68. One of the company's rental locations was lost to a fire in 2010. Id. at 46. Another location was leased to a restaurant, but the restaurant failed. Id. at 46–47. Father performed maintenance for the company. The company's rental income was held in a joint bank account with his mother. Father had monthly expenses of $3249.30, which were paid from this account. Appellant's App. at 96. Father earns some money selling things on Craigslist.
[9] Mother testified that the annual cost to attend Butler was approximately $49,000 per year. Tr. at 25
. Child's scholarships, grants, and financial aid covered about half that expense. Id. The actual cost of her first year at Butler was just under $23,000. Id. at 25–26; Petitioner's Ex. 4. Child testified that the annual cost to attend Ball State University, where she had also been accepted, was approximately $22,000, and her scholarships, grants, and financial aid would have covered about half the cost. Tr. at 38.
[10] On December 5, 2014, the trial court issued an order finding Father in contempt for failing to pay child support and his share of medical expenses. It found that Father owed $1630 in child support and $1612 for medical expenses and ordered him to pay these amounts within thirty days. As a sanction for his contempt, the court ordered Father to pay $2000 of Mother's attorney's fees. The trial court also found that Child, being over the age of nineteen, was emancipated. With regard to college expenses, the trial court found that Father “earns at least $3249 per month” and is voluntarily underemployed as he has chosen to care for his mother rather than seek additional employment or tend to the businesses that are currently paying his bills. Appellant's App. at 21. The trial court ordered that Child, Mother, and Father each be responsible for one-third of Child's college expenses. The trial court further ordered that Child's portion could be satisfied with her scholarships, grants, and work-study, and if these sources exceeded her portion, the surplus was to be applied toward reducing the total cost. The remaining balance was to be divided equally between Mother and Father. Father appeals.
[11] The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte.
Sua sponte findings only control issues that they cover, while a general judgment standard applies to issues upon which there are no findings. We may affirm a general judgment with findings on any legal theory supported by the evidence. As for any findings that have been made, they will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous if there are no facts in the record to support it, either directly or by inference.
Eisenhut v. Eisenhut, 994 N.E.2d 274, 276 (Ind.Ct.App.2013)
(citations omitted).
[12] Also, because we are dealing with family law matters, appellate review is conducted with “ ‘a preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges.’ ” Kicken v. Kicken, 798 N.E.2d 529, 532 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)
(quoting In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178, 178 (Ind.1993) ). “An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to order the payment of post-secondary educational expenses for an abuse of discretion.” Hirsch v. Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651, 662 (Ind.2012). The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances” before it. Id. In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment. Lovold v. Ellis, 988 N.E.2d 1144, 1150 (Ind.Ct.App.2013).
Section 1—The trial court's findings of fact are adequate for appellate review.
[13] As a threshold matter, Father contends that the parties did not submit verified postsecondary education worksheets and the trial court's findings are inadequate to justify and explain its judgment, and therefore remand is necessary for the trial court to enter more complete findings or to obtain the parties' verified postsecondary education worksheets. In support, Father cites Quinn v. Threlkel, 858 N.E.2d 665, 670–71 (Ind.Ct.App.2006)
, in which another panel of this Court concluded that remand was necessary because the trial court's findings were inadequate. There, the trial court made general findings setting each parent's percentage share of the child's college expenses and forbidding the child from taking out any additional student loans. Id. at 671. On appeal, the Quinn court noted that there were no findings regarding the estimated cost of the college, what percentage of the cost should be borne by the child, and what type of financial aid s...
To continue reading
Request your trial