Staresnick v. Staresnick
| Decision Date | 12 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-0412-CV-1079.,49A02-0412-CV-1079. |
| Citation | 830 N.E.2d 127 |
| Parties | Michael STARESNICK, Appellant-Respondent, v. Julie STARESNICK, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Preston T. Breunig, Martha L. Westbrook, Buck, Berry, Landau, & Breunig, P.A., Indianapolis, for Appellant.
Janice R. Mandla, Carmel, for Appellee.
Appellant-Defendant, Michael Staresnick (Father), appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Julie Staresnick (Mother), requiring Father to pay half of the college expenses of their son, Brian Staresnick (Brian).
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Father raises five issues on appeal, which we restate as the following:
1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that Brian has not repudiated Father, and thus that Father has a continuing duty to pay Brian's college expenses;
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in denying Father's petition for modification of educational support;
3. Whether the trial court's judgment modifying Father's income withholding order to $149 per week is clearly erroneous;
4. Whether the trial court's judgment requiring Father to pay an outstanding balance of $3077.47 toward Brian's past college expenses is clearly erroneous; and
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding Father in contempt.
Father and Mother were divorced pursuant to a Final Decree of Dissolution dated April 17, 2000. On August 15, 2002, the trial court issued its Order on Modification (the August 15 Order), in which Father and Mother were each ordered to pay one-half of Brian's college expenses, including tuition, housing, fees, books, and school supplies. In the August 15 Order, Mother was also ordered to provide Father with copies of Brian's semester grades within ten days of receiving them and all college bills upon receipt.
During the 2002-03 school year, Brian attended Indiana University — Bloomington as a freshman. Brian then transferred to Ball State University for his sophomore year and attended classes during both semesters of the 2003-04 school year as well as attending summer school. He anticipates that it will take him three more years to obtain his B.A.
On May 8, 2004, Father filed his Verified Petition for Contempt Citation, and Motion to Terminate Educational Expenses Order and to Emancipate Minor Child, or Alternatively, for Modification. In the first count of his Petition, Father sought a contempt citation against Mother, contending that she has failed to provide him with copies of Brian's grades or college bills as required by the August 15 Order. In the second count of his Petition, Father requested termination of his obligation to pay Brian's college expenses as ordered by the August 15 Order and emancipation of Brian "for all purposes" on the ground that Brian had repudiated Father. (Appellant's Appendix p. 43). Finally, in the event the second count was not granted, Father requested in the third count of his Petition that the trial court modify his child support and college education obligation. On June 25, 2004, Mother filed her Verified Petition to Modify and For Rule to Show Cause.
On August 12, 2004, the trial court conducted a hearing on both petitions. On October 5, 2004, the trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, concluding that Brian has not repudiated Father, determining that both Mother and Father were in contempt, and ordering Father to pay the unpaid portion of his fifty percent of Brian's college expenses (the October 5 Order). The trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the October 5 Order read in pertinent part as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
...
6. The evidence establishes that Brian and Father have had little contact since the divorce. Specifically, Brian has spent very little, if any, evenings, weekends, holidays, vacation, or other one-on-one time with Father since the divorce.
...
8. It is obvious that Brian and [Father] do not have a good relationship with each other and the [c]ourt finds that their relationship is complicated [,] involving the poor relationships and poor communications between the parties as well as Brian's perception, rightly or wrongly, that [Father] is responsible for causing the deterioration of the marriage.
9. The [c]ourt finds that, at no time, did Brian completely refuse to have a relationship with Father. Brian had attempted several times to initiate contact between himself and Father and had requested meetings and to spend time together with Father. Brian's only request of Father was that Father's girlfriend not be included in the meetings between [F]ather and son....
10. Brian testified at the hearing that he wished to attempt to repair the parent-child relationship, that Brian did not believe the relationship between himself and [Father] was irretrievably broken, and that he was willing to attend counseling or have other meetings with Father....
...
12. Brian did not consult [Father] prior to making the decision to transfer to Ball State. There is some dispute as to whether Father had Brian's address or telephone number while Brian was at I[ndiana] U[niversity]. There is no dispute that Father did not have Brian's address during the past year while Brian was at Ball State; Brian stated that this is because he did not want Father to just "show up."
13. Brian admits to having only two (2) telephone conversations with Father in the last two years, and at least one of those calls involved asking Father for money. Brian also admits that he has told Father on different occasions that he did not want to see him anymore, that he did not respect him, that he did not like him very much, and that he was arrogant.
14. Brian testified that he did not intend to repudiate the relationship with Father, and that he wanted Father to support him financially. He considered asking Father to Dad's Day at Ball State last year, but decided against it feeling it would be too awkward. It is clear that Brian blames Father and Father's companion, Louise, for his parents' divorce. Brian testified that he did not want to go to lunch or dinner with father because he was afraid he would bring Louise.
15. In 2003, Father made an offer to Brian that they go to counseling to work on their relationship. Brian did not answer Father's offer. In [c]ourt, Brian testified that he did not want to go to counseling because he didn't see it as effective, it was unnatural, he did not enjoy it, and felt it was a burden. Neither Father nor Brian offered any alternatives for working on a relationship between them
...
30. Ball State estimates the total cost for a student to attend the 2004-2005 school year to be Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($15,500.00) for the average student. This includes fees, room, board, books, and miscellaneous expenses. Brian will be living in a fraternity and incurring less for housing expenses than included in the Ball State estimate, but board may be higher than Ball State estimates due to the fact the fraternity does not serve meals on weekends. Brian is expected to receive One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) in grants and Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500.00) in student loans.
...
32. Less grants and loans, Father's obligation remains at Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Seven 50/100 ($5,587.50).
...
34. Mother corresponded with Father on several occasions, providing Father with documentation showing the expenses which were being incurred either by Brian or on Brian's behalf and requesting that Father pay additional amounts toward the post-secondary educational expenses. Father refused to pay any additional amounts towards Brian's expenses than what was being withheld from his income. Mother testified that she was forced to obtain multiple loans to pay her share of the expenses, as well as Father's unpaid portion of the post-secondary expenses, thereby incurring additional debt and interest expenses due to Father's failure to pay his court-ordered fifty percent (50%) share of the expenses.
...
1. Brian has not repudiated his Father.
2. The issue has been raised that there is an ambiguity between paragraphs 7 and 12 of the [c]ourt's August 15, 2002 Order on Modification. The phrase "[t]he court sees no reason to deviate from the original decree that requires the parties to each pay one-half of the college expense" controls. Applying this rule, the [c]ourt finds that the income withholding order does not satisfy all of Father's obligations for college education expenses for the 2002-2004[sic] school year.
...
7. Historically, there has been a problem with Mother claiming reimbursement for bills which are not within the scope of the [c]ourt [o]rder. It was the intention of this [c]ourt that its August 15, 2002 Order of Modification be interpreted so that Father pay a fixed amount between the parties as to Father's obligation or whether expenses were within the scope of this [c]ourt's [o]rder, and no further requirement for this [c]ourt to make a determination as to what extraneous expenses submitted by Mother were within the scope of the [c]ourt [o]rder.
(Appellant's App. pp. 23-35). On November 4, 2004, Father filed his Verified Petition to Credit Overpayment of Child Support Toward College Education Expenses and a Motion to Correct Errors. On November 8, 2004, the trial court issued an Order denying both the petition and the motion.
Father now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
When the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52, we apply the following two-tiered standard of review: whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. Clark v. Crowe, 778 N.E.2d 835, 839 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). The trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Housing Authority City South Bend
...witnesses, but consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. We review conclusions of law de novo." Staresnick v. Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d 127, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). Jones claims that HASB violated both Title II of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et......
-
Schaffer v. Schaffer, 22A04-0709-CV-513.
...we must determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. Staresnick v. Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d 127, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), reh'g denied. The findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, if the recor......
-
Hammond v. Graoch Associates No. 52, L.P.
...witnesses, but consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. We review conclusions of law de novo. Staresnick v. Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d 127, 131 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citations omitted), reh'g This case requires us to determine whether Southtown applies retroactively to condemnati......
-
In Re: The Matter Of: Towne Dissolution, 68A05-1009-DR-585
...that Father's challenge amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence on appeal, we decline to do so. See Staresnick v. Staresnick, 830 N.E.2d 127, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).II. Sentence Upon finding Father in contempt for his willful failure to pay child support, the trial court ordered ......