IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF: Melissa Martell v. Michael Martell (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •       MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                                      FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                  Mar 27 2018, 8:46 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                      and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Debra Lynch Dubovich
    Levy & Dubovich
    Merrillville, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF:                                 March 27, 2018
    Melissa Martell,                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
    45A03-1709-DR-2114
    Appellant,
    Appeal from the Lake Superior
    v.                                              Court
    The Honorable Elizabeth F.
    Michael Martell,                                        Tavitas, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    Appellee.
    45D03-1309-DR-701
    Barnes, Judge.
    Case Summary
    [1]   Me.M. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order denying her request for
    permission to apply certain found monies to Mi.M.’s (“Father”) purported child
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018            Page 1 of 15
    support arrearage and awarding attorney fees to Father. We affirm in part and
    reverse in part with instructions.
    Issues
    [2]   The issues before us are:
    I.      whether the trial court erred in denying Mother’s request
    for permission to apply certain found monies to Father’s
    purported child support arrearage; and
    II.     whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to
    Father.
    Facts
    [3]   On January 9, 2009, Mother and Father opened a joint account (“Account”) for
    the benefit of their minor child, M.M. Mother filed for divorce on September 3,
    2013. At that time, the parties agreed to sweep the existing Account balance
    into an investment account for the benefit of all three of the parties’ children.
    When the parties appeared for a final hearing on February 25, 2015, the
    Account balance was $2.19. Pursuant to the divorce decree entered on May 19,
    2015, Father’s imputed weekly gross income was $2,000.00, and he was to pay
    $327.00 each week in child support. The decree did not require either party to
    maintain or contribute to the Account.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 2 of 15
    [4]   The parties’ post-divorce relationship is not amicable, and they do not speak to
    one another.1 After finalization of the divorce, Father began to use the Account
    “as [his] own savings account.” Tr. Vol. II p. 55. It is undisputed that he made
    all post-decree deposits, totaling approximately $46,500, to the Account.
    [5]   In January 2016, an allegation of abuse was made against Father, resulting in a
    Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) investigation by the Lake County
    Department of Child Services and criminal charges. Father lost his job because
    of the allegation. He secured new employment in May 2016, but he lost that
    job months later because of the allegation. Father subsequently stopped paying
    child support. He collected unemployment benefits for twenty-five weeks
    during the pendency of the post-decree period. Although Father earned over
    $38,000 during that period, he paid virtually no child support. Father asked the
    trial court to modify child support at each change in his income during the
    pendency. After pending for almost a year, the criminal charges were dismissed
    on the eve of Father’s scheduled trial in December 2016.
    [6]   On January 23, February 3, and June 15, 2017, the trial court conducted
    hearings on various pending petitions, including
    Father’s Petition to Modify [Parenting Time and Child Support]
    filed on May 3, 2016; Mother’s Petition to Modify and/or
    Suspend and Restrict Parenting Time and Mother’s Petition for
    Contempt Citation and Rule to Show Cause, both filed on May
    [1]   1
    As the trial court stated, “At the time of the divorce, this family experienced destructive conflict.” App.
    Vol. II p. 90.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018                Page 3 of 15
    11, 2016; and Father’s Amended Petition for Modification filed
    on May 15, 2017.
    
    Id. at 87.
    Among the questions before the trial court were: (1) whether Father
    was in contempt of court for failing to pay child support; (2) whether Father’s
    child support obligation should be modified; and (3) whether either party
    should be ordered to pay attorney fees.
    [7]   On June 20, 2017, Mother discovered a balance of nearly $9,500 in the
    Account. On advice of her counsel, who contemporaneously advised Father’s
    lawyer in writing, Mother withdrew the money and delivered it via a cashier’s
    check to her counsel. Mother’s counsel provided a copy of the cashier’s check
    to Father’s counsel and inquired as to the source of the money. It is undisputed
    that the money in the Account was placed there by Father; however, Mother
    refused to return the money. The next day, she filed a request for permission to
    apply the found money in the Account to Father’s purported child support
    arrearage and to her attorney fees. In his response, Father requested an
    emergency hearing, immediate return of the money for his basic living expenses
    and debts, sanctions against Mother, and attorney fees.
    [8]   On June 30, 2017, Father filed a petition to dismiss his petition for modification
    of custody because he could not afford to incur further attorney fees. On July 3,
    2017, Mother moved that Father’s petition for dismissal be granted with
    prejudice and that he be ordered to pay her attorney fees because her counsel
    had already expended considerable time and effort on hearing preparation. On
    July 6, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on Mother’s petition to apply
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 4 of 15
    the found monies to Father’s child support arrearage and for attorney fees. At
    the close of the hearing, the trial court denied Mother’s petition, granted
    Father’s motion to dismiss his petition for modification, and ordered Mother to
    pay Father’s attorney fees.
    [9]   On August 14, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on the parties’ cross-
    motions for attorney fees. During the hearing, counsel for Mother argued that
    she had prepared extensively for the hearing on Father’s petition for
    modification. She also stated,
    Your Honor what I would like to have marked as Petitioner’s
    Exhibit 2 and offered into evidence is a business record affidavit
    proving the authenticity of my client’s paycheck, I believe this
    exhibit was entered into evidence in another hearing, um without
    objection, um for the record so that the Court has evidence of my
    client’s income and income earning ability.
    
    Id. at 88.
    Counsel for Father countered that Father had pursued his petition for
    modification in good faith, but could not afford, amid his ongoing financial
    troubles, to incur additional attorney fees after Mother’s unanticipated seizure
    of his money from the Account. Counsel for Father argued,
    [W]hat counsel wants to ignore is her client’s action and this all
    happening at the last moment and that’s because [Mother] took
    money out of my client’s account two weeks, or a week before
    the hearing and so when [dismissal of Father’s petition to
    modify] happens at the last minute that’s because of Mother’s
    own actions.
    See 
    id. at 107.
    That same day, the trial court entered its order, stating:
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 5 of 15
    1.      Father’s Verified Motion to Dismiss Petition for
    Modification of Custody is hereby granted without prejudice, but
    Mother’s Request for Attorney Fees associated with same, and as
    set forth herein, remains pending.
    2.     This Court denies Mother’s Petition and grants Father’s
    Petition.
    *****
    4.    If there is a child support arrearage, it has not yet been
    determined and, even if it had been determined, there are certain
    procedures that need to be followed.
    5.     Mother or Mother’s attorney shall tender Father’s check to
    Father or Father’s attorney. Father’s attorney acknowledges
    receipt of same.
    6.    Father’s request for payment of attorney fees is hereby
    granted. The law firm of Sterba & Swope, LLP, is hereby given a
    judgment against Mother for the amount of One Thousand Eight
    Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,800.00).
    7.    Mother’s Request for Costs and Attorney Fees due to
    Father’s dismissal of his Petition for Modification of Custody is
    hereby set for [hearing on August 14, 2017].
    App. Vol. II pp. 17-18.
    On September 27, 2017, the trial court entered its order on the motions heard at
    the January 23, February 3, and June 15, 2017 hearings. The court determined,
    inter alia, that Father was in willful contempt for his “failure to pay even
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 6 of 15
    minimal child support when he was able to[;] Father was employed at times
    and did receive unemployment benefits when he was unemployed.” 
    Id. at 99.
    The trial court modified Father’s support obligation as of May 6, 2016;
    determined that he owed a total arrearage of $10,408; found Father in contempt
    for non-payment of support, but stayed any punishment as long as Father
    stayed current on child support; and ordered Father to apply his tax refunds to
    the arrearage. Mother now appeals the trial court’s orders from the July 6, 2017
    and August 14, 2017.
    Analysis
    I.       Account
    [10]   Mother argues that the trial court erred by denying her petition to apply the
    money in the Account to Father’s child support arrearage. At the outset, we
    note that Father has not filed an appellate brief. “When an appellee fails to
    submit an appellate brief, ‘we need not undertake the burden of developing an
    argument on the [a]ppellee’s behalf.’” C.H. v. A.R., 
    72 N.E.3d 996
    , 1001 (Ind.
    Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 
    5 N.E.3d 753
    , 758 (Ind.
    2014)). Instead, we apply a less stringent standard of review with respect to
    showings of reversible error. “We will reverse the trial court’s judgment if the
    appellant’s brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Zoller v. Zoller, 
    858 N.E.2d 124
    , 126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). In this context, prima facie error “is
    defined as[ ] at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” 
    Id. Court of
    Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 7 of 15
    [11]   We review child support issues for an abuse of discretion, with a “preference for
    granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” Kirk
    v. Kirk, 
    770 N.E.2d 304
    , 307 (Ind. 2002). Regarding the latter, this Court has
    expressed the importance of appellate deference in family law matters:
    Appellate deference to the determinations of our trial court
    judges, especially in domestic relations matters, is warranted
    because of their unique, direct interactions with the parties face-
    to-face, often over an extended period of time. Thus enabled to
    access credibility and character through both factual testimony
    and intuitive discernment, our trial judges are in a superior
    position to ascertain information and apply common sense,
    particularly in the determination of the best interests of the
    involved children.
    Best v. Best, 
    941 N.E.2d 499
    , 502 (Ind. 2011). Appellate courts “are in a poor
    position to look at a cold transcript of the record, and conclude that the trial
    judge, who saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor, and scrutinized their
    testimony as it came from the witness stand, did not properly understand the
    significance of the evidence.” 
    Kirk, 770 N.E.2d at 307
    (quoting Brickley v.
    Brickley, 
    247 Ind. 201
    , 204, 
    210 N.E.2d 850
    , 852 (1965)).
    [12]   Mother contends that a “lien for the delinquent child support” arose by
    operation of law from Father’s period of non-payment and that the trial court
    “abused its discretion when it refused to recognize the child support lien, [and]
    ordered the [money in the Account] to be paid to the Father who was
    delinquent in his child support obligation.” Appellant’s Br. pp. 12-13.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 8 of 15
    [13]   Indiana Code Section 31-16-16-2 states that “[a] payment that is: (1) required
    under a support order; and (2) delinquent . . . shall be treated as a judgment
    against the obligor for the delinquent amount.” Indiana Code Section 31-16-12-
    4 provides, “Upon application to the court for enforcement of an order for
    support, the court may: (1) enforce a judgment created under IC 31-16-16-2 . . .
    against the person obligated to pay support; (2) issue an income withholding
    order as provided in IC 31-16-15-0.5 ; or (3) implement an income withholding
    order as provided in IC 31-16-15-2.”
    [14]   Mother relies upon the foregoing statutes in support of her claim of abuse of
    discretion. Her reliance is misplaced. Neither statute authorizes such self-help
    as Mother employed under the instant facts; rather, the statutes permit trial
    courts to fashion remedies tailored to the unique circumstances before them.
    [15]   Here, although Father did not pay child support in accordance with the parties’
    divorce decree, the record also reveals that during 2016, he faced criminal
    charges and unemployment because of serious allegations levied against him.
    As the trial court found,
    It is the Court’s opinion that . . . based upon the evidence, Father
    did not sexually abuse his daughter. The evidence presented
    indicates no wrong doing [sic] on Father’s part. Absolutely no
    evidence was presented to suggest Father touched any of the
    children for sexual gratification. . . . [O]nly a suspicious or a
    malicious interpretation would lead to an allegation of sexual
    abuse.
    See App. Vol. II p. 98.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 9 of 15
    [16]   Also, the record establishes that, at the time of the hearing on July 6, 2017, the
    trial court had, under advisement, Father’s long-pending petition for
    modification, wherein he sought a determination as to, among other things,
    whether he was eligible for a reduction of his child support obligation and
    whether Mother owed him child support considering his changed financial
    circumstances. As the trial court rightly noted in its order, the matter of
    whether Father owed an arrearage under the changed circumstances was a yet-
    unanswered question before the trial court. See App. Vol. II p. 18 (“If there is a
    child support arrearage, it has not yet been determined and, even if it had been
    determined, there are certain procedures that need to be followed.”). The trial
    court did not determine the amount of Father’s arrearage until September 27,
    2017, when contemporaneously specified arrearage repayment duties, terms,
    and penalties for Father. Mother was not entitled to unilaterally seize the
    Account money to pay a support arrearage that was not yet found to exist. We
    cannot say that trial court abused its discretion in denying Mother’s petition to
    apply the Account money to Father’s child support arrearage.
    II.     Attorney Fees
    [17]   Mother also argues that the trial court erred in awarding Father attorney fees
    regarding his long-pending petition for modification, which he ultimately
    moved to dismiss. In post-dissolution proceedings, the trial court may order a
    party to pay a reasonable amount toward an opposing party’s attorney fees and,
    in general, the decision to grant or deny fees is left to the sound discretion of the
    trial court. Bartlemay v. Witt, 
    892 N.E.2d 219
    , 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 10 of 15
    will reverse a determination regarding attorney fees in family law matters only
    upon a showing of a clear abuse of that discretion. Bean v. Bean, 
    902 N.E.2d 256
    , 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
    In determining whether to award attorney fees, the trial court
    must consider the parties’ resources, their economic condition,
    their ability to engage in gainful employment, and other factors
    that bear on the award’s reasonableness. The trial court,
    however, need not cite the reasons for its determination.
    [18]   
    Id. “The trial
    court may also consider any misconduct by one party that causes
    the other party to directly incur additional fees.” In re Paternity of M.R.A., 
    41 N.E.3d 287
    , 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). When one party is in a superior position
    to pay fees over the other party, an award of attorney fees is proper. 
    Id. at 127-
    28. Here, given Father’s failure to file an appellee’s brief, “we will reverse the
    trial court’s judgment if Mother’s brief presents a case of prima facie error.”
    C.H. v. 
    A.R., 72 N.E.3d at 1001
    .
    [19]   Mother contends that “[n]either party requested that the trial court take judicial
    notice of any evidence or testimony about the parties’ financial conditions or
    economic resources from the previous hearings”; and that the trial court “heard
    no evidence” about the “financial resources or economic conditions of the
    Mother” or regarding “Father’s ability to engage in gainful employment or to
    earn adequate income.” Appellant’s Br. p. 16.
    [20]   At the August 14, 2017 hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for attorney fees,
    and at various other interrelated post-decree hearings, the parties presented
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 11 of 15
    evidence regarding their respective economic resources, financial standing, and
    other relevant circumstances, and the trial court took judicial notice thereof, as
    evidenced by the following colloquy on cross-examination of Father:
    [Counsel for Mother]:    Now during the course of this case, at
    various times, we have exchanged income information, is that
    correct?
    [Father]:        Yes.
    [Counsel for Mother]:    And you’ve received information
    about my client’s wages and earnings, correct?
    [Father]:        Yes.
    [Counsel for Mother]:    And my client earned approximately
    Fifty Five Thousand Dollars last year, is that correct?
    ***
    [Father]:     [I] . . . can’t remember exactly, I thought it was
    closer to Sixty, but I mean I’m sure you have the accurate
    information.
    [Counsel for Mother]:    Alright . . . but you do recall that you
    earned more than she in 2016?
    [Father]:     Uh yea, I also recall I have much much more legal
    fees than her.
    ***
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 12 of 15
    [Counsel for Mother]:       And um since the last hearing when
    I’m looking at ability to pay fees, you have not contributed
    anything towards the care and support of your three children,
    have you?
    [Father]:        I haven’t been able to.
    [Counsel for Mother]:         And so the three children right now for
    essentially all of last year, more than a year now, almost a year
    and a half have been support [sic] entirely by [Mother].
    [Father]:        Well when they’re with me I take care of their
    things.
    ***
    [Father]:        Why - - why are we arguing about child support
    ***
    [Counsel for Father]:           . . . I am going to object your Honor...
    ***
    [Counsel for Father]: . . . [T]his is on attorney fees.
    ***
    [Counsel for Mother]:     [This line of questioning goes] to
    ability to pay your Honor, that’s one of the things, the factors the
    Court must consider and I think if my client is paying . . .
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 13 of 15
    THE COURT:            Yea I’m not going to um . . . I think you can
    argue it, but I’ve already heard the evidence.
    [Counsel for Mother]:       Alright and your . . . you will take
    judicial notice of that evidence your Honor?
    THE COURT: Yes.
    [Counsel for Mother]: Okay.
    THE COURT: But I want you to point it out in argument, rather
    than . . .
    ***
    THE COURT:               . . . evidence.
    Tr. Vol. II pp. 96-97.
    [21]   The record reveals that notwithstanding his employment, legal, and financial
    challenges, Father earned over $38,000 during the pendency of the divorce, but
    paid “essentially no support”; he was found to owe a child support arrearage in
    excess of $10,000; and Mother supported the children without his financial
    assistance for one and one-half years of the pendency. See App. Vol. II p. 93.
    The record also reveals the trial court’s determination that both parties engaged
    in misconduct. See Tr. Vol. II p. 114 (“[T]here have been games that have gone
    on . . . that have lead [sic] to both [parties] incurring tons of attorney fees[.]”).
    Based upon the foregoing, we cannot say that Mother is in a superior position
    to pay fees; accordingly, we conclude that her brief presents a case of prima
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 14 of 15
    facie error and that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees
    to Father.
    Conclusion
    [22]   The trial court did not err in denying Mother’s petition to apply money from
    the Account to Father’s purported child support arrearage; however, it erred in
    awarding attorney fees to Father. We affirm in part and reverse in part with
    instructions to vacate the attorney fee award to Father.
    Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
    Najam, J., and Mathias, J., conur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1709-DR-2114| March 27, 2018   Page 15 of 15