In re Paternity of Jerry Thomas Leber, Jerry Dillon v. State of Indiana and Laurie Leber (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Sep 28 2016, 7:44 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jerry Dillon Gregory F. Zoeller
Calumet City, Illinois Attorney General of Indiana
Aaron T. Craft
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re Paternity of September 28, 2016
Jerry Thomas Leber, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A03-1511-JP-2078
Jerry Dillon, Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Appellant-Petitioner,
The Honorable Thomas P.
v. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge
The Honorable Katherine J.
State of Indiana, and Garza, Magistrate
Laurie Leber, Trial Court Cause No.
45D06-0106-JP-429
Appellees-Respondents.
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 1 of 11
Case Summary and Issues
[1] The relationship between Jerry Dillon (“Father”) and Laurie Leber (“Mother”)
produced one child. In 2005, Father was ordered to pay child support. In
2014, Father filed a petition for modification of child support. The trial court
denied Father’s petition and found Father to be in contempt of court for failure
to pay child support. Father appeals pro se, raising several issues for our
review, which we consolidate and restate as: 1) whether the trial court abused
its discretion in granting Mother’s motion to compel discovery; 2) whether the
trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s petition for contempt; and
3) whether the trial court correctly applied Indiana law in denying Father’s
petition to modify. Concluding the appeal is untimely, but that regardless, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Father and Mother are the parents of a single child.1 Father is a dentist and has
operated a dental practice in Calumet City, Illinois, under various limited
liability companies since 1989. Mother works and resides in Hammond,
Indiana. In 2005, the trial court ordered Father to pay $168.80 per week in
child support plus an additional amount toward an arrearage, for a total of
1
Their child was born in 1996 and is now emancipated.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 2 of 11
$270.00. In 2007, Father filed a petition for modification of child support,
which remained unaddressed until 2014.
[3] In April 2014, Father filed another petition to modify child support, seeking
retroactive modification to 2007, when he originally filed his request for
modification. One month later, Father filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 2 In
October 2014, the trial court granted a temporary modification, reducing
Father’s child support to $150 per week pending a final hearing. The final
hearing was set for November 2014, but because of Father’s non-compliance
with multiple discovery orders, the hearing was not completed until June 2015.
In March 2015, the State of Indiana intervened and filed a petition for contempt
against Father for delinquent child support payments of $89,144.
[4] The trial court held a final hearing on Father’s petition for modification and the
State’s petition for contempt in June 2015. On July 15, 2015, the trial court
issued its order denying Father’s petition for modification and finding Father’s
child support arrearage to be $86,910.90. The trial court also found Father in
contempt of court and committed him to 180 days in the Lake County Work
Release Program. However, the trial court stayed its commitment order,
providing Father an opportunity to purge himself of contempt by paying $5,000
by September 3, 2015.
2
The bankruptcy court dismissed Father’s case on May 27, 2015.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 3 of 11
[5] A status hearing was held on September 3, 2015 to determine whether Father
purged himself of contempt. Father failed to appear at the hearing and later
claimed he never received notice of the trial court’s July 15 order, although at
the time of the hearing he had paid $2,500 of the amount required to purge
himself of contempt. Since Father only paid one-half of the amount required to
purge himself of contempt, the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
[6] On September 14, 2015, Father filed an emergency motion to quash the bench
warrant and correct error. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on
October 19, 2015, determined Father purged himself of contempt by paying the
entire $5,000, and vacated Father’s commitment to the Lake County Work
Release Program. Father also filed a motion for a new trial at the hearing,
which the trial court denied on October 21, 2015. Father filed a notice of
appeal with the trial court on November 2, 2015; however, no notice of appeal
was filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax
Court until November 25, 2015.
Discussion and Decision
I. Timeliness
[7] We first address the State’s request to dismiss Father’s appeal as untimely.
Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(A) provides that a party initiates an
appeal from a final judgment or order by filing a notice of appeal with the Clerk
of the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court within thirty
days after the entry of the final judgment is noted in the Chronological Case
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 4 of 11
Summary (“CCS”).3 “Unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to
appeal shall be forfeited . . . .” Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5). A party who has
forfeited his or her right to appeal by failing to file a timely notice of appeal may
have that right to appeal restored only if there are “extraordinarily compelling
reasons why this forfeited right should be restored.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16
N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014).
[8] Here, the trial court issued its final judgment on July 15, 2015, and the order
was entered on the CCS the same day. Thus, Father’s notice of appeal or a
motion to correct error was due by August 14, 2015. See Ind. Trial Rule 59(C).
Father did not file his motion to correct error until September 14, 2015, and did
not file his notice of appeal until November 25, 2015.4
[9] However, Father argues he never received notice of the trial court’s July 15,
2015, order. Indiana Trial Rule 72(E) addresses this specific situation:
Lack of notice, or the lack of the actual receipt of a copy of the
entry from the Clerk shall not affect the time within which to contest
the ruling, order or judgment, or authorize the Court to relieve a
party of the failure to initiate proceedings to contest such ruling,
order or judgment, except as provided in this section. When service of a
3
The timely filing of a motion to correct error extends a party’s time to file a notice of appeal. An appeal
may be initiated by filing a notice of appeal within thirty days after a motion to correct error is deemed
denied. Ind. Trial Rule 53.3(A).
4
Father’s notice of appeal reflects the “Order being Appealed” is the trial court’s denial of his motion for a
new trial on October 21, 2015. Father’s notice of appeal also lists the date the trial judge approved the order
as July 15, 2015. See Appendix of Appellee State of Indiana at 66-72. Regardless, even if we assume October
21, 2015 is the final judgment for purposes of initiating the appeal, his notice of appeal would have been due
by November 20, 2015.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 5 of 11
copy of the entry by the Clerk is not evidenced by a note made by the
Clerk upon the Chronological Case Summary, the Court, upon
application for good cause shown, may grant an extension of any time
limitation within which to contest such ruling, order or judgment
to any party who was without actual knowledge, or who relied
upon incorrect representations by Court personnel. Such
extension shall commence when the party first obtained actual
knowledge and not exceed the original time limitation.
(Emphasis added.) Our review of the CCS reveals no entry by the Clerk that
service was made to Father. However, our review of the record also reveals
Father made no motion to extend his time to appeal the order. We recognize
the limitations a pro se litigant may have; however, such litigants are held to the
same standards as trained counsel. Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953, 955
(Ind. 2009).
[10] Father’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order
forfeited his right to appeal absent “extraordinarily compelling reasons.” In re
Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d at 971. Father does not offer, and we are unable to
find, any extraordinarily compelling reasons. Therefore, this appeal is
untimely. However, given our long-standing preference for deciding cases on
the merits, we will consider Father’s arguments. See Teaching Our Posterity
Success, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of Educ., 20 N.E.3d 149, 154 (Ind. 2014).
II. Discovery
[11] A trial court has broad discretion when ruling on issues of discovery, and we
will reverse a trial court’s ruling on discovery matters only where the court has
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 6 of 11
abused that discretion. Turner v. Boy Scouts of Am., 856 N.E.2d 106, 112 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is
against the logic and circumstances of the case. Id. In general, a party may
obtain discovery regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case,
or which appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. See Ind. Trial Rule 26(B)(1).
[12] Father appears to argue the trial court abused its discretion by granting
Mother’s motion to compel discovery, while denying his motion.5 The
underlying discovery dispute between the parties concerned Father’s total
income. Throughout the modification proceedings, Father asserted his income
was $54,000 per year.6 Mother disputed this number, claiming Father shielded
his income by having his various dental practices and limited liability
companies pay for his lifestyle and living expenses, and then refused to provide
information regarding his dental practices and various companies in discovery.
5
We note the current litigation began because Father filed a petition to modify child support. Father then
refused to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders, making the process of determining whether support
should be modified extremely difficult. As of the final hearing in June 2015, Father still had not fully
complied with the trial court’s orders. For example, at a March 12, 2015 status hearing, the trial court
exhaustively explained to Father that financial information regarding his dental practices and limited liability
companies is relevant to his total income and gave him thirty days to comply with all interrogatories and
requests for production. On April 12, 2015, despite the trial court’s discovery ruling, Father responded to
Mother’s interrogatory regarding his dental practice with: “Objection: Corporation property has no
relevance as to any monthly income of the Respondent and is protected in Bankruptcy proceeding.”
Mother’s Exhibit 2. On October 2, 2014, the trial court ordered the parties to exchange financial declaration
forms by December 22. As of the hearing in June 2015, Mother still had not received Father’s forms.
6
Father’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition listed a monthly income of $13,178.39, or $158,140.68 per year.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 7 of 11
[13] Our review reveals no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Indiana Child
Support Guidelines provide a very broad definition of income which includes
actual income from employment and imputed income from “in-kind” benefits.
See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A)(1). Moreover, the guidelines specifically
state “in-kind payments received by a parent in the course of employment, self-
employment, or operation of a business should be counted as income if they are
significant and reduce personal living expenses.” Child Supp. G. 3(A)(2).
Here, Mother attempted to ascertain whether Father received more income
from his business interests than he reported on his tax returns. All of Mother’s
discovery requests granted by the trial court were related to Father’s personal
finances and any business he owned since 2007. The granted requests were
relevant to Father’s total income and reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
[14] Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Father’s discovery
requests. The central issue in this child support modification was the parties’
income. Father requested information pertaining to Mother’s employer and
how Mother spent her money, which the trial court denied as irrelevant. The
trial court’s rulings on the parties’ motions to compel were not against the logic
and circumstances of the case.
III. Contempt
[15] Father claims the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in contempt of
court for failure to pay child support. The determination of whether a party is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 8 of 11
in contempt of court is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and its
decision will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion. Piercey v. Piercey, 727
N.E.2d 26, 31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). A trial court abuses its discretion when its
decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or
is contrary to law. Id. Contempt of court “involves disobedience of a court
which undermines the court’s authority, justice and dignity.” Henderson v.
Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted). To
hold a party in contempt for violation of a court order, the trial court must find
the party acted with willful disobedience. Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d
1249, 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
[16] Initially, we note Father’s failure to follow Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure
46(A)(8)(a) concerning the alleged error. Father fails to cite to a single
authority or statute supporting his position. Further, the absence of cogent
argument operates as a waiver of the issue on appeal. Decker v. State, 19 N.E.3d
368, 377-78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
[17] Notwithstanding such waiver, Father argues the trial court erred in holding him
in contempt. Specifically, he argues the contempt petition was improper
because he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and was protected by the automatic
stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). See Reich v. Reich, 605 N.E.2d 1178, 1182-
83 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (reversing a finding of contempt where the automatic
stay remained in effect). We reiterate Father’s bankruptcy was dismissed on
May 27, 2015. The trial court found Father in contempt on July 15, 2015.
Thus, Father was no longer involved in bankruptcy proceedings and the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 9 of 11
automatic stay was no longer in effect. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). Moreover,
Father had not been paying Mother child support well in advance of the
bankruptcy proceedings and owed her over $80,000 in arrearage. Presumably,
the State could have filed its petition for contempt before the bankruptcy
proceedings began. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in
finding Father in contempt of court.7
IV. Child Support
[18] We interpret Father’s final issue as arguing his child support order should be
enforced in accordance with Illinois law. He asserts because he has children in
Illinois and the Illinois child support orders were issued prior to the Indiana
child support order, Illinois law applies. To support this argument, Father cites
to Indiana’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”).8
Father is incorrect. UIFSA applies when a party seeks to enforce or modify a
child support order in a state other than the state in which it originated. See
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 914 N.E.2d 747, 751-52 (Ind. 2009) (explaining the
development and purpose of UIFSA). His child who is the subject of this
7
We note the State filed its petition for contempt on March 24, 2015, while Father was still involved in
bankruptcy proceedings. However, other than making conclusory statements that this was in error, Father’s
arguments relating to the trial court’s finding of contempt contain zero citations to any authority or statute
that would lead us to conclude the trial court abused its discretion. If we were to construct arguments on his
behalf, “we would be forced to abdicate our role as an impartial tribunal and would instead become an
advocate for one of the parties. This, clearly, we cannot do.” Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004).
8
Father cites to Indiana Code section 31-18-2-7. This statute was repealed, effective July 1, 2015. We
believe Father meant to reference Indiana Code section 31-18.5-2-7, where UIFSA has been re-codified.
Regardless, UIFSA is inapplicable to this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 10 of 11
litigation was born in Indiana and the 2005 child support order originated in
Indiana. The fact Father has subsequent children in Illinois may be relevant for
adjusting his weekly gross income, but it does not require an Indiana court to
apply Illinois law.
Conclusion
[19] The trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we therefore affirm.
[20] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-JP-2078 | September 28, 2016 Page 11 of 11