Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter ( 2012 )

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
CORNELIUS B. HAYES PERRY D. SHILTS
Fort Wayne, Indiana Shilts Law Office
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ANDREA R. TREVINO
Bobilya Law Group LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
FILED
Sep 13 2012, 9:22 am
CLERK
IN THE of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CORTNEY L. SCHWARTZ, )
)
Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 02A03-1109-DR-401
)
JODI S. HEETER, )
)
Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Thomas P. Boyer, Judge Pro Tempore
The Honorable Lori K. Morgan, Magistrate
Cause No. 02D07-0807-DR-474
September 13, 2012
OPINION ON REHEARING - FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Cortney L. Schwartz (“Father”) appealed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment
construing a “true up” provision relating to child support in the marital dissolution agreement
he entered into with Jodi S. Heeter (“Mother”). Mother in her cross-appeal argued that she
was entitled to reopen motions to modify Father’s support obligations. We affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded. In doing so, we concluded that Mother waived her
arguments on the motions for modification of support on appeal. Schwartz v. Heeter, 970
N.E.2d 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Mother now files her petition for rehearing, which we
grant for the sole purpose of clarifying our holding on her motions for modification of
support.
In our original decision we stated, “Mother has failed to comply with Appellate Rule
46(A)(8),” and thus waived the question of her motions to modify support. Id. at 205. We
went on to “leave it to the trial court … to determine whether it will reconsider” its decision
on those motions, which motions the court had previously denied. Id. We now clarify our
decision, and specifically the conclusion, to state that we leave whether to reconsider the
motions and hear evidence on them entirely to the discretion of the trial court. Mother is not
entitled to reconsideration as a matter of right. With this clarification, we affirm our original
decision in all other respects.
ROBB, C.J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.
2