Gary A. Jackson, Sr. v. Christina C. Jackson, and State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 14 2020, 8:32 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Gary A. Jackson, Sr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Natalie F. Weiss
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gary A. Jackson, Sr., July 14, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-DR-40
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
Christina C. Jackson, et al., The Honorable Catherine B.
Appellee-Petitioner, Stafford, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
and 53C04-0408-DR-459
State of Indiana,
Appellee
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-40 | July 14, 2020 Page 1 of 4
[1] Gary Jackson, Sr., appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to
recalculate his child support arrearage. Finding no error, we affirm.
[2] The relevant procedural timeline of events is as follows:
• In 2004, the marriage of Jackson and his former wife was dissolved.
Jackson was ordered to pay child support for two of his children.
• On January 26, 2009, Jackson filed a motion for a change of judge.
Through a series of events, the original trial judge ended up retaining his
assignment to the case. Jackson did not appeal.
• On December 5, 2013, Jackson filed a new motion for a change of judge.
The motion was granted, and the case was transferred to a new judge.
The case was transferred to a commissioner but then transferred back to
the judge at Jackson’s request.
• On June 12, 2014, Jackson filed a motion requesting that our Supreme
Court appoint a special judge. Our Supreme Court remanded the case
back to the trial court, which resumed jurisdiction.
• On August 5, 2016, the State filed a petition to modify child support.
Following the hearing, Jackson’s child support obligation was reduced
from $112 to $52 per week. Jackson did not appeal.
• On March 5, 2018, the trial court held a child support review hearing. At
that hearing, Jackson raised a multitude of procedural issues, challenging
the authority of previous judges assigned to his case dating back to the
2009 order. He also raised a number of challenges to previous orders
related to child support arrearages and parenting time. The trial court
declined to review the previous orders. Jackson filed a motion to correct
error, which the trial court denied. Jackson did not appeal.
• On April 22, 2019, the trial court emancipated Jackson’s youngest child
effective May 1, 2018, ending Jackson’s child support obligation. On
May 30, 2019, the trial court held an arrearage determination hearing
and entered a default judgment against Jackson because he failed to
appear. The commissioner calculated Jackson’s arrearage using the
Indiana Support Enforcement Tracking System and found that he owes
$20,343.29. The trial court approved the commissioner’s
recommendation. Jackson did not appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-40 | July 14, 2020 Page 2 of 4
• On September 30, 2019, Jackson filed a motion to recalculate his
arrearage. In his motion, he again reviewed the entire history of the case,
challenging orders dating back to 2009. On December 19, 2019, the trial
court denied Jackson’s motion to recalculate, holding that it would not
address previous orders because he did not appeal those orders and
noting that he raised no new arguments or evidence that were not
considered at the May 2019 arrearage determination hearing.
Jackson now appeals.
[3] On appeal, Jackson attempts, again, to challenge past orders that he did not
appeal. He argues about the commissioner and one of the judges who oversaw
the case in prior years;1 he argues that the August 2016 child support order was
erroneous; and he argues that the Child Support Guidelines were not followed
and the child support worksheet was invalid. He did not appeal any of these
orders—including the original arrearage order—and we may not and will not
review them at this untimely juncture. See Counceller v. Counceller, 810 N.E.2d
372, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that res judicata bars re-litigation of an
issue where there has been a final judgment on the merits of the same issue
between the same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction).
1
The Monroe Circuit Court had jurisdiction to determine the child support arrearage amount and the
commissioner, who is a member of the Monroe County Circuit Court, operated with subject matter
jurisdiction when he made the arrearage recommendation (as did the trial judge when approving that
recommendation). See Mariga v. Flint, 822 N.E.2d 620, 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (observing that Indiana
superior and circuit courts have statutory jurisdiction to rule on child support cases).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-40 | July 14, 2020 Page 3 of 4
[4] The only order that is reviewable at this point is the order denying Jackson’s
motion to recalculate his arrearage.2 And Jackson does not argue that the
calculation of the amount of his arrears, which is based on the previous child
support orders (which he cannot now challenge) and the amounts he has failed
to pay over the years (which he does not deny), is inaccurate. This is the only
argument we could review at this point in the case. As it is undisputed that the
calculation of his arrearage is correct, we affirm. 3
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
2
And whether even this order is reviewable is debatable. It could be plausibly argued that the “motion to
recalculate arrearage” amounts to an untimely motion to correct error. Ind. Trial Rule 59(C) (motions to
correct error must be filed within thirty days of final judgment).
3
To the extent that Jackson challenges the authority of the State to file an appellee’s brief in a child support
case, we note that the State is a party in the collection of child support under Title IV-D. See Ind. Code § 31-
25-3-1 et seq. (providing for the creation of a State child support bureau, which is charged with the
administration of Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act, and a State central collection unit, which
collects and processes all child support payments).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DR-40 | July 14, 2020 Page 4 of 4