Angela K. Scanlon v. Stephen L. Scanlon (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 18 2016, 8:34 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Andrea L. Ciobanu Stephen R. Lewis
Alex Beeman Indianapolis, Indiana
Ciobanu Law, P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Angela K. Scanlon, February 18, 2016
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1507-DR-731
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Stephen L. Scanlon, The Honorable Cynthia J. Ayers,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge;
Mark F. Renner, Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49D04-0302-DR-240
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 1 of 5
[1] Angela K. Scanlon (Angela) appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to
correct errors. As we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Angela and Stephen L. Scanlon (Stephen) were divorced in 2003. Angela
received physical custody of both minor children. Thereafter, Angela and the
older child began having disagreements, so Angela and Stephen agreed that
child should reside with Stephen, while Angela would retain physical custody
of the younger child. However, they were unable to come to an agreement
regarding the financial implications of that change of custody.
[3] On February 10, 2015, the court held a hearing regarding custody and child
support, at which Angela represented herself. Stephen offered a child support
worksheet for each child that represented his self-employed income was
$1,530.00 per week. Angela challenged the worksheets on the bases that she
believed the health insurance rate was incorrect and that the income
information for Stephen was based on his 2013 taxes. The court clarified for
her that she would have a chance to testify as to those matters; however, Angela
did not offer any such testimony. Stephen’s income was supported by his
financial declaration and his testimony in which Stephen stated his 2014
income was “roughly the same” as his 2013 income. (Tr. at 23.) Angela did
not introduce an alternate child support worksheet and she testified she could
not provide the correct health insurance rate because she “misplaced the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5
document with the insurance.” (Id. at 19.) Angela did not produce any other
documentary evidence at the hearing.
[4] On February 17, 2015, the court entered Findings and Order on Petition to
Modify Child Custody and Child Support. The court found Stephen’s weekly
income to be $1,530 and Angela’s to be $549.00. The court ordered Stephen’s
child support obligation for the younger child to be $171.00 per week and
Angela’s child support obligation for the older child to be $53.00 per week. The
result is a net child support order for Stephen to pay $118.00 per week.
However, because he had been paying $280.00 per week for both children
during the pendency of the modification proceedings, he had accrued a credit
and the court ordered that to be repaid to him over the next 135 weeks by his
payment of child support in the amount of $90.00 per week.
[5] On March 19, 2015, Angela, represented by counsel, filed a verified motion to
correct errors. The court conducted a hearing. Finding no newly discovered
evidence that would justify recalculating support, the court denied Angela’s
motion as it pertains to the child support.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Angela asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to
correct errors because it used an erroneous value for Stephen’s weekly gross
income. “A trial court has wide discretion to correct errors, and we will reverse
only for an abuse of that discretion.” Kashman v. Haas, 766 N.E.2d 417, 419
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5
action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and
the inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Id.
[7] “The determination of the amount of child support is committed to the trial
court’s discretion and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.”
Skinner v. Skinner, 644 N.E.2d 141, 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “A child support
order is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances that were before the trial court.” Id.
[8] Angela argues the trial court erred by not requiring Stephen’s income be based
on a calculation of “gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses.”
(Appellant’s Br. at 12 citing Child Supp. G. 3(A)(2).) However, Angela did not
raise this argument at the final hearing, and thus she may not now raise it on
appeal. See Lazzell v. Indiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., 775 N.E.2d 1113, 1119
(Ind. Ct. App. 20002) (party may not raise argument on appeal that was not
raised at trial). At the hearing to determine child support, Angela did not
present any evidence contrary to Stephen’s testimony and financial declaration.
Those pieces of evidence were consistent with one another and with the income
assigned to Stephen by the trial court. As the court’s finding was supported by
the evidence, Angela has not demonstrated the court made an error that should
have been corrected. See, e.g., Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237, 246 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2004) (affirming court’s finding of income where income supported by
evidence in the record).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[9] At the hearing on the motion to correct error, Angela attempted to introduce
into evidence alternate child support worksheets and copies of Stephen’s 2013
taxes. A motion to correct error can be used to address “[n]ewly discovered
material evidence . . . capable of production within thirty (30) days of final
judgment which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and
produced at trial.” Ind. Trial Rule 59(A)(1). However, these exhibits all could
have been produced at the February 10, 2015, hearing. Therefore, we cannot
say the court abused its discretion by refusing to reconsider its order on the
basis of new evidence. See Hawkins v. Cannon, 826 N.E.2d 658, 664 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005) (no error in denial of motion to correct error when evidence could
have been discovered and produced at trial with due diligence), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[10] As Angela has not demonstrated the court abused its discretion in denying her
motion to correct error, we affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5