In Re: The Marriage of: Charles A. Parsley v. Maureen F. Parsley (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 28 2018, 11:48 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing 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
Julie A. Camden
Camden & Meridew, P.C.
Fishers, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re: The Marriage of: February 28, 2018
Charles A. Parsley, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1710-DR-2432
Appellant-Respondent,
Appeal from the Hamilton
v. Superior Court
The Honorable David K. Najjar,
Maureen F. Parsley, Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner.
29D03-0511-DR-1257
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-DR-2432 | February 28, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Charles A. Parsley (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s order modifying his
child support and establishing post-secondary educational support. Husband
raises the following two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it deducted $50 per
week from the weekly gross income of Maureen F. Parsley
(“Wife”) for a prior-born child when the court calculated
Husband’s modified child support amount.
2. Whether the trial court erred when it did not impose
Husband’s requested limits to child E.P.’s post-secondary
educational expenses.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] During their marriage, Husband and Wife had two children: E.P., born August
8, 1998, and L.P., born February 12, 2003. In June of 2008, the trial court
dissolved the marriage, distributed the marital estate, and entered orders of
support and custody. Thereafter, Husband and Wife each remarried and had
subsequent children with their new spouses. In particular, Wife had J.R., who
lived with Wife, E.P., L.P., and her new husband.
[4] In May of 2017, Husband filed a petition to modify child support. In June,
Wife filed a petition for post-secondary educational expenses relating to E.P.
The court held a hearing on the parties’ requests in October. At that hearing,
Husband admitted during his testimony that Wife “has one subsequent child
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-DR-2432 | February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6
with her new husband.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 9. However, no one suggested that Wife
had any children prior to when E.P. and L.P. were born.
[5] Also during that hearing, Husband requested the court to place limits on
Husband’s and Wife’s contributions to E.P.’s post-secondary educational
expenses. In particular, Husband requested that any parental contributions be
conditioned on E.P. maintaining a 3.2 G.P.A., obtaining a degree within four
years of his initial enrollment, and attending an in-state public school.
However, Wife testified that E.P. had a four-year partial scholarship to Indiana
University that covered E.P.’s tuition and reduced E.P.’s housing costs. Tr.
Vol. 2 at 17, 29-30. That scholarship required E.P. to maintain at least a 2.0
G.P.A.
[6] Following the hearing, the court entered its order modifying child support and
establishing post-secondary educational expenses. In that order, the court
modified the weekly amount of child support Husband must pay to Wife to
$175. The court determined that amount to be appropriate in part based on its
finding that Wife both has a subsequent child, J.R., and that she will
additionally spend $50 per week to support a prior-born child. The court also
declined to accept Husband’s requests for limits on E.P.’s post-secondary
educational expenses. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-DR-2432 | February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[7] Husband appeals the trial court’s order modifying the amount of his child
support and establishing post-secondary educational expenses. Where, as here,
the trial court’s judgment is based on findings and conclusions entered by the
court following an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court’s judgment
under the clearly erroneous standard. We review the issues covered by the
findings with a two-tiered standard of review that asks whether the evidence
supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. See Steele-
Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016).
[8] We also recognize that Wife has not filed an appellee’s brief. When an appellee
does not file a brief, our court will not undertake the burden of developing
arguments on that party’s behalf. Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41, 42 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2002). Rather, we apply “a less stringent standard of review” and may
reverse the trial court if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie
“means at first sight, or on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id.Issue One: Prior-Born Child
[9] We first address Husband’s argument that the trial court erred when it
attributed $50 per week to Wife for expenses associated with the support of a
prior-born child. According to Husband, the trial court erred on this issue
because there was “no evidence [Wife] had a prior born child or that she
supported said child.” Appellant’s Br. at 7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-DR-2432 | February 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6
[10] We must agree. Indiana Child Support Guideline 3(C)(3) states that, “[w]here
a party has a legal support duty for the child(ren) born prior to the child(ren) for
whom support is being established, . . . an amount reasonable necessary for
such support . . . shall be deducted from weekly gross income . . . .” There is no
evidence that Wife had any children born prior to E.P. and L.P., the children
for whom the modified support was being established by the court’s order. As
such, we reverse the trial court’s calculation of Husband’s modified support
order and remand with instructions for the court to eliminate the $50 deduction
to Wife’s weekly adjusted income and to recalculate Husband’s child support
obligation.
Issue Two: Post-Secondary Educational Expenses
[11] Husband also asserts that the trial court erred when it did not limit its award of
post-secondary educational expenses “to in-state tuition at a public institution,
or specify that it was only for undergraduate studies, or limit the number of
years [E.P.] could pursue a degree, or require that [he] achieve any grade
[point] average.” Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). But the trial court was not obliged
as a matter of law to impose any such conditions. E.g., Quillen v. Quillen, 671
N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). Moreover, Husband’s argument on appeal simply
disregards the reality that most of E.P.’s post-secondary educational expenses
are being paid by E.P.’s scholarship, and that scholarship already imposes
limitations similar to those sought by Husband. The trial court took E.P.’s
scholarship—and its limitations on E.P.—into account when it entered its order
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-DR-2432 | February 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6
on the post-secondary educational expenses. Husband cannot demonstrate
error on this issue.
[12] In sum, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as it relates to E.P.’s post-
secondary educational expenses. However, we reverse the trial court’s finding
that Wife had a prior-born child, and we remand with instructions that the
court eliminate the $50 deduction to Wife’s weekly adjusted income and to
recalculate Husband’s child support accordingly.
[13] Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Mathias, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1710-DR-2432 | February 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6