In Re: The Marriage of: Brent R. McIntosh v. Catherine B. McIntosh (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 41A04-1710-DR-2410

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; February 27, 2018; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not to be considered precedent nor cited in court, except for establishing res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Brent R. McIntosh (Husband) appeals the Johnson Superior Court’s order finding him in contempt related to his divorce from Catherine McIntosh (Wife). The appeal raises one key issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding Husband in contempt.

The couple was married on June 18, 1977, and Husband filed for dissolution on November 5, 2014. During the proceedings, it was revealed that Husband owed $299,632 to American Health Network (AHN) due to overpayment. The trial court incorporated a Final Settlement Agreement into its Decree of Dissolution on March 15, 2016, stating that Husband would be solely responsible for this debt. He was required to pay the debt directly or through reductions in salary or benefits. If he did not establish a payment arrangement within a year or if the debt was forgiven before payments commenced, he would owe Wife $5,000 monthly for five years, terminating upon her death. Husband was also mandated to provide annual updates and proof of efforts to repay the debt.

On May 31, 2017, Wife filed a motion for a rule to show cause, claiming Husband had failed to repay the debt, did not set up a payment arrangement, and did not provide necessary documentation. The court hearing on August 3, 2017, involved only the attorneys presenting arguments, as neither party testified. Wife's attorney contended that Husband did not comply with the repayment terms and was obligated to start maintenance payments to Wife as of March 2017. The trial court ultimately affirmed the contempt finding against Husband.

Husband's attorney argued that he attempted to pay down a debt by reducing his salary prior to leaving AHN, forfeiting his long-term equity plan worth $38,827.33, and his deferred compensation plan valued at $25,587.57. Despite multiple requests for repayment documentation from AHN, he was unable to obtain it due to AHN’s acquisition. The trial court admitted a letter from AHN's CFO as evidence, confirming the balances of the long-term equity and deferred compensation plans, and noting a due balance of $299,632 owed to AHN. The trial court found that the debt remained unpaid and that no payment arrangements had been made. It ruled that the maintenance provision in the Settlement Agreement was triggered regardless of the reasons for the debt's non-repayment, leading to a contempt ruling against Husband. The court ordered him to start maintenance payments to Wife, settle missed payments by December 31, 2017, and cover Wife's attorney's fees. Husband's subsequent motion to correct the error claimed that the court improperly found him in contempt, arguing that the maintenance provision was a property settlement not enforceable by contempt and that he did not willfully refuse compliance. The trial court denied his motion, prompting an appeal. Husband asserts that the court abused its discretion in both the contempt finding and the enforcement of the settlement agreement.

The Wife contends that the payment clause in the settlement agreement is a maintenance payment, enforceable by contempt, rather than a property settlement. Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-2, which addresses maintenance, is not relevant since the agreement was mutually established by the parties. To classify the payment as maintenance or property settlement, several factors are considered. Key indicators of maintenance include: designation as maintenance, termination upon either party's death, reliance on future income, termination upon remarriage, potential modification due to future events, and indefinite payment periods. Conversely, property settlement indicators consist of fixed payments over a specified time, no modification clauses, obligations surviving death, interest provisions, and awards not exceeding marital asset values at dissolution. 

The court concludes that the payment provision qualifies as maintenance for several reasons: it is explicitly labeled as maintenance, it is structured to provide maintenance where a court could not, it terminates upon the Wife's death, relies on the Husband's future income, lacks interest provisions, and allows for modifications based on future circumstances. The agreement stipulates that the Husband must pay $5,000 monthly for five years unless he addresses a specified debt, with additional provisions for payment modifications based on debt status. While the requirement of a specific total payment over a defined period suggests a property settlement, this factor does not outweigh the various indicators of maintenance. Thus, the court affirms that the provision is a maintenance obligation, enforceable by contempt, and the trial court acted within its discretion in exercising contempt authority.

The trial court found Husband in contempt for failing to comply with a court order regarding payments to Wife. Husband argued that the contempt finding was unsupported by evidence, asserting that he had been repaying the debt and had arranged with AHN to continue payments. The Indiana Supreme Court's standard of review permits trial courts considerable discretion in contempt findings, reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Reversal is only warranted if no evidence supports the finding.

Husband did not dispute the enforceability of maintenance provisions through contempt proceedings but claimed that the payments constituted a property settlement agreement, which he argued could not be enforced in this manner. Despite presenting some evidence, including a letter detailing his financial plans, Husband failed to provide proof of actual payments or any formal agreement with AHN regarding repayment. The trial court concluded that Husband's evidence did not substantiate his claims, leading to its contempt ruling.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, confirming that the payment obligation was a maintenance provision enforceable through contempt, and found no abuse of discretion in the ruling.