Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; June 23, 2016; Indiana; State Appellate Court
J.S. and W.K., married for twenty-one years with four children, agreed to financially support their children post-divorce. J.S. failed to meet this obligation, leading to ongoing litigation. W.K. filed multiple motions, including a petition to modify child support and a motion for contempt against J.S. After hearings and disputes over discovery, the trial court ruled that J.S. owed W.K. $50,984.51 for extraordinary expenses related to the children, found him in contempt for violating prior agreements, and ordered him to pay $32,425 in attorney’s fees. J.S. appealed the trial court's decisions, which were affirmed on the basis that the evidence supported the findings and the findings supported the judgment, following Indiana’s legal standards for reviewing such cases. Further, the appellate court noted it would not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility but would uphold the trial court's conclusions as long as they were not clearly erroneous.
Appellate courts show deference to trial courts in domestic relations cases due to the trial judges' direct, extended interactions with the parties. Therefore, the burden lies heavily on the party challenging the trial court's findings. In this instance, the trial court was justified in ordering the Father to pay $50,984.51 for his share of the Children’s extraordinary expenses. Both parties acknowledged the dissolution agreement included provisions for allocating not only college expenses but also the Children's extracurricular or extraordinary expenses. Mother claimed approximately $96,000 for extraordinary expenses incurred since 2012, asserting that Father did not proportionately reimburse her. Father disputed some of these claims and presented evidence of his own $50,000 in extraordinary expenses, although not all were substantiated with receipts.
The trial court did not specifically find the validity of each claimed expense, a requirement not imposed on it. Father did not contest Mother’s overall claimed expenses but argued that at least $30,000 should not have been recoverable. His primary contention was a request for the appellate court to reweigh the evidence, which is impermissible. Father challenged the categorization of certain expenses as extraordinary and the court's crediting decisions, all of which fall within the trial court's discretion. The appellate court found sufficient evidence supporting the trial court's findings regarding extraordinary expenses and upheld the judgment. The court emphasized the need for judicial efficiency and encouraged adherence to the existing agreement between the parties without delving into minor disputes over expenses.
Father acknowledges his failure to pay his share of extraordinary expenses for a significant duration and requests a detailed review of the case by the trial court. However, the court finds sufficient evidence supporting the order for Father to reimburse Mother $50,984.51 for these expenses, rejecting Father's claims of error in the trial court's findings.
The trial court also found Father in contempt for breaching the December 8, 2014 agreement regarding child support, violating the dissolution decree related to college expenses, and failing to comply with discovery orders. The contempt determination is within the trial court's discretion, and it is established that indirect or civil contempt involves willful disobedience of court orders.
The trial court specifically noted Father's failure to establish automatic payments as required by the agreement. Although Father argued that compliance was impossible, the court did not accept this excuse, emphasizing his consistent failure to make timely payments. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding Father in contempt regarding child support payments.
Additionally, under the dissolution decree, both parents agreed to contribute to their children's college education based on their income percentages, which evolved from 70%/30% at the divorce to 80%/20% as of July 31, 2013.
Father was aware of his obligation to pay his share of the children's college expenses as per the Court’s Order but failed to do so in a timely manner. Instead of paying his portion, he compelled his daughter to take out personal loans for tuition. Despite having the financial means to meet his obligations, Father did not provide credible evidence to explain his failure to pay. Consequently, he was found in contempt of court for not complying with the dissolution decree regarding these expenses.
Father's challenge to the trial court’s contempt finding was inadequate, as he did not directly dispute the court's conclusion that he failed to reimburse Mother for his share of the college expenses. Additionally, the trial court found him in contempt for willfully noncompliance with a 2014 order related to discovery. Father provided only partial, misleading, and evasive responses to the discovery requests, which he attempted to downplay by arguing that objections to discovery do not constitute bad faith. His claim that he could not be held in contempt for failing to comply with supplemental discovery requests was rejected, as these were seen as reiterations of prior requests for financial information.
The trial court's decision was upheld, confirming that Father willfully violated the 2014 order. The findings justified the judgment of contempt and the order requiring Father to pay a portion of Mother’s attorney's fees, amounting to $32,425, based on statutory authority and the court’s inherent authority for civil contempt.
The trial court determined that Mariellen Katzman and Jordyn Katzman McAfee from Katzman, Katzman, P.C. have represented the Mother since September 29, 2014, with an hourly rate of $350, while Leah Lotifalian has represented her since March 16, 2015, at a rate of $175. Prior to this, the Mother represented herself at a rate of $225 per hour, incurring $7,425 in attorney fees and expenses. From September 29, 2014, to May 4, 2015, Mother accrued an additional $33,688.75 in attorney fees and costs related to her Contempt Petitions, which arose from the Father's contempt of court and non-compliance with the Decree. The court awarded Mother $7,425 for her self-representation costs and ordered Father to reimburse her $25,000 for attorney fees and litigation costs incurred through May 4, 2015. This amount, while not covering all fees, constitutes a substantial portion. The court's authority to impose attorney fees in child support proceedings is supported by Indiana law, considering factors such as the parties' resources and financial abilities, without an obligation to provide specific reasoning. The court also possesses inherent authority to award attorney fees for civil contempt, enabling it to enforce compliance with its orders and compensate the aggrieved party. The review of the trial court's contempt ruling is limited to identifying abuses of discretion, avoiding reweighing evidence or reassessing witness credibility. The trial court's decision will be upheld unless it contradicts the facts and circumstances presented.
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Mother based on two grounds: its discretionary authority in family law cases and its inherent authority to sanction contempt. Mother, an attorney, provided a timesheet for 33 hours of pro se work prior to September 29, 2014, at a rate of $225 per hour, totaling $7,425. Additionally, her attorneys submitted invoices totaling $33,688.75 for services rendered from September 29, 2014, to May 4, 2015. Mother’s lead counsel asserted that the fees were incurred due to Father's lack of cooperation, which necessitated additional efforts to gather information.
The trial court ultimately ordered Father to pay $32,425 in fees. On appeal, Father claimed the fee award was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence. However, he failed to challenge the reasonableness of the fees during trial, did not request a separate evidentiary hearing, and did not cross-examine Mother or her attorneys about their billing practices. Consequently, he waived his right to contest the fee award on appeal.
The court noted that a party must object during the trial for the issue to be preserved for appeal, referencing previous cases that supported the waiver of arguments not raised in trial. Furthermore, the trial court is entitled to consider various factors when determining fee reasonableness, including the time and skill required, the results obtained, and customary fees in the locality for similar services.
The trial judge is recognized as an expert regarding reasonable attorney's fees, and in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to Mother based on extensive billing statements and its familiarity with the proceedings. Father argues that the trial court did not adequately assess which attorney's fees were directly related to his contempt actions. However, the court declined to reevaluate this evidence, noting sufficient justification for the fee award due to Father's contempt, the parties' earning capacities, and other relevant factors. The total fee awarded to Mother was $32,425, which was significantly lower than her total incurred fees, indicating the award was justified based on the evidence. Father failed to demonstrate any reversible error. The decision is affirmed, with both judges concurring.
The Appellant's Motion to Publish has been granted, resulting in the publication of the Court's opinion from June 23, 2016. The Clerk is instructed to send copies of this opinion and the order to the West Publishing Company and other relevant services. The record notes a discrepancy in the filing date of Mother's motion to compel, which was actually filed on May 1, 2015, contrary to the trial court's findings stating April 30, 2015. Critical documents like the dissolution decree and settlement agreements were not included in the appeal, which would have aided the Court’s review.
Under Indiana Child Support Guideline 8, "Other Extraordinary Expenses" are defined as optional expenses, with both parents responsible for their proportionate share if they agree on the child's participation. Evidence suggests that the parties had an agreement to share various expenses related to their children’s activities, with Father's share of extraordinary expenses initially set at 70% and later changed to 80% as of July 31, 2013. The trial court found Father in contempt for not adhering to the dissolution decree about these expenses and other medical costs.
The trial court expressed discontent with Father's counsel's conduct regarding discovery. Indiana Code Section 31-16-11-1 permits the court to order a party to pay reasonable costs, including attorney's fees for proceedings before and after judgment. Mother seeks a remand for determination of her entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees. However, the statute allows for such fees to be awarded post-judgment, and the trial court retains jurisdiction to decide on this matter, indicating that a remand is not necessary.
