MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 22 2016, 8:25 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kurt Brenneman Gregory F. Zoeller North Providence, Rhode Island Attorney General of Indiana Frances H. Barrow Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kurt Brenneman, December 22, 2016 Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A05-1508-DR-1074 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court Lisa Brenneman and State of The Honorable Donald L. Daniel, Indiana, Special Judge Appellees Trial Court Cause No. 79C01-1103-DR-57
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary and Issues [1] The marriage of Kurt Brenneman (“Husband”) and Lisa Brenneman (“Wife”)
was dissolved by a decree of dissolution entered by the trial court in 2002.
Husband and wife had six children in their marriage, and, pursuant to the
dissolution decree, Husband was ordered to pay child support. In 2014,
Husband, pro se, filed a verified petition to modify child support, a motion for
emergency hearing on the petition, and a motion to emancipate children.
Husband served interrogatories to Wife, which remain unanswered despite the
trial court granting Husband’s motion to compel discovery. Because he was
unable to obtain his requested discovery, Husband refused to offer testimony or
significantly participate in his child support modification hearing, and the trial
court subsequently dismissed his petition and motions. On appeal from the
dismissal of his filings, Husband raises several issues, none of which present a
cogent argument. However, the State of Indiana concedes and, we agree, this
case should be remanded for a new child support modification hearing with
instructions to the trial court to order Wife to answer Husband’s interrogatories
and provide the information in her possession pertaining to the children which
was previously requested by Husband, and if necessary, hold a rule to show
cause hearing.1
1 We thank the State for the clarity of their argument, and for conceding where appropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Facts and Procedural History 2
[2] Husband and Wife were married in 1984 and had six children in their marriage:
Dannae, Marah, Caleb, Michaela, Amelia, and Adrianna. In September 2001,
Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the trial court entered a
decree of dissolution in 2002.3 Although one child has been emancipated by the
trial court, Husband is currently subject to the trial court’s child support order
for his other five children.
[3] On September 27, 2014, Husband, proceeding pro se, filed a verified petition for
modification of child support. Shortly thereafter, Husband filed a motion for
emergency hearing on the petition, and a motion to emancipate children.
Husband based his request to modify child support on the following claims:
There has been a change amounting to significantly more than twenty percent (20%) in financial circumstances since the most recent Child Support Modification Order, 5/30/2012, as follows:
a) On May 22, 2014, [Husband] and the stepmother . . . helped Caleb Darius (age 21) relocate from Indiana to live at their residence where he is now enrolled in the PBA Alternative Admissions program at Rhode Island College.
2 Husband filed his Notice of Appeal on August 5, 2015. The State of Indiana filed a Motion to Modify Child Support on July 29, 2016, and again on November 1, 2016. A hearing on the State’s motion was scheduled for December 5, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Husband filed an emergency motion to stay with this court on December 5, 2016 at 9:08 a.m. An order on Husband’s motion to stay has been issued with this opinion. 3 Husband now lives in Rhode Island.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 3 of 9 b) The number of children who are currently dependent on the custodial parent has decreased from five (5) to two (2), Amelia . . . and Adrianna . . . . Amelia is of majority age (18) and has been employed part-time . . . over the past two years. She will graduate this academic year . . . . Adrianna will be of majority age (18) on 12/13/2016, . . . and will graduate in the spring of 2017.
Appellant’s Appendix at 52-53 (citation omitted). Husband also argued neither
parent should be responsible for paying any post-secondary education expenses
for any child. Along with his petition for modification of child support,
Husband served interrogatories to Wife, seeking, among a wide array of
material, information about his children, their ages, and whether any of the
children were emancipated. When Husband did not receive a response to his
interrogatories, he filed a motion to compel discovery on February 23, 2015.
On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted Husband’s motion to compel and
ordered Wife to respond to Husband’s interrogatories within thirty days.
Husband still has not received answers to his interrogatories.
[4] On June 3, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on various motions and petitions
filed by Husband, including Husband’s verified petition to modify child support
and motion to emancipate children. During the hearing, Husband raised the
issue that Amelia, one of the two remaining children yet to reach the age of
emancipation, may have enlisted with the Marines; therefore, she also may
have been emancipated. The trial court gave Husband multiple opportunities to
address his various claims of emancipation and child support; however, he
refused to offer any testimony because he claimed he had not received the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 4 of 9 discovery he needed to proceed. When asked what specific discovery Husband
needed, he responded,
Everything that I have asked for. I petitioned for a motion for production of—for production. I’ve submitted interrogatories back on November the 6th along with a second request for production. I have received absolutely nothing and furthermore at this stage I have supplemental—second interrogatories so I cannot proceed period without discovery . . . . It is my understanding that none of them are in school at this time and haven’t been and the word is . . . that Amelia has entered military service with the Marines, I don’t know if that’s true or not because I haven’t received answers to the interrogatories.
Transcript at 29-30. Because he refused to offer testimony or significantly
participate in the hearing, the trial court dismissed Husband’s verified petition
for modification of child support. Husband now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [5] In this case, the trial court dismissed Husband’s petition to modify child
support, which effectively denied his petition. A trial court’s decision regarding
child support modification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Lovold v. Ellis,
988 N.E.2d 1144, 1149-50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 22 2016, 8:25 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kurt Brenneman Gregory F. Zoeller North Providence, Rhode Island Attorney General of Indiana Frances H. Barrow Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kurt Brenneman, December 22, 2016 Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A05-1508-DR-1074 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court Lisa Brenneman and State of The Honorable Donald L. Daniel, Indiana, Special Judge Appellees Trial Court Cause No. 79C01-1103-DR-57
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary and Issues [1] The marriage of Kurt Brenneman (“Husband”) and Lisa Brenneman (“Wife”)
was dissolved by a decree of dissolution entered by the trial court in 2002.
Husband and wife had six children in their marriage, and, pursuant to the
dissolution decree, Husband was ordered to pay child support. In 2014,
Husband, pro se, filed a verified petition to modify child support, a motion for
emergency hearing on the petition, and a motion to emancipate children.
Husband served interrogatories to Wife, which remain unanswered despite the
trial court granting Husband’s motion to compel discovery. Because he was
unable to obtain his requested discovery, Husband refused to offer testimony or
significantly participate in his child support modification hearing, and the trial
court subsequently dismissed his petition and motions. On appeal from the
dismissal of his filings, Husband raises several issues, none of which present a
cogent argument. However, the State of Indiana concedes and, we agree, this
case should be remanded for a new child support modification hearing with
instructions to the trial court to order Wife to answer Husband’s interrogatories
and provide the information in her possession pertaining to the children which
was previously requested by Husband, and if necessary, hold a rule to show
cause hearing.1
1 We thank the State for the clarity of their argument, and for conceding where appropriate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Facts and Procedural History 2
[2] Husband and Wife were married in 1984 and had six children in their marriage:
Dannae, Marah, Caleb, Michaela, Amelia, and Adrianna. In September 2001,
Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the trial court entered a
decree of dissolution in 2002.3 Although one child has been emancipated by the
trial court, Husband is currently subject to the trial court’s child support order
for his other five children.
[3] On September 27, 2014, Husband, proceeding pro se, filed a verified petition for
modification of child support. Shortly thereafter, Husband filed a motion for
emergency hearing on the petition, and a motion to emancipate children.
Husband based his request to modify child support on the following claims:
There has been a change amounting to significantly more than twenty percent (20%) in financial circumstances since the most recent Child Support Modification Order, 5/30/2012, as follows:
a) On May 22, 2014, [Husband] and the stepmother . . . helped Caleb Darius (age 21) relocate from Indiana to live at their residence where he is now enrolled in the PBA Alternative Admissions program at Rhode Island College.
2 Husband filed his Notice of Appeal on August 5, 2015. The State of Indiana filed a Motion to Modify Child Support on July 29, 2016, and again on November 1, 2016. A hearing on the State’s motion was scheduled for December 5, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Husband filed an emergency motion to stay with this court on December 5, 2016 at 9:08 a.m. An order on Husband’s motion to stay has been issued with this opinion. 3 Husband now lives in Rhode Island.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 3 of 9 b) The number of children who are currently dependent on the custodial parent has decreased from five (5) to two (2), Amelia . . . and Adrianna . . . . Amelia is of majority age (18) and has been employed part-time . . . over the past two years. She will graduate this academic year . . . . Adrianna will be of majority age (18) on 12/13/2016, . . . and will graduate in the spring of 2017.
Appellant’s Appendix at 52-53 (citation omitted). Husband also argued neither
parent should be responsible for paying any post-secondary education expenses
for any child. Along with his petition for modification of child support,
Husband served interrogatories to Wife, seeking, among a wide array of
material, information about his children, their ages, and whether any of the
children were emancipated. When Husband did not receive a response to his
interrogatories, he filed a motion to compel discovery on February 23, 2015.
On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted Husband’s motion to compel and
ordered Wife to respond to Husband’s interrogatories within thirty days.
Husband still has not received answers to his interrogatories.
[4] On June 3, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on various motions and petitions
filed by Husband, including Husband’s verified petition to modify child support
and motion to emancipate children. During the hearing, Husband raised the
issue that Amelia, one of the two remaining children yet to reach the age of
emancipation, may have enlisted with the Marines; therefore, she also may
have been emancipated. The trial court gave Husband multiple opportunities to
address his various claims of emancipation and child support; however, he
refused to offer any testimony because he claimed he had not received the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 4 of 9 discovery he needed to proceed. When asked what specific discovery Husband
needed, he responded,
Everything that I have asked for. I petitioned for a motion for production of—for production. I’ve submitted interrogatories back on November the 6th along with a second request for production. I have received absolutely nothing and furthermore at this stage I have supplemental—second interrogatories so I cannot proceed period without discovery . . . . It is my understanding that none of them are in school at this time and haven’t been and the word is . . . that Amelia has entered military service with the Marines, I don’t know if that’s true or not because I haven’t received answers to the interrogatories.
Transcript at 29-30. Because he refused to offer testimony or significantly
participate in the hearing, the trial court dismissed Husband’s verified petition
for modification of child support. Husband now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [5] In this case, the trial court dismissed Husband’s petition to modify child
support, which effectively denied his petition. A trial court’s decision regarding
child support modification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Lovold v. Ellis,
988 N.E.2d 1144, 1149-50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs
when a trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. at 1150.
When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, we consider only the
evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 5 of 9 [6] Husband’s petition to modify child support was based on the following claims:
(1) he helped his son, Caleb, relocate to Rhode Island to live with him and
attend college; (2) three (potentially four) of his children have been emancipated
by operation of law; and (3) he asserted neither parent should be obligated to
pay any post-secondary education expenses for any child.
[7] Indiana Code section 31-16-8-1(b) sets forth the circumstances under which a
child support order may be modified:
(1) upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; or
(2) upon a showing that:
(A) a party has been ordered to pay an amount in child support that differs by more than twenty percent (20%) from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines; and
(B) the order requested to be modified or revoked was issued at least twelve (12) months before the petition requesting modification was filed.
[8] Indiana Code section 31-16-6-6 sets forth the circumstances under which a child
may be deemed emancipated:
(a) The duty to support a child under this chapter, which does not include support for educational needs, ceases when the child becomes nineteen (19) years of age unless any of the following conditions occurs:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 6 of 9 (1) The child is emancipated before becoming nineteen (19) years of age. In this case the child support, except for the educational needs outlined in section 2(a)(1) of this chapter, terminates at the time of emancipation, although an order for educational needs may continue in effect until further order of the court.
***
(b) For purposes of determining if a child is emancipated under subsection (a)(1), if the court finds that the child:
(1) is on active duty in the United States armed services . . . the court shall find the child emancipated and terminate the child support.
The party seeking modification bears the burden of establishing that the
statutory requirements have been satisfied. Hedrick v. Gilbert, 17 N.E.3d 321,
327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A party seeking emancipation must establish it by
competent evidence. Hirsch v. Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651, 655 (Ind. 2012).
[9] Initially, we note Wife has not responded to Husband’s interrogatories. The
Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure allow a party to obtain discovery regarding
any relevant, unprivileged matter that is reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Ind. Trial Rule 26(B). “Any party may serve
upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served
. . . who shall furnish such information as is available to the party.” Ind. Trial
Rule 33(A). Interrogatories may be served upon the opposing party after
commencement of the action without leave of court. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 7 of 9 [10] Husband served his first set of interrogatories to Wife on September 27, 2014,
seeking, among other things, information about his children, their ages, and
whether any of the children are emancipated. When Husband did not receive a
response to his interrogatories, he filed a motion to compel discovery on
February 23, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted Husband’s
motion to compel and ordered Wife to respond to Husband’s interrogatories
within thirty days; wife has yet to provide the requested information.
[11] At the modification hearing in June 2015, Husband raised the issue that his
daughter, Amelia, may have enlisted in the Marines; therefore, she may be
emancipated by operation of law. Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(b)(1). Husband has no
other access to this information and the State concedes it was error to proceed
with the modification hearing without completing discovery. Appellee’s Brief
at 13-14.
[12] The State also admits Husband’s argument that some of his children may have
reached the age of emancipation has merit, and he should no longer be subject
to a child support order for those children. Appellee’s Br. at 12-13. At the
modification hearing, Husband appeared telephonically and refused to
significantly participate because he had not received the discovery he had
requested. Although he could have simply testified about his children’s ages
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 8 of 9 from his own personal knowledge, he did not do so.4 Regardless, the State
concedes and, we agree, this case should be remanded for a new child support
modification hearing.5 On remand, we instruct the trial court to first order Wife
to provide the information in her possession regarding the status of their
children which was previously requested by Husband in his interrogatories and
then to hold another hearing regarding Husband’s petition to modify.
Conclusion [13] We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Husband’s petition to modify child
support and remand for a new modification hearing to determine when each
child was emancipated as conceded by the State in its pleading of July 29, 2016
and again on November 1, 2016. On remand, we instruct the trial court to first
order Wife to answer Husband’s interrogatories pertaining to the status of their
children.
[14] Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.
4 Husband has elected to proceed pro se. Pro se litigants are subject to the same standards as trained attorneys and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of self-representation. Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). 5 We note the general rule in Indiana is that retroactive modification of support payments is erroneous if the modification relates back to a date earlier than the filing of a petition to modify. Donegan v. Donegan, 605 N.E.2d 132, 133 n.1 (Ind. 1992). However, unlike a claim of change of circumstances requiring modification of child support, an assertion of emancipation is deemed effective as of the date of emancipation, rather than the date of filing of the petition. Id. at 133.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 9 of 9