MacLafferty v. MacLafferty
2005 WL 1515098, 2005 Ind. LEXIS 598, 829 N.E.2d 938 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A change in a parent's income that would result in less than a 20% modification to a child support obligation does not, by itself, generally constitute a 'changed circumstance so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable' under Indiana Code § 31-16-8-1(1).
Facts:
- Donna J. MacLafferty (Mother) and William P. MacLafferty (Father) divorced in 1995, with Mother awarded physical custody of their two children.
- A court order dated April 17, 2002, set Father's child support obligation at $364 per week, plus six percent of any bonus income.
- Following this order, Mother obtained full-time employment, which increased her weekly income for child support purposes from $324 to $709.
- During this same period, Father's weekly income increased from $2,287 to $2,407, exclusive of bonuses.
- Even with her increased earnings, Father's weekly income was approximately three and a quarter times greater than Mother's income.
Procedural Posture:
- William P. MacLafferty (Father) filed a petition to modify a prior child support order against Donna J. MacLafferty (Mother) in the Marion County Superior Court, the trial court.
- The trial court granted Father's petition and reduced his weekly child support obligation from $364 to $313.
- Mother, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Indiana Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Mother, as appellant, petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for transfer, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a custodial parent's increased income from obtaining full-time employment constitute a 'changed circumstance so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable' sufficient to modify a child support order, when the resulting modification would be less than 20% and the non-custodial parent's income remains substantially higher?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. A custodial parent's increased income does not constitute a changed circumstance so substantial and continuing as to make the prior support order unreasonable when the resulting modification would be less than the 20% threshold outlined in the statute's alternative provision. The legislature established a bifurcated standard for modification. Indiana Code § 31-16-8-1(2) creates a bright-line rule allowing modification for income changes that alter the support obligation by more than 20% if at least 12 months have passed. The court reasoned that the legislature would not have enacted this 20% threshold if a lesser change could routinely satisfy the more stringent 'substantial and continuing' standard under § 31-16-8-1(1). Allowing a 14% modification based solely on an income change would undermine the statutory scheme designed to limit vexatious litigation over minor financial fluctuations. Furthermore, given that Father's income remained vastly superior to Mother's, the change was not so substantial as to render the existing $364 per week order unreasonable.
Dissenting - Dickson, J.
This justice dissented from the majority opinion but did not author a written dissent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between the two subsections of Indiana's child support modification statute, creating a strong presumption against modifying support for income-based changes that fall below the 20% threshold. It significantly raises the bar for parties seeking modification under the 'substantial and continuing change' standard when the sole basis is a minor to moderate change in income. The ruling promotes stability and predictability in child support orders by discouraging frequent litigation over small financial shifts, effectively creating a safe harbor for income changes that result in a less than 20% alteration of the support amount, absent other compelling factors.
