Marriage of Sanjari v. Sanjari
2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 1746, 755 N.E.2d 1186, 2001 WL 1172418 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When parents have joint physical custody with equal parenting time, child support must be calculated using a method analogous to split custody, where each parent's theoretical obligation is determined and the difference is paid by the higher earner, rather than treating one parent as a custodial parent and the other as exercising visitation. Trial courts have broad discretion in valuing and dividing marital property in dissolution cases, but mathematical errors in equalization judgments will be corrected on appeal.
Facts:
- Amir Sanjari and Alison Sanjari were married on February 11, 1982.
- Two children were born of the marriage on October 8, 1988, and September 11, 1992.
- On August 9, 1999, Alison petitioned for dissolution of the marriage.
- On August 22, 2000, Amir and Alison agreed to a permanent award of joint legal custody and joint physical custody of their children, with each parent having the children in their care 50% of each two-week period.
- The parties amicably agreed to an out-of-court division of their personal property.
- The remaining marital assets consisted of the marital residence, one vehicle, a pension, business equipment, and cash, but the marital debt substantially exceeded the value of the assets.
- The parties disputed the value of the marital residence and whether Amir should receive credit for anticipatory tuition payments to a private school that the children ultimately did not attend.
- Amir, in his individual capacity, executed a contract for tuition payments for a private school after the date of marital separation, but the children never attended that private school.
Procedural Posture:
- Alison Sanjari petitioned for dissolution of marriage in the trial court on August 9, 1999.
- The trial court entered a provisional order on September 14, 1999, awarding joint legal and physical custody and ordering Alison to pay temporary child support and certain expenses, for which she would be credited.
- The trial court conducted a final hearing on August 22, 2000, and subsequently ordered Amir to pay graduated weekly child support and awarded the marital residence to Alison, also determining no equalization order was needed.
- Amir initiated an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals on September 20, 2000.
- Alison filed a Motion to Correct Errors with the trial court on September 21, 2000.
- On February 6, 2001, the Indiana Court of Appeals terminated Amir's appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court to permit it to rule on Alison's Motion to Correct Errors.
- On February 16, 2001, the trial court modified its original property distribution order to include previously omitted marital debt and an additional marital asset, and entered an equalization judgment against Amir in the amount of $12,525.06.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
I. Does a child support order constitute an abuse of trial court discretion when it treats one parent as custodial and the other as a visitor, despite the parties having agreed to joint physical custody with equal parenting time? II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in the valuation of marital property, in determining marital debt, or by making mathematical errors in the equalization judgment during a marriage dissolution?
Opinions:
Majority - Bailey, Judge
Yes, the child support order constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion because it treated Alison as the custodial parent and Amir as the non-custodial parent exercising visitation, which was contrary to their agreement for joint physical custody with equal time. The court noted that the Indiana Child Support Guidelines do not directly address joint physical custody with equal time, but found that the methodology for split custody, outlined in the Commentary to Guideline 6, should be applied by analogy. This approach requires computing each parent's theoretical support obligation for the children in the other's custody and then subtracting the lesser from the greater, with the higher-earning parent paying the difference. The court found this method appropriate given the equal parenting time, shared geographical area, and lack of extraordinary expenses or other dependents. The trial court's order was also found to contain mathematical errors in the equalization judgment. Specifically, the trial court failed to include certain marital debt (First Card), omitted asset advances made by Alison to Amir (for rent and car insurance), and over-inflated Amir's net estate. However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the valuation of marital property (pension and residence) or in refusing to recognize Amir's tuition payments as marital debt. The pension valuation was stipulated by the parties, and the residence valuation was within the range of evidence presented. The tuition payments were properly excluded from the marital pot because they were an individual contractual obligation incurred by Amir after the date of marital separation for a school the children did not attend. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of child support and modification of the equalization judgment.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance for trial courts in Indiana on calculating child support in joint physical custody arrangements where parents share children equally. By directing courts to apply a split-custody-like methodology instead of a standard visitation credit, it ensures a more equitable distribution of child-rearing expenses reflective of both parents' equal roles. The ruling also underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court discretion in marital property valuation, provided it is supported by evidence, while simultaneously reinforcing the necessity for meticulous mathematical accuracy in property division equalization judgments. It also clarifies that debts individually incurred after separation for services not ultimately used by the children will likely not be considered marital debt, closing the 'marital pot' at the time of the petition's filing.
