Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1508-DR-1074 | December 22, 2016 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Kurt Brenneman

North Providence, Rhode Island

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances H. Barrow

Andrea E. Rahman

Deputy Attorneys General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kurt Brenneman,

Appellant,

v.

Lisa Brenneman and State of 

Indiana,

Appellees

December 22, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

79A05-1508-DR-1074

Appeal from the Tippecanoe 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Donald L. Daniel, 

Special Judge

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 2 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 3 of 9

Facts and Procedural History2

[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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.