Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 1 of 16

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Dan J. May

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Briane M. House

R. Daniel Faust

House Reynolds & Faust, LLP

Carmel, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jamie Lynn Vore,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Jeffrey Lee Vore,

Appellee-Petitioner

February 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

34A02-1505-DR-264

Appeal from the Howard Superior 

Court

The Honorable Brant J. Parry, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

34D02-1201-DR-86

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 2 of 16

Case Summary and Issues

[1] Jamie Vore (“Mother”) and Jeffrey Vore (“Father”) were divorced in 2013. 

Mother received primary custody of the couple’s minor child (“Child”), and 

Father was ordered to pay child support. Thereafter, Mother filed a petition to 

modify child support, and Father filed a petition to modify support, custody, 

and parenting time. After a hearing, the trial court modified custody, awarding

primary custody to Father. In addition, the trial court modified Father’s child 

support obligation effective as of the date of Mother’s petition, ordered the 

arrearage be paid into a trust for Child, and terminated Father’s child support 

obligation effective immediately. Mother appeals, raising several issues for our 

review, which we consolidate and restate as: 1) whether the trial court abused

its discretion in modifying child custody; 2) whether the trial court abused its 

discretion when calculating Father’s income for child support purposes; 3)

whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating Father’s child 

support obligation; and 4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in 

ordering Father pay his arrearage into a trust for Child. As to the first three 

issues, we conclude the trial court did not err. However, we also conclude the 

trial court abused its discretion in ordering Father pay the arrearage into a trust 

for Child. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 11, 2013, the trial court issued a written decree dissolving Mother’s 

and Father’s marriage. As a part of the decree, the trial court awarded Mother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 3 of 16

primary custody of Child, and Father was awarded parenting time with Child 

every weekend and for one-half of Child’s summer break from school. The trial 

court also ordered Father to pay $100 per week in child support. Nearly a 

month later, Father won $1,000,000 in the Hoosier Lottery. After paying taxes 

on his winnings, Father received around $540,000. 

[3] On July 8, 2013, less than a week after Father won the lottery, Mother filed a 

petition to modify child support. Mother later filed a Supplemental and Second 

Petition to Modify Support and Father filed a petition to modify child custody, 

support, and parenting time. 

[4] On March 9, 2015, the trial court heard argument on the parties’ petitions. 

Child submitted to an in camera interview where she indicated a desire to live 

with Father. Two weeks later, the trial court entered its findings of fact and 

conclusions—made at Mother’s request—awarding Father primary custody, 

modifying Father’s child support obligation to $259 a week retroactive to July 

8, 2013, terminating Father’s child support obligation to Mother, and ordering 

Father to pay the arrearage into a trust for Child. Mother now appeals. 

Additional facts will be added as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[5] “Modifications of child custody, parenting time, and child support are all 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. We grant latitude and deference to our trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 4 of 16

judges in family law matters.” Miller v. Carpenter, 965 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012) (citations omitted). On appeal, we neither reweigh evidence nor 

reassess witness credibility. Id. Rather, we consider only the evidence most 

favorable to the judgment and the inferences flowing therefrom. Id. 

[6] Where, as here, the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusions at the 

request of one of the parties, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Maddux 

v Maddux, 40 N.E.3d 971, 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). First, we determine 

whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, whether the findings 

support the judgment. Id. The trial court’s findings are controlling unless the 

record includes no facts to support them either directly or by inference. Id. 

Legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. Id. at 975. We set aside a 

trial court’s judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. at 974. “Clear error 

occurs when our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment leaves 

us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 974-75. 

II. Child Custody 

[7] Mother argues the trial court’s decision to modify custody was clearly 

erroneous. Specifically, Mother contends the trial court erred in failing to take 

into account Father drinks alcohol and Child only wanted to live with Father 

because Father was less strict. Father argues Mother’s position invites us to 

reweigh the evidence, and in any event, the findings supports the trial court’s 

determination. We agree with Father.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 5 of 16

[8] A court may not modify a child custody order unless the modification is in the 

best interests of the child, Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21(a)(1), and there is a 

substantial change in at least one of the following factors:

(1) The age and sex of the child.

(2) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents.

(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the 

child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.

(4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:

(A) the child’s parent or parents;

(B) the child’s sibling; and

(C) any other person who may significantly affect the 

child’s best interests.

(5) The child’s adjustment to the child’s:

(A) home;

(B) school; and

(C) community.

(6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either 

parent.

(8) Evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto

custodian . . . .

Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21(a)(2); Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8. The court shall also 

consider these factors in determining whether the modification is in the best 

interests of the child. Ind. Code § 31-17-2-21(b). 

[9] Here, the trial court heard evidence of Mother’s and Father’s wishes, and the 

trial court conducted an in camera interview with Child. In its order, the trial 

court made the following relevant findings of fact:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 6 of 16

1. Jeffrey Vore and Jamie Vore are the parents of one (1) minor 

child, . . . age 15.

* * *

7. [Father] lives in a three bedroom home by himself. The child 

has her own bedroom in the home.

* * *

9. [Mother] lives in [a] three bedroom home with 5 other 

individuals. [Mother’s two] children . . . reside in the home. 

[Mother’s] boyfriend, Bob Reed, resides in the home. Tasha 

Allen . . . resides in the home. “Kim”, age 21 and not related to 

[Mother], also lives in the home.

10. “Kim” lives with [Mother] because she is homeless. “Kim” 

is bi-polar and [Mother] helps her with her medication.

* * *

13. [Child] attends Kokomo High School. Until this school 

year, [Child] had done very well academically. However, on her 

last grading period, [Child] received two very poor marks.

14. [Child’s] teachers have told [Mother] that [Child’s] failure to 

complete her homework is her main problem at school. [Mother] 

has indicated that she is unable to assist [Child] with her 

homework due to the difficulty of the subject matter. Similarly, 

[Father] is also unable to assist [Child] with her homework.

* * *

17. [Mother] has not been employed since 2009. In 2009, she 

was involved in an automobile accident and was injured. She 

applied for disability, but was denied. She has not applied for 

employment within the last six months.

18. [Mother] receives food stamps.

19. [Mother] and her boyfriend both smoke cigarettes in the 

home and around [Child]. She has caught [Child] smoking 

cigarettes in the recent past.

20. When [Child] misbehaves, [Mother] punishes [Child] by 

taking away her cell phone, sending her to her room, or 

removing the door to her room.

21. [Child] has a boyfriend. [Mother] does not allow the 

boyfriend in her home. [Mother] will not allow this because she 

suspects sexual activity, and is trying to stop it. [Child] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 7 of 16

continually attempts to see her boyfriend against [Mother’s] 

wishes.

22. [Father] allows [Child] to see her boyfriend in his home. 

[Father] does not allow the children to be alone. He provides 

constant supervision. [Father’s] rules concerning the boyfriend 

conflict with [Mother’s] rules as to the boyfriend.

* * *

25. [Father] drinks alcohol, specifically beer, on a daily basis. 

Throughout a week, [Father] may consume between 2-4 cases of 

beer. He drinks around and in front of [Child]. There is no 

evidence that [Child] has ever consumed alcohol and [Child] 

indicates that she is a non-drinker.

26. When [Child] misbehaves, [Father] disciplines her by 

sending her to her room or sitting her down and talking to her.

* * *

32. [Child] has a loving relationship with [Father]. [Child] feels 

comfortable talking with her father about issues in her life. They 

enjoy cooking and going on motorcycle rides together.

* * *

34. [Child] has a loving relationship with [Mother]. However, 

[Child] does not feel comfortable talking with her mother about 

life issues.

* * *

36. [Child] does not have a good relationship with [Mother’s] 

boyfriend, Bob Reed.

37. [Child] does not have a good relationship with “Kim”. 

[Child] moves to a different room in the home or to her bedroom 

to avoid being the room [sic] with “Kim”. 

38. [Child] does have a good relationship with Tasha Allen.

39. [Child] has a good relationship with her sister . . . . 

However, [Child] does not feel comfortable talking to [her] about 

issues in her life or obtaining advice from her.

* * *

41. [Child] indicates that she wishes to live with [Father].

* * *

45. Since the previous custody order was entered, there have 

been several substantial changes in circumstance:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 8 of 16

a. [Child] is older;

b. [Father] now wishes to have [Child] live with him;

c. [Child] now wishes to live with [Father];

d. [Mother] has additional individuals that live in her 

residence;

e. [Mother] is now dating Bob Reed;

f. [Child’s] grades have declined during the last school 

year;

g. [Father] won the lottery. 

Appellant’s Appendix 13-17. In modifying the child custody order, the trial 

court concluded, 

71. The Court believes that both parties love their children a 

great deal.

72. The child is older at the time of this hearing than she was at 

the time of the dissolution.

73. [Father] now wishes to have the child in his custody.

74. [Mother] has at least 2 other people living in her residence 

than she did when the dissolution was granted.

75. The child’s grades have dropped during the last grading 

period.

76. The child now wishes to reside with [Father].

77. The court finds and concludes based on all evidence 

submitted, the record, and findings above, that [Father] has met 

his burden to show a change in circumstances so decisive as to 

make a change in custody necessary and in the [Child’s] best 

interest.

Id. at 20.

[10] As noted above, the trial court made specific findings as to how much alcohol 

Father drinks and how strict each parent is regarding Child’s boyfriend. 

Mother’s arguments invite us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 9 of 16

See Miller, 965 N.E.2d at 108. In addition, we conclude the evidence supports 

the trial court’s findings and the findings support placing Child in Father’s 

custody. Although the trial court made numerous findings supporting its 

conclusion in this regard, we note the trial court found fifteen-year-old Child 

desired to live with Father, see Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8(3); Child did not feel 

comfortable communicating with Mother, but felt comfortable communicating 

with Father, see § 31-17-2-8(4)(A); and Child did not get along with multiple 

individuals living with Mother, some of whom moved in after the dissolution 

decree, see § 31-17-2-8(4)(C). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting Father’s petition to modify custody of Child.

II. Child Support

A. Income for Child Support Calculation

[11] Mother argues the trial court erred when it calculated Father’s modified child 

support obligation. Specifically, Mother contends the trial court erred in 

calculating the net portion of Father’s lottery winnings instead of his total 

winnings. “Weekly Gross Income is the starting point in determining the child 

support obligation, and it must be calculated for both parents.” Ind. Child 

Support Guideline 3(A) Commentary 2. 

For the purposes of determining the parents’ income in the child 

support guideline calculation, the definition of ‘weekly gross 

income’ is broadly defined to include not only actual income 

from employment, but also potential income and imputed 

income from ‘in-kind’ benefits. However, the Commentary to 

the Indiana Child Support Guidelines cautions that determining 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 10 of 16

income is more difficult when commissions and other forms or 

irregular income are involved. While irregular income is 

includable in the total income approach taken by the Guidelines, 

the determination is very fact sensitive. 

Harris v. Harris, 800 N.E.2d 930, 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted), trans. denied. 

[12] In Harris, a noncustodial father obtained a custody modification, and the 

mother appealed, arguing the trial court erred when it included only the net 

portion of the father’s wrongful termination settlement. The father received a 

final gross settlement check of $800,000, but after deductions for taxes, 

attorney’s fees, and investments, the only money available to the father was 

$189,570.33. Instead of using the $800,000 figure to calculate the father’s 

weekly gross income, the trial court used the $189,570.33 figure. We affirmed 

the trial court’s decision, reasoning, 

The nature of a settlement award is a one-time payment of 

money. As such, it has a single impact on an individual’s 

financial circumstances and net worth. It is reasonable to state 

that the award would have ultimately benefited the children if the 

family had remained intact. Even then, the settlement award 

would have only been beneficial after the appropriate taxes were 

deducted. 

Therefore, we agree with the trial court that the gross amount of 

the settlement award was an irregular and non-guaranteed form 

of income, which the trial court, in its discretion, could exclude 

from its determination of gross income. Here, the trial court

considered the settlement award and concluded that it was 

reasonable to include the net portion, as only that amount would 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 11 of 16

have been available to the family. This decision ensured that the 

children are given the support they need.

Id. at 940 (internal citations and footnote omitted).

[13] Here, the trial court concluded,

65. The lottery winnings were irregular and non-guaranteed 

income. [Father] was required to pay state and federal taxes on 

the entire $1,000,000.00 award. The net amount, $540,000.00, is 

the amount that would have actually been available to the family.

* * *

67. Through his employment at Omni Source, [Father] earns 

gross income of $34,000 per year. For the last four years, 

[Father] has earned $136,000.00 in gross income from Omni 

Source. During that time, [Father] received $540,000.00 in net 

lottery winnings. The total amount of income over the four year 

period equaled $676,000.00. That amount of income breaks 

down to $169,000.00 per year and $3,250.00 per week.

68. Pursuant to the attached Child Support Obligation 

Worksheet, [Father’s] support obligation is modified to $259.00 

per week retroactive to July 8, 2013.

Appellant’s App. at 19. Similar to Harris, Father received a one-time payment 

of a large sum of money, the net income was the only amount of money made 

available to Father, and the money had a single impact on Father’s net worth. 

In addition, had the family remained intact, Father’s net income from the 

lottery winnings would have ultimately benefited Child. See Harris, 900 N.E.2d 

at 940. Using its discretion, the trial court concluded the gross portion of the 

lottery winnings constituted an irregular and non-guaranteed form of income

that should be excluded from the child support calculation. Accordingly, we 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 12 of 16

are not persuaded the trial court erred in calculating child support based on the 

net portion of Father’s lottery winnings. 

B. Father’s Future Child Support Obligation

[14] Mother argues the trial court erred in terminating Father’s child support

obligation. Pursuant to Indiana Child Support Guideline 3(F)(1),

The total child support obligation is divided between the parents 

in proportion to their weekly adjusted income. A monetary 

obligation is computed for each parent. The custodial parent’s 

share is presumed to be spent directly on the child. When there is 

near equal parenting time, and the custodial parent has significantly 

higher income than the noncustodial parent, application of the 

parenting time credit should result in an order for the child 

support to be paid from a custodial parent to a noncustodial 

parent, absent grounds for a deviation.

(Emphasis added). In other words, before a custodial parent can be ordered to 

pay child support to a noncustodial parent, two facts must be present: 1) the 

parents share near equal parenting time, and 2) there is a large disparity in the 

parent’s incomes. Here, the trial court awarded Father primary custody of 

Child and concluded Mother “shall have the right to parenting time with the 

child pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.” Appellant’s App. at 

29. Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines Section II(E) sets forth the standard for 

a noncustodial parent’s regular parenting time, which Mother concedes equates 

to around “98 overnights.” Reply Brief of the Appellant at 29. If Mother’s 

parenting time is estimated to be ninety-eight overnights, then Father’s 

parenting time is estimated to be around 267 overnights. Because Mother and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 13 of 16

Father do not share near equal parenting time, we conclude the trial court did 

not err in ordering no child support be paid by Father to Mother.

C. Arrearage

[15] Mother argues the trial court erred in ordering Father’s arrearage be paid into a 

trust for Child’s benefit in the future. One of the purposes of child support is to 

provide a child with regular and uninterrupted support. Hicks v. Smith, 919 

N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. It is well-established the 

right to child support lies exclusively with the child. A custodial parent is 

therefore required to hold the support payments in trust for the child’s benefit; 

in essence, the custodial parent becomes “the trustee of the non-custodial 

parent’s obligation to pay . . . .” Id. Generally, the non-custodial parent 

maintains an ongoing obligation to pay child support, and the custodial parent 

maintains an ongoing obligation to care for the child. Id. at 1172. However, 

when a non-custodial parent does not maintain the ongoing obligation to pay, 

the “custodial parent who has advanced his or her own funds to provide food, 

clothing, and shelter to the child has discharged the trusteeship and ‘is entitled 

to collect the arrears from the non-custodian.’” Id. (quoting Lizak v. Schultz, 496 

N.E.2d 40, 42 (Ind. 1986)). This rule creates a presumption “that the custodial 

parent has made up any shortfall that resulted from the noncustodial parent’s 

failure to fulfill his or her child-support obligations.” Sickels v. State, 982 N.E.2d

1010, 1014 (Ind. 2013).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 14 of 16

[16] Here, the 2013 dissolution decree ordered Father pay $100 a week in child 

support. On July 8, 2013, Mother—after discovering Father won the lottery—

filed a petition to modify child support. Father subsequently continued to pay 

Mother child support in the amount of $100 per week. In modifying the child 

support order retroactively, the trial court concluded,

68. Pursuant to the attached Child Support Obligation 

Worksheet, [Father’s] support obligation is modified to $259.00 

per week retroactive to July 8, 2013. 

69. Based on this retroactive order, [Father] should have paid 

$23,051.00 in child support between July 8, 2013 – March 23, 

2015 (89 weeks). [Father] has paid $8,900. Therefore, [Father] is 

$14,151.00 in arrears as to child support.

70. Child support is designed to ensure that the child maintains 

the standard of the living [sic] the child would have enjoyed had 

the marriage not been dissolved. Support is not designed to 

provide the custodial parent with a windfall. There has been no 

evidence that [Mother] expended any additional funds for the 

child since [Father] won the lottery. [Mother] and the child 

continued to live the same life style they had been living prior to 

[Father] winning the lottery. Therefore, the Court determines 

that this arrearage amount shall be placed in trust for the benefit

of the child. [Father] shall place $14,151.00 in trust for the 

benefit of [Child] within the next 30 days. The trust funds may 

be used to finance the child’s college education as needed. Once 

the child graduates college, the remaining funds, if any, shall be 

released to the child. If the child does not attend college, the 

funds shall be released to the child on her 22nd birthday.

Appellant’s App. at 20 (emphasis in original). In other words, the trial court—

in ordering the arrearage be placed into a trust for Child—solely relied on its 

findings that Mother did not present any evidence she expended any additional 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 15 of 16

funds to make up for the shortfall, and Mother and Child continued to live the 

same “life style.” Id. This was error. The trial court’s findings make no 

mention of Mother providing Child with food, shelter, clothing, and other basic 

necessities during the retroactive period, nor the general rule that a custodial 

parent is entitled to a presumption he or she made up any shortfall. See Sickels, 

982 N.E.2d at 1014. It is neither Mother’s burden to prove she made up any 

shortfall, nor Mother’s burden to prove Child’s life style changed. 

[17] Despite its conclusion to the contrary, we note the trial court’s findings support 

awarding the arrearage to Mother. Following the divorce, Mother was on food 

stamps, and Bob Reed, Tasha Allen, and “Kim” all moved into Mother’s 

apartment. Child did not get along with Bob and “Kim” and Child’s grades 

began to suffer. We find it likely none of this would have occurred had the 

family remained intact.

[18] Finally, our decision becomes clearer when viewed in light of the case’s history. 

Father did not file his petition to modify custody, support, and parenting time 

until February 10, 2015, nearly nineteen months after Mother originally filed 

her petition to modify support; the trial court did not hear the matter until 

March 2015. Taking into consideration how long it took for the trial court to 

hear this matter, combined with the trial court being forced to hear Father’s and 

Mother’s competing petitions at the same time, we are convinced the trial court

likely would have would have increased Father’s child support obligation had 

the matter been heard closer to the time of Mother’s filing and when Child was 

still in Mother’s custody. Therefore, it is likely Mother would have had use of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1505-DR-264 | February 15, 2016 Page 16 of 16

the increase for the care of Child during that time, and any arrearages that 

accrued would have been awarded to Mother based on the law discussed above. 

Accordingly, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering 

Father pay the arrearage to Mother.

Conclusion

[19] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Father primary custody, 

calculating the modified child support obligation, and terminating Father’s

child support payments to Mother. We affirm the trial court’s decision in those 

respects. However, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Father pay 

the arrearage into a trust for Child; Mother is entitled to the arrearage and we 

therefore reverse that provision of the order and remand for the trial court to 

issue an amended order.

[20] Reversed and remanded.

Barnes, J., and Altice, J., concur.