Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 1 of 7

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

R. Lee Money

Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy S. Shelly

Matthew W. Schramm

Warrick & Boyn, LLP

Elkhart, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael James Tollar,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Saige Marie Swank,

Appellee-Petitioner

November 2, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-DR-849

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior 

Court

The Honorable David C. 

Bonfiglio, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20D06-0303-DR-137

Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Michael James Tollar (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to 

pay his share of his son’s post-secondary education expenses. Father contends 

that the trial court erred in concluding that his son had not repudiated his 

relationship with Father. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] During the marriage of Father and Saige Swank (“Mother”), the parties had 

two children, including M.S.T. (“Son”), who was born in 1997. Son was later 

diagnosed with a sensory integration disorder that “require[d] significant and 

consistent care.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 10. In 2004, Father and Mother’s 

marriage was dissolved by a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage which ordered 

post-secondary education expenses for the children to be divided as follows:

. . . scholarships and grants shall first be deducted from the 

education expenses . . . [t]hereafter, the child shall be responsible 

for twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining expenses, and the 

balance shall be divided between the parties in proportion to their 

respective weekly adjusted income.

Id. at 14. In September 2016, after Mother received a bill for Son’s first 

semester of college, she filed a petition asking that Father be ordered to pay his 

share of Son’s post-secondary education expenses. In response, Father filed a 

petition to modify child support regarding post-secondary education expenses. 

Father asserted in his petition that Son had repudiated him and asked to be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 3 of 7

released from all financial obligations for post-secondary education expenses for 

Son. In February 2018, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing regarding 

post-secondary education expenses.

[3] At the hearing, Mother testified that after her divorce from Father in 2004, 

Father visited Son “three or four times within [the] year following the divorce; 

and then, stopped visiting.” Tr. p. 14. Mother said that between 2005 and 

2017, Father never called Son or sent him birthday or holiday cards. Mother 

testified that she has had the same telephone number since 2004 and that she 

and Son lived in the home that she had shared with Father until 2015. Mother 

stated that after she filed the petition for post-secondary education expenses, 

Father sent Son a series of Facebook messages. 

[4] Father testified that he visited Son a couple of times in 2005 and had occasional 

visits with Son that ended in either 2008, 2012, or 2013. Father testified that he 

“sent a letter, a little card or something in the early years” but not “every 

birthday [or] every Christmas.” Id. at 33. Father stated that in February 2017,

he and Son “had a limited exchange on Facebook” and that they “went back

and forth for a week, ten days” and Son “refused to get on the phone.” Id. at 

38-39. Father said that after Son told him that he did not want to speak on the 

phone, “[Father] asked [Son] is it okay if we just keep . . . [using] Facebook” 

and Son said “sure.” Id. at 50. Father testified that eventually he and Son 

stopped communicating because Son blocked him on Facebook.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 4 of 7

[5] Son testified that the last time he remembered Father visiting him was in 2008, 

and that Father’s visits were “really infrequent.” Id. at 70. Son said that he 

“never once remember[ed] receiving any sort of Christmas or birthday card

[from Father].” Id. Son testified that he and Father had a “two-week long 

exchange” on Facebook in February 2017. Id. at 71. Son said that Father “was 

really insistent on trying to get [his] phone number. And [he] didn’t feel 

comfortable with that. [He] wanted to just work through Facebook[.]” Id. Son 

also testified that Father sent him “really, really, long drawn out YouTube 

videos” that “were around three hours each.” Id. at 72. Son said the YouTube 

videos “came across really creepy” and made him “really uncomfortable.” Id. 

Son testified that toward the end of their Facebook exchange Father told him 

that he was thinking of hiring a private investigator to find out Son’s 

information. Son stated:

That really freaked me out. And I think toward the end, [Father]

eventually said, look, I don’t want to talk anymore. I . . . want 

your phone number. That’s how we’re going to continue this 

conversation. And then, I was like, well, then, for now, we’re 

not . . . continuing this conversation. And then, I blocked 

[Father] on Facebook.

Id. at 73. Son testified that “[he] would love to know [Father]” and “would be 

fine with [Father] sending [him] a letter.” Id. at 74, 77. 

[6] Following the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and 

asked the parties to submit written final arguments. In March 2018, the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 5 of 7

court issued an order finding “that [Son] ha[d] not repudiated his [F]ather.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 2. The trial court reasoned:

[Son’s] behaviors in this matter are not ones of repudiation of his

[F]ather, but rather simply protecting his mental health, his sense 

of well[-]being and concern for his personal safety. [Son’s] 

actions and those beliefs are absolutely reasonable based on the 

context for [F]ather’s contacts with [Son]. . . . Father’s aggressive 

manner of communications through their limited experience on 

Facebook; [F]ather’s three hour [You]-Tube videos to [Son] 

wherein [F]ather testifies to his unending love for [Son]; 

[F]ather’s insistence on attaining [Son’s] phone number; [F]ather 

threatening to hire a private detective to track down [Son’s] 

personal information and [F]ather’s dictatorial questioning of 

[Son] all appear to be near stalking of [Son] by [F]ather, all justify 

[Son’s] guarded response to his [F]ather. [Son] was simply 

“freaked out” by his [F]ather’s behaviors and [Son] concluded 

that the behaviors were “creepy.” Rather than repudiation, [Son] 

had longed for a normal relationship with his [F]ather[.]

Father has all but abandoned [Son] on an emotional level all of 

[Son’s] life, [F]ather’s brief communication with [Son] in which 

[F]ather assumed an imposing parental relationship did not play 

well with [Son] for good reason. It is unknown how [Son’s] 

Sensory Integration Disorder may have affected [Son’s] response 

which does not appear to have even been a consideration by 

[F]ather. Father’s behaviors were simply inappropriate[.]

Id. at 2-3. The trial court therefore ordered Father to pay his share of Son’s 

post-secondary education expenses as required by the divorce decree. 

[7] Father now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 6 of 7

Discussion and Decision

[8] Father contends that “the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding 

that [Son] had not repudiated his relationship with [Father].” Appellant’s Br. p. 

4. On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence; instead, we consider first 

whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings 

support the judgment. Kahn v. Baker, 36 N.E.3d 1103, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2015), trans. denied. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record 

leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. But we do not 

defer to conclusions of law, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an 

incorrect legal standard. Id. at 1112.

[9] Repudiation is defined as a complete refusal to participate in a relationship with 

the parent. Id. Indiana law provides that a court may enter an educational 

support order for a child’s education at a post-secondary educational institution, 

but repudiation of a parent by a child is recognized as a complete defense to 

such an order. Id.; see also Ind. Code § 31-16-6-2(a)(1). When a child who is 

over eighteen repudiates a parent, that parent must be allowed to dictate what 

effect this will have on his contribution to college expenses for that child. Kahn, 

36 N.E.3d at 1113. A finding of repudiation is fact sensitive. Id. 

[10] As detailed above, the trial court was presented with significant evidence that 

contradicts Father’s claim that Son chose to end their relationship. The trial 

court made numerous findings regarding the aggressive way Father attempted 

to establish communication with Son after nearly a decade of mostly silence. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-849 | November 2, 2018 Page 7 of 7

As the trial court noted, Son suffers from a sensory integration disorder and this 

may have caused him to perceive Father’s behaviors as “creepy.” Appellant’s 

App. p. 2. Even so, Son wanted to communicate but Father was “insistent on 

trying to get [Son’s] phone number” and told Son that they were only going to 

communicate by phone. Tr. p. 71. The trial court also found that Son was

“freaked out” by Father’s threat to hire a private investigator and Son’s

blocking Father on Facebook was a reasonable response to his Father’s threat. 

Id. at 73. Still, Son testified that “[he] would love to know Father” and is open 

to maintaining a relationship with Father. Id. at 74. There is ample evidence in 

the record that supports the trial court’s conclusion that Son’s behavior after 

turning eighteen did not constitute “a complete refusal to participate in a 

relationship” with Father. See Kahn, 36 N.E.3d at 1112. Accordingly, we find 

that the trial court did not err when it found that Son had not repudiated 

Father.

[11] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.