Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Andrea L. Ciobanu

Alex Beeman

Ciobanu Law, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Stephen R. Lewis

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Angela K. Scanlon,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Stephen L. Scanlon,

Appellee-Petitioner.

February 18, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1507-DR-731

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Cynthia J. Ayers, 

Judge;

Mark F. Renner, Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49D04-0302-DR-240

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5

[1] Angela K. Scanlon (Angela) appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to 

correct errors. As we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial, we 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Angela and Stephen L. Scanlon (Stephen) were divorced in 2003. Angela 

received physical custody of both minor children. Thereafter, Angela and the 

older child began having disagreements, so Angela and Stephen agreed that 

child should reside with Stephen, while Angela would retain physical custody 

of the younger child. However, they were unable to come to an agreement 

regarding the financial implications of that change of custody. 

[3] On February 10, 2015, the court held a hearing regarding custody and child 

support, at which Angela represented herself. Stephen offered a child support 

worksheet for each child that represented his self-employed income was

$1,530.00 per week. Angela challenged the worksheets on the bases that she 

believed the health insurance rate was incorrect and that the income 

information for Stephen was based on his 2013 taxes. The court clarified for 

her that she would have a chance to testify as to those matters; however, Angela 

did not offer any such testimony. Stephen’s income was supported by his

financial declaration and his testimony in which Stephen stated his 2014 

income was “roughly the same” as his 2013 income. (Tr. at 23.) Angela did 

not introduce an alternate child support worksheet and she testified she could 

not provide the correct health insurance rate because she “misplaced the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5

document with the insurance.” (Id. at 19.) Angela did not produce any other 

documentary evidence at the hearing.

[4] On February 17, 2015, the court entered Findings and Order on Petition to 

Modify Child Custody and Child Support. The court found Stephen’s weekly 

income to be $1,530 and Angela’s to be $549.00. The court ordered Stephen’s 

child support obligation for the younger child to be $171.00 per week and 

Angela’s child support obligation for the older child to be $53.00 per week. The 

result is a net child support order for Stephen to pay $118.00 per week. 

However, because he had been paying $280.00 per week for both children

during the pendency of the modification proceedings, he had accrued a credit 

and the court ordered that to be repaid to him over the next 135 weeks by his 

payment of child support in the amount of $90.00 per week. 

[5] On March 19, 2015, Angela, represented by counsel, filed a verified motion to 

correct errors. The court conducted a hearing. Finding no newly discovered 

evidence that would justify recalculating support, the court denied Angela’s 

motion as it pertains to the child support.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Angela asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to 

correct errors because it used an erroneous value for Stephen’s weekly gross 

income. “A trial court has wide discretion to correct errors, and we will reverse 

only for an abuse of that discretion.” Kashman v. Haas, 766 N.E.2d 417, 419 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5

action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and 

the inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Id.

[7] “The determination of the amount of child support is committed to the trial 

court’s discretion and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.” 

Skinner v. Skinner, 644 N.E.2d 141, 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “A child support 

order is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 

and circumstances that were before the trial court.” Id. 

[8] Angela argues the trial court erred by not requiring Stephen’s income be based 

on a calculation of “gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses.” 

(Appellant’s Br. at 12 citing Child Supp. G. 3(A)(2).) However, Angela did not 

raise this argument at the final hearing, and thus she may not now raise it on 

appeal. See Lazzell v. Indiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., 775 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 

(Ind. Ct. App. 20002) (party may not raise argument on appeal that was not 

raised at trial). At the hearing to determine child support, Angela did not 

present any evidence contrary to Stephen’s testimony and financial declaration. 

Those pieces of evidence were consistent with one another and with the income 

assigned to Stephen by the trial court. As the court’s finding was supported by 

the evidence, Angela has not demonstrated the court made an error that should 

have been corrected. See, e.g., Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237, 246 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2004) (affirming court’s finding of income where income supported by 

evidence in the record).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1507-DR-731 | February 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5

[9] At the hearing on the motion to correct error, Angela attempted to introduce 

into evidence alternate child support worksheets and copies of Stephen’s 2013 

taxes. A motion to correct error can be used to address “[n]ewly discovered 

material evidence . . . capable of production within thirty (30) days of final 

judgment which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and 

produced at trial.” Ind. Trial Rule 59(A)(1). However, these exhibits all could 

have been produced at the February 10, 2015, hearing. Therefore, we cannot 

say the court abused its discretion by refusing to reconsider its order on the 

basis of new evidence. See Hawkins v. Cannon, 826 N.E.2d 658, 664 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2005) (no error in denial of motion to correct error when evidence could 

have been discovered and produced at trial with due diligence), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[10] As Angela has not demonstrated the court abused its discretion in denying her 

motion to correct error, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.