Title: Rolley v. Rolley
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 87S01-1412-DR-739
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 2014

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
Terry A. White 
Evansville, Indiana 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 
Katharine Vanost Jones 
Evansville, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 87S01-1412-DR-739 
 
 
MARK ROLLEY, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Respondent below), 
 
v. 
 
MELISSA ROLLEY,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Petitioner below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Warrick Superior Court 
No. 87D02-1110-DR-1398 
The Honorable Robert R. Aylsworth, Judge  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 87A01-1307-DR-330 
_________________________________ 
 
December 16, 2014 
 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
When Mark and Melissa Rolley divorced in 2011, they reached an agreement regarding 
child support that deviated substantially from what would be ordered by applying the Indiana 
Child Support Guidelines.  Melissa later petitioned to modify Mark’s child support obligation, 
arguing that more than twelve months had elapsed since the support order was issued and that 
there was more than a twenty percent (20%) difference between the amount of support Mark was 
paying under the parties’ marital settlement agreement and the amount that would be ordered by 
Dec 16 2014, 1:11 pm
 
2 
applying the Guidelines.  See Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1(b)(2) (West 2012).  The trial court granted 
Melissa’s motion and modified Mark’s support requirements. 
 
Mark appealed, arguing among other things that agreed child support terms cannot be 
modified absent a substantial and continuing change in circumstances that renders those terms 
unreasonable.  See I.C. § 31-16-8-1(b)(1) (West 2012).  Mark also argued that, even assuming 
his support obligation was subject to modification, the trial court erred in its calculations here.  
The Court of Appeals affirmed.  Rolley v. Rolley, 13 N.E.3d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).  
 
The Court of Appeals and the parties draw our attention to conflicting precedent in this 
field.  Compare Hay v. Hay, 730 N.E.2d 787, 794-95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), and Reinhart v. 
Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791-93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (both reasoning that an agreed child 
support order can be modified only upon a showing of a substantial and continuing change in 
circumstances), with Marriage of Kraft, 868 N.E.2d 1181, 1185-89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), and 
Rolley, 13 N.E.3d at 526-31 (both reasoning that under the modification statute an agreed child 
support order can be modified based on either a substantial and continuing change in 
circumstances or, after twelve months, a twenty percent deviation). 
 
We agree with Judge Pyle’s analysis and the result reached by the Court of Appeals in the 
present appeal.  We therefore grant transfer, adopt that portion of the opinion of the Court of 
Appeals that addresses the available grounds for modification, and incorporate it by reference.  
See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1).  We summarily affirm the part of the opinion of the Court of 
Appeals addressing the trial court’s calculation of Mark’s support obligation.  See App. R. 
58(A)(2). 
 
 
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.