Opinion ID: 2738752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In 1999, the trial court found M.R. (“Father”) to be the father of B.Y.’s (“Mother’s”) two children and ordered that Mother retain custody of the children and that Father pay $146 weekly as child support. On November 16, 2010, the court found Father in arrears in the amount of $21,337, and it ordered that $15,000 in funds attached from Father’s bank be released to Mother for child support. The $15,000 was distributed to Mother on November 19, 2010. Father later filed several motions, including a motion to determine his arrearage. The court held an evidentiary hearing on June 20, 2012. The evidence showed that on June 30, 2011, the State intercepted an additional $7,025.84 from Father’s bank account. It showed that sum had been distributed to Mother in early January 2012, and Mother acknowledged having received a deposit of that amount in her bank account. Also at the hearing, the trial court admitted Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, a summary of Father’s arrearage as of December 31, 2011. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 first calculated the total arrears as $6,483 and then listed the amount in the clerk’s “undistributed account” as $7,025.84. Father objected to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 on the ground that it did not accurately reflect that, as of the time of that hearing, the $7,025.84 had already been distributed to Mother. When the court asked whether Father believed that exhibit was accurate as of December 31, 2011, Father’s counsel responded, “Yes, and as long as the court puts that note down that as of that date [sic].” (Tr. at 43.) The court then noted it would accept the exhibit “in that context” and admit it with that “caveat for what it is.” (Id.) On September 18, 2012, the court issued an order finding Father to be in arrears in the amount of $6,483 (the same amount alleged in Petitioner’s Exhibit 1) as of December 31, 2011. Later, Mother moved to have Father held in contempt for failure to pay child support. On July 31, 2013, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Mother’s request. At that hearing, Mother introduced an exhibit summarizing her calculation of Father’s arrearage to be $13,055 (the $6,483 arrearage through December 31, 2011, plus the additional arrearage of $6,572 that Father 2 had allegedly accumulated by failing to pay child support as ordered from January 1, 2012, through July 29, 2013). That exhibit gave Father credit for having paid child support in the amount of $5,400 from January 1, 2012, through July 29, 2013, but did not include a credit for the $7,025.84. On September 4, 2013, the court issued an order finding Father in indirect contempt for his willful failure to pay child support as ordered, finding him to be in arrears in the amount of $13,055 as of July 29, 2013, and authorizing a wage withholding order. Father appealed, claiming that the trial court erred when determining his arrearage to be $13,055 as of July 29, 2013. Specifically, he argued that the trial court failed to credit him for the January 2012 distribution of $7,025.84 to Mother. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals rejected Father’s argument and affirmed the trial court, over Judge Robb’s dissent. In re Paternity of D.M.Y., No. 34A04-1310-JP-504 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2014), vacated. We grant transfer to address Father’s argument.