Court Opinion

ID: 9965478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 16:04:53.226002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:07.096773
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     May 02 2024, 8:47 am

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

                                            IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                        Kristin R. Roush,
                                       Appellant-Respondent

                                                   v.

                                         Ryan E. Roush,
                                         Appellee-Petitioner

                                             May 2, 2024
                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
                                          23A-DC-2290
                            Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court
                           The Honorable David C. Bonfiglio, Judge
                                       Trial Court Cause No.
                                        20D06-1709-DC-681

                               Opinion by Judge Mathias
                          Judges Tavitas and Weissmann concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024                       Page 1 of 8
      Mathias, Judge.

[1]   Kristin Roush (“Mother”) appeals the Elkhart Superior Court’s order finding

      her in contempt and imposing sanctions on her, including incarceration.

      Mother presents several issues for our review, but we address a single

      dispositive issue, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it

      granted Mother’s attorney’s motion to withdraw in violation of Trial Rule

      3.1(H).

[2]   We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   Mother and Ryan Roush (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) were married and

      have three children together who have, as of October 2023, all reached the age

      of majority. Following the dissolution of Parents’ marriage in 2019, Mother and

      Father have been unable to find a way to co-parent harmoniously. In fact,

      Father has filed several motions for rule to show cause against Mother, who has

      consistently violated court orders. The trial court has found Mother in contempt

      on multiple occasions, resulting in two periods of incarceration.

[4]   In October 2022, the trial court ordered Mother to engage in individual therapy

      with a specific therapist. Mother attended four sessions with the therapist, but,

      after she moved out of state, Mother moved the trial court for permission to

      work with a different therapist, either virtually with a therapist located in

      Indiana, or in-person in her new home state. The trial court denied Mother’s

      motion.
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024             Page 2 of 8
[5]   On September 18, 2023, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on several

      issues then pending, including child support and Father’s motion for rule to

      show cause. Mother, who had had ample notice of the hearing, contacted her

      attorney early that morning to tell her that she would be unable to attend the

      hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the following colloquy ensued:

              [Mother’s counsel]: Thank you, Your Honor. This morning, at
              6:33, I received an E-mail from my client stating that she would
              not be here today. That she was in Oklahoma. That she has a
              hearing tomorrow morning. That she says that she cannot be in
              two places at once. This was a shock to me, as I prepared for
              today. And, at -- at this time, I think I need to move to withdraw.

              THE COURT: Okay. Any other comments from anyone
              else . . . .

              ***

              [Father’s counsel]: Judge, the only record we would make is we
              would object to any continuance. [Mother] was very clear that
              today was set for an all day Evidentiary Hearing. We believe she
              even acknowledged that through a Motion a Continue. There’s
              some form of Protective Order in Oklahoma that has a hearing
              scheduled for tomorrow per her Motion. We are hoping that
              [Father] is not part of that. But, regardless, we would object to a
              continuance. I have no objection to [Mother’s counsel]
              withdrawing, given what appears to be non-compliance. So, it
              would her breakdown of the attorney, client relationship.

              THE COURT: [GAL], did you want to be heard?

              GUARDIAN AD LITEM: No, Your Honor, I don’t believe I -- I
              -- Well, yes. Yes, I do.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024               Page 3 of 8
        THE COURT: Okay.

        ***

        GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Since this has been going on for
        some so long, and this, to me, appears to be a blatant violation of
        what this Court’s Order truly was. I think you denied her Motion
        to Appear -- we’ve had this problem in the past. And I -- I -- I do
        believe that it’s important for this to be resolved today, whether
        she’s here or not. So, that’s the only position I have on it. Thank
        you.

        THE COURT: Any --

        MR. GULLOTTA: We would concur with that, Your Honor, to
        move forward with evidence, as well.

        THE COURT: Sure. There is a long history of issues in the case
        and noncompliance with Court Orders; I certainly don’t fault
        Counsel for Mother in any way. I think that Counsel has
        attempted and her very best to get compliance -- helping the
        Mother understand the Court’s Orders as well as the Court’s
        requirements. And I think that Counsel has fulfilled all of her
        obligations from my observations, certainly to -- to Mother. But,
        she has clearly not appeared today, refused to cooperate. She was
        ordered to appear today, because it -- it is a Rule to Show Cause
        Hearing. It wasn’t simply just an Evidentiary Hearing Order. In a
        civil case, you can not appear and be defaulted. But, she was
        specifically ordered to appear, because it was a Rule to Show
        Cause that is pending before the Court; and I did specifically
        order her to appear in-person for these proceedings. And based
        upon Counsel’s Oral Motion to Withdraw for lack of cooperation
        from her client, I’ll grant that request.

Tr. pp. 4-7.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024               Page 4 of 8
[6]   In Mother’s absence, Father’s counsel presented evidence, including testimony

      and exhibits. At the end of the hearing, the trial court issued findings and

      conclusions. In relevant part, the trial court found that Mother had violated

      court orders in several ways, including engaging in direct contact with one of

      the parties’ then-minor children in violation of the order that Mother have only

      supervised visitation with the minor children. The court imposed the following

      sanctions on Mother: incarceration at the Elkhart County Correctional Facility

      for 180 days without the possibility of good time credit; paying Father’s

      attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,876.70; and a fine of $1,000 per day

      retroactive to March 29, 2023, until she shows compliance with the order to see

      the court-appointed therapist. 1 This appeal ensued.

      Discussion and Decision
[7]   Trial Rule 3.1(H) provides as follows:

               Withdrawal of Representation. An attorney representing a party
               may file a motion to withdraw representation of the party upon a
               showing that the attorney has sent written notice of intent to withdraw to
               the party at least ten (10) days before filing a motion to withdraw
               representation, and either:

               (1) the terms and conditions of the attorney’s agreement with the
               party regarding the scope of the representation have been
               satisfied, or

      1
        We note that Mother, who lives in Oklahoma, attempted to arrange virtual visits with the therapist, who is
      located in Indiana, but the therapist does not do virtual visits. While we are certain that the trial court has
      good reason for ordering Mother to see the designated therapist, given the distance between Indiana and
      Oklahoma, that requirement would impose an unreasonable burden on Mother.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024                                      Page 5 of 8
               (2) withdrawal is required by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(a),
               or is otherwise permitted by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b).

               An attorney filing a motion to withdraw from representation
               shall certify the last known address and telephone number of the
               party, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Sections (A)(8)
               and (D) above, and shall attach to the motion a copy of the
               notice of intent to withdraw that was sent to the party.

               A motion for withdrawal of representation shall be granted by
               the court unless the court specifically finds that withdrawal is not
               reasonable or consistent with the efficient administration of
               justice.

       (Emphasis added).

[8]    Here, Mother contends that the trial court erred when it granted her attorney’s

       motion to withdraw despite her attorney’s failure to comply with the ten-day

       notice requirement under Trial Rule 3.1(H). We review the trial court’s grant of

       the motion under an abuse of discretion standard.

[9]    It is undisputed that Mother’s attorney did not provide any notice to Mother of

       her intent to withdraw her representation prior to September 18, 2023. Mother

       points out that the court’s grant of the motion to withdraw “left Mother

       unrepresented at a hearing that resulted in an order for her incarceration and

       payment of thousands of dollars in fines and fees.” Appellant’s Br. at 22.

[10]   In F.M. v. N.B., 979 N.E.2d 1036, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), we considered

       whether the trial court had abused its discretion when it granted an attorney’s

       motion to withdraw his representation of a mother on the day of a scheduled

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024                Page 6 of 8
       hearing on a petition to modify custody of the parties’ children. The trial court

       “failed to ensure that [the attorney] had complied with the time and notice

       requirements” in local rules and Trial Rule 3.1(H). Id. at 1041. Thus, we held

       that the mother had established “prima facie error in that the withdrawal of her

       attorney deprived her of counsel at a ‘critical stage in the proceeding[s]’ in a

       case involving at least some complexity and that [m]other was prejudiced by the

       denial of her motion to continue.” Id. at 1042.

[11]   Likewise here, the September 18 hearing was a critical stage in the proceedings,

       as Mother risked incarceration and significant financial penalties. While there is

       no question that Mother had notice of the hearing and failed to appear, 2 her

       attorney was in court and could have, at least, cross-examined Father’s

       witnesses and made argument on Mother’s behalf. The prejudice to Mother by

       the court’s grant of the attorney’s last-minute motion to withdraw is clear. In

       contrast, there would have been no prejudice to Father had the trial court

       continued the hearing by ten days to give Mother the required notice of her

       attorney’s intent to withdraw.

[12]   For all these reasons, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it

       granted Mother’s attorney’s motion to withdraw and held the evidentiary

       hearing without her, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment on the motions it

       2
         We reject Father’s contention that Mother invited any error and waived her right to counsel by her failure
       to appear. Nothing in our case law supports those arguments.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024                                    Page 7 of 8
       heard at that hearing. On remand, the trial court shall hold a new hearing on

       the motions that were pending at the time of the September 18 hearing.

[13]   Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

       Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
       Bryan L. Ciyou
       Ciyou & Associates, P.C.
       Indianapolis, Indiana

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
       Leonard J. Gullotta, II
       Walker and Gullotta Law Office
       Elkhart, Indiana

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-2290 | May 2, 2024          Page 8 of 8