Court Opinion

ID: 9735449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:15:41.084446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:58.126845
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge,
dissenting.
While I concur on other issues, I dissent to the majority's determination to remand this cause to the trial court for the entry of findings or the award of support to Father. That issue has been waived, in my opinion.
After the parties' marriage was dissolved, custody of Father's two sons was placed in him by the court pursuant to a joint petition requesting that action, but Mother was to pay no support. Later, Father filed the current petition, seeking child support from Mother, contribution to one son's college expenses, and revocation of Father's spousal maintenance obligations the court had earlier granted Wife.
After hearing, the trial court denied Father's petition, but granted him a reprieve on his spousal maintenance obligation for the current year. In doing so, however, the trial court did not enter findings explaining why it did not impose'a support *184obligation on Mother, as it was required to do by the Child Support Rules. Ind. Child Support Rule 3, p. 806 (West Publ.Co.1992) says:
Deviation from Guideline Amount. If the court concludes from the evidence in a particular case that the amount of the award reached through application of the guidelines would be unjust, the court shall enter a written finding articulating the factual cireumstances supporting that conclusion.
However, Father filed no Ind.Trial Rule 60(A) or other motion to call this oversight to the trial court's attention prior to filing this appeal. He first raised the trial court's failure to enter findings issue in his appellant's brief. I believe his failure to raise that issue initially in the trial court waives it on appeal.
Under TR. 60(A), courts on their own motion or on the motion of a party, may correct clerical mistakes and oversights or omissions which plague a judgment. Sarna v. Noreen Bank (1988), Ind.App., 530 N.E.2d 113, 115, reh. denied, trans. denied. An objection to the form of a judgment should be raised by a motion to modify, and when not so raised, that objection is waived. Wood v. Hughes (1894), 138 Ind. 179, 37 N.E. 588, 589. Unless raised by motion to modify in the trial court, no objection can be made on appeal. Frankenstein v. Coil Const. Co. (1957), 127 Ind.App. 642, 143 N.E.2d 468, 472, reh. demied, 127 Ind.App. 642, 145 N.E.2d 19.
In the absence of specific legislative intent to the contrary, litigants should neither be required nor permitted to resort to the appellate courts of the state in order to correct errors of law occurring in the trial of cases, without first specifically presenting such errors to the trial court for reconsideration and correction prior to appeal. They should not be required to incur the expense and delay of appeal without such opportunity, nor should the appellate tribunals of this state be burdened with the review of litigated cases until the specific errors complained of have first been reviewed by the trial court. State ex rel. Barner v. White Circuit Court (1958), 237 Ind. 448, 147 N.E.2d 10, 14.
Father did not present the trial court's failure to make findings to the trial court by a motion to modify or in any other manner. I believe it clear the issue is waived. Thus, we cannot remand this cause to the trial court because appellate review in such case is precluded. Kline v. Business Press, Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 516 N.E.2d 88, 90, reh. denied, trans. denied. Our court is without jurisdiction to consider questions raised for the first time on appeal. City of Gary v. Archer (1973), 157 Ind.App. 477, 300 N.E.2d 687, 688.
For those reasons, I would affirm the trial court in all respects.